Court SimonSIMON COURT (ACT): Madam Chair thank you and thank you Minister for bringing this bill to the committee tonight so that we can explore some of the merits and also identify some opportunities to improve it because the ACT Party supports the intent of this legislation. It's important that people operating motor vehicles and heavy equipment on the nation's roads are not impaired and that their driving is not affected by either illicit substances illegal drugs alcohol or medication that they may have been prescribed and which might clearly say Don't drive." When your doctor gives you this medication it might say it on a big sticker on the side of the packet you get from the pharmacy. But some people either ignore those warnings or don't realise the danger that they're putting themselves and other road users in.So it's important that there is a mechanism where people who are using the road know that they can be tested and assessed. When it comes to pharmaceutical prescription medicine there is evidence that people do become addicted and/or choose to abuse pharmaceutical-prescribed medication. When we're thinking about the purpose of the bill where we would want to know are people impaired well for substances that have been through an approval process—a Medsafe or an Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration assessment or a United States Food and Drug Administration assessment—you could be pretty confident that when somebody takes a pharmaceutical product that causes impairment there would be quite a bit of information about that. We would know say the level of a drug what it does to somebody physically because it's been tested in a laboratory. It's been tried and tested and tried and tested. And there will be reports stacks of reports that tell people who want to make decisions about impairment and whether you take your medication whether you're safe to operate a digger whether it's safe to drive a truck on the road or a private car on the road; there'd be plenty of information about that.But that's where we run into the problem with this legislation. Because many of the drugs that this legislation proposes to test for are illegal there is little or no information that enables lawmakers people writing the regulations those who are tasked with detecting people with drugs in their system on the road—the police. Very very difficult in the absence of any good data to actually establish a testing regime that links a substance an illegal substance somebody took—whether it be cannabis or methamphetamine or LSD or magic mushrooms whatever that substance is—with impairment. Now it may be some of those substances have no safe level. But there are actually therapeutic treatments being delivered in New Zealand at the University of Auckland's medical school using psilocybin magic mushrooms and LSD to treat anxiety. It may well be that in the future drugs like that which for so long were stigmatised and which were regarded as the tune in drop out culture of the 1960s—it may well be that in the future those substances actually play an important therapeutic role. So the ACT Party and the Green Party have expressed a differing view about this legislation where we express reservations that the testing regime as it applies to illicit drugs in particular—there is no evidence base to link the level of a substance in somebody's system with impairment. Does that actually mean it's not safe for them to operate a motor vehicle or a truck or a digger for example?Now we could overcome this lack of information by setting up experiments and getting people to take these substances and then say "Drive in a simulator." That's called Grand Theft Auto. Or potentially send them around a racetrack. But because of New Zealand's health and safety laws I don't think that anyone who owns a racetrack would be prepared to have people who are under the influence of illegal drugs operating on their racetrack. And because these drugs are still illegal it would be next to impossible to establish a trial—a medical trial—that met ethical standards—Simeon Brown: I'm glad you've thought about it.SIMON COURT: —that met ethical standards Mr Brown even though people are trialling these substances every day around New Zealand. I'm talking about a medical trial a controlled trial that met ethical standards where doctors and scientists could test what is the safe level to take a substance that may one day well be therapeutic like magic mushrooms or LSD and then to operate a motor vehicle. The limit may well be zero. It may well be you can't take any of that and then drive but we don't have any evidence.That is why the ACT Party supports the amendment proposed by the Greens member the Hon Julie Anne Genter to include a review date in this legislation. After about three years of operation when the police will have conducted what I understand will be thousands and thousands of roadside tests they will have started to develop an evidence base from which to determine: are fewer people are driving under the influence and coming to harm or harming others? Are we detecting far more people than we thought above what's called the "threshold levels" and if so what else do we need to do to intervene peoples' lives in a way that minimises the risk to themselves and others from consuming these substances and then driving their motor vehicles? That is why the ACT Party supports the amendment to include a review of the legislation and its operation performance after three years.What the amendment asks for and Minister I know that there has been a lot of evidence provided by the Medical Association and others expressing their reservations about the operation of the Act not the intent. The intent is to keep New Zealand New Zealand drivers and those who use the roads safe and to prevent harm from motor vehicle accidents. But even the Medical Association has pointed out that actually the reliability of the oral fluid tests and blood tests to test a person's impairment is not accurate enough and that where appropriate thresholds and levels have been set for different drugs—and whether the amendments proposed here have actually been appropriately implemented by the New Zealand Police and the testing authorities. Right now while just about every medical laboratory in New Zealand is swamped with COVID tests in a normal time those laboratories test for a wide range of substances—medical all kinds of fluids—to see what people have been taking what's ailing them and also if they've been in an accident or an incident what things they have taken that might have been a contributing factor to an accident or incident that caused harm.It's really important that we get this information and that it's presented back to Parliament in a way that the elected members of this House of Representatives at that time three years from now—they won't all be the same people who are sitting here today I can guarantee you that—have an opportunity to review the data and whether the legislation is working.The ACT Party will support the amendment proposed by the Green Party. We share the Green Party differing view that in fact while the legislation is laudable in intent there must be a check and a balance in terms of a review after three years so that we can actually find out where the legislation is working. Imagine that! Passing a law in New Zealand and then establishing a test and a time frame for whether the law that a Minister of the Government said would work—and then that Minister having to come back to Parliament and tell us honestly: did it work or did it not? No Minister should be afraid to say "It didn't work. We can tweak it." because that's what New Zealanders expect of their Government actually: to be flexible to be agile and to respond to facts and evidence. Minister thank you."