Swarbrick ChlöeCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): E te Māngai tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. It's a pleasure to rise on behalf of the Hon Julie Anne Genter and on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand to contribute to this Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill. As members of the committee will have heard from the former Associate Minister of Transport and the Green's transport spokesperson the Hon Julie Anne Genter there is a lot to weigh up when we come to building new infrastructure for how we go about ensuring that we have harm reduction particularly pertaining to harm reduction on our roads. We fundamentally agree that driving impaired by drugs is a serious hazard to safety on our roads and we agree with the objective of the bill which of course is to try and deter people from driving while impaired. But we remain concerned with a key issue as raised by submitters particularly during that select committee phase that the Minister referred to that there is currently a lack of evidence that the approach may result in a reduction in impaired driving. There are also concerns that persist that it is difficult to establish a relationship between a given level of a drug in oral fluid or in blood with a specific level of impairment and that this could harm any intended deterrent effect. There are also substantial concerns as floated in the Transport and Infrastructure Committee that this regime could disproportionately and harmfully affect Māori and Pasifika. Now coming to this with my sensible drug-law reform hat on as well we all know—and I've wasted a lot of this—well I've tried to contribute constructively in this House—the fact that a lot of drug policy is made against evidence and on the basis of moral panic. The thing with this law is that it is currently being made in a bit of a vacuum of evidence. Of course importantly all of us in this House seem to agree on the very basis that we want to prevent people from driving under the influence. The problem remains that there is a difference between a substance registering in somebody's system and whether that person is in fact intoxicated or impaired. It's nowhere near as straightforward as the science that we have well established with for example alcohol. For that very reason there are two Supplementary Order Papers in the Hon Julie Anne Genter's name. The first is a sunset clause. That sunset clause will insert a new clause 2A to require that there is a repeal of the Act at a point of five years after the date on which the Act comes into force. The rationale behind this is to require that we are constantly looking at whether this law is fit for purpose because it is a new area of law on the basis of evidence that is yet to come out in full concrete force. It also requires that that proactive step of repealing clause 2A were it to be ineffectual ultimately means that we do not continue to have laws that are ineffective or not quite meeting their purpose as stated on the books. If I may add the Misuse of Drugs Act is a perfect indication of just how easy it is to leave flawed pieces of legislation in place.I'd also just refer to the point as raised by the Minister around expert advisory groups. We'd love to hear more from the Minister on this in particular because we do know and we do have experience in drug law how expert advisory groups can end up being self-referential or unnecessarily constrained in their ability to recommend harm reduction. So for example—I believe it was in the early 2000s—there was an amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act which established an expert advisory committee with the power to look at different substances and where they may sit in relation to harm from other illicit substances. In doing so they were simply to decide where they sit on the illicit class register—and therefore what criminal penalties were to be ascribed to them—not necessarily what public health measures could be put in place in order to reduce that harm. So we'd appreciate that clarification from the Minister.The second Supplementary Order Paper in the name of the Hon Julie Anne Genter relates to a review—an independent review in fact—of the efficacy and how this legislation would be working. There are a number of specific considerations that have been requested to be included in that review including the impact of the amendments; importantly the reliability of oral fluid tests and blood tests in measuring a person's impairment; whether appropriate thresholds and impairment levels have been set; and whether the amendments have been appropriately implemented by the New Zealand Police and by other relevant entities. Of course this remains of fundamental importance when we're talking about drug law which is so often empowered by moral panic but of course noting that there is shared consensus within this House of the need to seriously arrest and address this issue on our roads. There is also a call for whether the amendments have had a disproportionate impact on Māori and Pasifika; the extent to which if it can be assessed the number of people driving while impaired by drugs has changed since the amendment came to force—which of course we would hope if it were effective it will have—also whether further amendments should be considered; whether any of the amendments should be repealed; or if there are any other matters that the Minister considers to be relevant for that independent reviewer. That review would be required to be completed and presented to the House within 12 months of commencing.As far as the Greens are concerned these are really really important amendments to ensure that we have a law that is fit for purpose especially as we are developing new criminal offences and new tests for which the evidence—as displayed at the select committee and by experts both domestically and internationally—is still out. We have an opportunity to develop a law which is fit for purpose and which can be world leading but we can only do that if we remain open-minded to the evidence as it develops and we continue to update the law so that it remains as effective as possible and doesn't just sit on the statute book as a hallmark of something that we wanted to do but aren't necessarily quite achieving.That is the Greens' position and we are hoping to hear some points from the Minister on that expert advisory committee or panel but we are also hoping to implore other members across this Chamber to continue to review and to think about how we can make sure that what is noted in this legislation that will be put on the statute book continues to be updated as the evidence continues to unfold because that is the only way that we can make effective law in this area.