Brown Peter: Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) — First Reading 
Brown Peter: Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) — First Reading 
[Volume:642;Page:12398] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I want to start from the outset by saying that New Zealand First will be supporting the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4). In all probability we will be supporting the bill through all its stages. We recognise that it will be tidied up at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee with amendments and adjustments made. When the bill comes back to the Committee of the whole House there may be further amendments. We believe it is very important that we come to grips with drivers who are driving under the influence of drugs so we have little choice but to support this bill—whatever shape or form it comes out in. It is important that we in Parliament address the issue. 
We recognise that by far the most common offence of driving under the influence is people driving under the influence of alcohol. We would like to see the penalties toughened up for that offence. We are pleased that drugs have come in to the legislation and that at least there is the same punishment for driving drug-impaired as there is for drunk driving. 
We are concerned about what the Greens have achieved and indeed what the Government member who has just spoken Lesley Soper described as double jeopardy. We believe that if a police officer stops a car and finds the driver to be under the influence of drugs—if the officer suspects that the driver has been up to no good in terms of drugs and suspects that there could be a prosecution against the driver under the Misuse of Drugs Act—then we believe that that police officer should go ahead and do his or her job. But the Greens want—and Labour has agreed—to stop at just the driving offence. We say that is not good enough. We certainly say it is not double jeopardy. We say it is protecting the drug user and drug supplier to some degree. Worse still it is politics and politicians getting involved in operational police work. It is telling the police where to draw the line. [ 
Interruption 
] Yes it is telling the police where to draw the line. 
Let me give the member a hypothetical example. Two people leave an establishment; both have smoked cannabis or taken drugs. They have both committed the identical offence. One is walking home in a very unsteady movement and a police officer suspects something is going on and wants to pull him up so he does. He can search the guy because he suspects he has committed an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act. But the guy who gets in his car and drives home according to the Greens can be picked up only for impaired driving. I am absolutely disappointed that the Minister of Police has concurred with that. I am absolutely disappointed that the Minister of Police has been bought off with that argument. 
We have argued strongly with that Minister—my colleague Ron Mark has in particular—that we should segregate policing from transport duties. I have heard the Minister say it. She has said it to my face and she has said it on TV. 
Metiria Turei 
: Just a blood test. 
PETER BROWN 
: Would that member mind giving her jaws a rest. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I just say to the member on my left that backbench interjections in close proximity to each other lead to interference with the microphone. It is a convention that it does not happen. I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 59/3 by Sir Basil Arthur in 1984. 
PETER BROWN 
: I was talking about the hypothetical guy who got in his car and is driving home. The police officer stops him tests him for being impaired and finds him to be impaired and driving under the influence of drugs but that officer cannot take it any further. The Minister of Police told me to my face—and I have seen her on nationwide television saying the same thing—that one of the principal reasons if not the principal reason for keeping traffic duties under the control of police per se is that when officers stop a driver for whatever offence they think might have occurred they look in the car and check around the car and around the person to see whether any other offence is being committed. 
We are saying quite clearly that if the police pick up a person who is drug-impaired and driving a car and they suspect that there is a bigger offence being committed under the Misuse of Drugs Act then they should be able to do their job. 
Metiria Turei 
: That’s right. 
PETER BROWN 
: The member says they can but I listened to her carefully a while ago and that was not the thrust of her speech. Indeed I have a letter from the Minister of Transport that actually says in part: “I understand you do not support the provision that says the evidence of drugs found in blood samples cannot be used as evidence in an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.” 
Metiria Turei 
: Under the Misuse of Drugs Act they can. 
PETER BROWN 
: I am saying to the honourable member that she has it wrong. If we are going to allow people to get involved in drugs and drive their cars and pick them up only for the fault of driving then I say that we have stopped well short of the eight ball. 
In terms of prescription drugs I think we share the concerns that the Greens have. If it is written on the container that holds the capsules or tablets that one should not drive after taking them—if people are told outright that they should not drive after taking the specified number of tablets or whatever—then we have little sympathy for those who take their medication and drive. If they overdose on the tablets or take so many that their driving ability has clearly been impaired we have little sympathy for them. But if people have taken a prescribed medicine that is likely to have negligible effect on their driving and they stick to the amount they are supposed to take then if the wording on the canister says something along the lines of “this could in circumstances …” I think they have a defence. But if people are impaired as a result of taking a prescribed drug and they knew it would affect their driving before they took it then we have little sympathy for them and they should be held to account. 
In terms of the car register we think it is about time those issues were addressed. I do not have time to go into detail on it but I will say that I thought the honourable member Lesley Soper covered it very well. She outlined the concerns. I could not do a better job of outlining the concerns than she has done. She did it very well. The bit we did object to was the reference to double jeopardy. 
New Zealand First will most certainly support this bill going to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. We believe it will be amended there in order to cover the differences of opinion that are emerging between the Greens and New Zealand First. I am certain that our way will prevail and that the member will see common sense in the end. 
Metiria Turei 
: You’ll come round I know. You are nearly there Peter. 
PETER BROWN 
: Does the member think so? 
We look forward to this bill being addressed at the select committee. I am a member of the committee and I look forward to hearing submissions on it. I know that its time has come. Most members of the public who speak to me about this matter ask me when we are going to do something about it. They have no problems with us doing something; they ask when we are going to do something about it. We look forward with pleasure to working on this bill at the select committee and putting it through the system. Thank you.