Chauvel Charles: Land Transport (Admissibility of Evidential Breath Tests) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Chauvel Charles: Land Transport (Admissibility of Evidential Breath Tests) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 14 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6628. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I think the previous speaker Michael Woodhouse made a proper concession just now that this bill the Land Transport (Admissibility of Evidential Breath Tests) Amendment Bill does need careful discussion at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. I hope given that the two larger parties at least are supporting the bill to that stage that it will get that careful scrutiny and discussion. I see that the chair of the select committee is here and is listening to the debate so I think the House can have that confident expectation. 
The bill in the name of Scott Simpson—and I congratulate him on his good fortune in having it drawn from the ballot—aims to cure what I think he concedes is a very small number of cases where unusual events conspire to prevent a blood specimen being taken and the example that I think has been used in a number of the speeches to date is the one where there was a person who was addicted to drugs and had compromised veins. The current situation is this. A breath result cannot be used as evidence once a blood test has been elected by the person who has been stopped at the side of the road or at a checkpoint or what have you for that purpose. The bill would provide that breath tests can be used if a blood specimen was not able to be taken from the defendant and the words of the bill are “for any reason”. 
I think the concern that I would want to put on the record is the breadth of the expression “for any reason”. I think people can see that it is a useful thing to try to plug a loophole but I think that what we do need to do is make sure that we do not as in the old clichéd proverb use a sledgehammer to crack a nut. What I would not want to see by passing the legislation if that is the ultimate fate of the bill is the legitimising of a failure by the police to take effective action to ensure that there was a blood taker available in circumstances where the legislation would set out that expectation. The problem that I have just on my reading of the bill is the breadth of the expression “for any reason”. It is very wide. It would include there being no blood taker on the roster that night. I know and I know that other members in the House know that police go to a heck of a lot of trouble at the moment to make sure that they can comply with the law. They do go to great lengths with their rosters to make sure that there is somebody who can take blood if that is the election that the driver on the scene makes. 
Let us remember that these safeguards exist for good reason. The breath test is generally pretty reliable but we know that there are cases where that has not proved to be the case. We should also remember that random stopping is an innovation in our law. It is an exception—and it was a controversial exception at the time it was introduced—to the principle that there ought to be reasonable cause for a seizure or search. We have seen the benefit of this innovation because we have seen the road toll come down. So we all support it. But we want to make sure that the safeguards remain. We want to make sure that what we do not do is inadvertently give the police who are pressured always for resources some opportunity to cut corners by for example saying: “Well we don’t need to have a taker of blood on the roster because we’ve got this marvellous exception that Scott Simpson has given us and it means that for any reason we can ignore that requirement.” 
I just wanted to make that contribution in my speech. I think the policy of this bill makes a lot of sense but we do not want to invalidate the entire regime that Parliament has carefully put in place over a number of years—breath test then blood test but the blood test as a proper back-up in the case that it is needed—to protect liberty and to ensure that people going about their lawful business are not subject to penalties. So in order to support this legislation further past the select committee the Labour Party would need to see at the very least that matter considered and resolved appropriately. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I thank members for the many considered contributions to the debate from both the Labour and National sides of the House. First of all I would like to commend the proponent of the Land Transport (Admissibility of Evidential Breath Tests) Amendment Bill Mr Scott Simpson. As a member from the Waikato region as well I know Scott and he is a very very loyal constituent member who has done a great job for his people advocating for them time and time again and delivering results for his electorate. I think they are very lucky to have such a high-calibre member and I think his exceptional degree of dedication and devotion to his electorate will shine through in future elections. So that is very very good. I also commend Mike Woodhouse our whip who did a great job in putting this idea forward in an earlier stage but— 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: What about Phil Heatley? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Oh I do not know about Phil Heatley actually. But Mr Simon Bridges? Yes that Minister is going to help us through this process. He is an excellent Minister as well. 
I think it is pretty obvious what the bill is trying to do and members of the House have talked about it. I know that Phil might need it said again so that he can grasp it but it is not that hard. There are some issues around how it will actually be done. That is the case with members’ bills. Often we put a bill forward and the process of getting official advice and of letting members discuss the content of the bill through the parliamentary process in this House and through the select committee process is vital to make changes and get the bill right. I would like to thank the Labour Opposition for supporting this bill going forward so that we can go through that process and we can have a look at it. 
Darien Fenton 
: Unlike that side. They don’t support our bills. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: I see Darien Fenton over there. She is one of those very strong and very effective Labour members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee along with Phil Twyford and Andrew Little. We look forward to their working constructively as they normally do in the committee. It is a very good select committee actually. We have very cordial relations in the committee. We have efficient and timely meetings and we deal with issues of great importance. 
Brendan Horan 
: What about the rail submissions? The Gisborne to Napier line? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Now we are getting New Zealand First. Those members always have to cause trouble. They cannot sit quietly in a debate like this. I guess there is a conspiracy theory about this bill according to the New Zealand First mantra of politics. So what is the problem with it? 
Brendan Horan 
: It’s actually the first sensible bill we’ve heard from that side for quite some time. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: It is the first sensible bill. Are they voting for it? That is going to be the question. That will be the issue. Whether they can vote Yes will be another question. 
I do want to congratulate members of the committee on the way they work together and I think they will undertake to work in that way on this bill. Scott Simpson is actually a member of the committee and a very fine member as well. I think he is going to have a lot of questions tomorrow at the committee meeting. I think his important role— 
Kris Faafoi 
: He better read the bill then. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: —yes—on the committee as the proponent of the bill means he will take an active interest in how it passes through the political and legislative process. 
I guess that in the sense that we have always wanted to see the safest and strongest roading system that we can have it is important that we make these changes where and if necessary to look after public safety. The No. 1 thing that members of this House are entrusted to do in regard to these kinds of bills is to make sure we look after our young people and our drivers and take the approach of trying to do the best we can so that we do not have issues where people try to game the system or take advantage of it and so that there is a fair and equitable system out there that applies for all. Those are the words that New Zealand First members should listen to—“fair and equitable”. They are words that your leader holds dear but to you as a party I say that we look forward to you supporting this bill because it is fair and equitable. Thank you.