[ad_1]
Attorney General David Parker says a proposed law introducing random highway drug testing appears to violate the New Zealand Bill of Rights in several places, similar to previous attempts to implement highway drug testing.
Archive image. Source: istock.com
the Ground Transportation (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill it was presented on July 30 and had its first reading on August 4, and has now advanced to the selection committee.
The goal of the bill is to introduce a regime where police can screen drivers on the road for drugs (cannabis, methamphetamine, benzodiazepines, MDMA, opiates, and cocaine) in response to statistics showing that drivers Drugged people are a major contributor to the New Zealand toll. .
Associate Transport Minister Julie Anne Genter, the MP in charge, said 103 people died last year, where the driver was later found to have drugs in his system.
Genter had previously spoken out against similar bills submitted to Parliament, saying they would likely violate people’s rights.
Now, a report by Attorney General David Parker in his new bill suggested that the same problems may be present.
“I have come to the conclusion that the provisions of the bill are incompatible with the right to be protected against unreasonable searches and seizures, the right not to be arbitrarily detained, and the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty “Parker wrote.
“I note that my analysis of the bill is similar to previous advice from 2018 in relation to the Land Transportation Amendment Bill (Random Oral Fluid Testing), a bill from a member, which was also found to be inconsistent with the same rights in the Bill of Rights Act.
“It intrudes on a person’s privacy beyond the bill’s intended goal, which is to prevent drunk driving, by detecting and holding a person accountable for any level of a qualifying drug (beyond any threshold established in a device); and is to take swabs from the mouth of a conductor. “
Attorney General David Parker Source: 1 NEWS
The current suggested regimen would have police only test for a positive or negative drug result, rather than measuring a certain concentration, and there is currently no reason to judge how affected a driver is by those concentrations.
“The bill uses ‘recent use’ as a proxy for impairment, essentially considering that someone who has recently used qualified medications is affected,” Parker wrote.
“Any drug use, harmful or not, will be sanctioned.”
Parker’s report suggested two changes to the bill in order to “focus on preventing drunk drivers from driving rather than general deterrence,” which, he said, would likely align the new law with the Bill of Rights.
Those were introducing established levels based on disability, where it would not be classified as a crime if a driver was below that level, and ensuring that police test devices would only provide a positive result if the driver was above of those thresholds.
Julie Anne Genter Source: 1 NEWS
Speaking to 1 NEWS, Genter said that such considerations will take place in the select committee after the election.
“I acknowledge the issues raised by the Attorney General and have had several conversations with him about how we can address them,” he said.
“It is important that we get this right. Ministers agreed that these concerns could be addressed during the select committee stage, informed by advice from our panel of independent experts.”
That expert panel, which includes ESR’s forensic toxicologist Dr. Helen Poulsen, as chair, has faced delays due to Covid-19 in formulating impairment thresholds.
“Eventually, for this bill to become law, it must be voted on by Parliament,” Genter said.
“I anticipate that they will only do so when we have carefully balanced these rights with the right of people to be safe on the road and protected from people who choose to drive while disabled.”
This is not the first time such a bill has been attempted: The Ground Transportation Amendment Bill (Random Oral Fluid Testing) was introduced by Alastair Scott, MP for Wairarapa of National, in 2018 but was rejected. on camera and failed on first reading.
In Bill’s last reading, political parties blamed each other for not introducing a trial regime earlier, but universally supported the latest version.
NICK SMITH: ‘IT’S A MESS’
Nelson MP and National Drug Reform spokesman Nick Smith, who has lobbied for drug testing on the roads, noted that “if recreational cannabis is legalized, it is even more important that we have a system effective in deterring drugged drivers from driving.
“This Attorney General’s report on the drug driving bill confirms that it is a disaster,” Smith said.
Your playlist will load after this announcement.
Previous governments have repeatedly rejected the idea. Source: 1 NEWS
“The president of the government’s panel of experts informed the government in July that he was not ready for presentation.
“It is also a poor process that key elements of the bill have not been specified, such as specific thresholds of drug levels for crimes.
“The drunk driving regimen is totally dependent on the highly debated blood and breath alcohol limits.
“He rushed into Parliament for political reasons and they had not done their homework well.”
Smith said he and the National Party did not accept that asking a driver for saliva during a traffic stop was an excessive violation of their rights.
“National faced the same argument in the 1990s about introducing random breath alcohol tests, which were also said to violate the Bill of Rights.
“Random road alcohol testing cut drunk driving deaths in half in three years and we believe drug testing has the same potential.”
On introducing thresholds for prosecution or detection into the bill, Smith said he would be happy if the government takes a more cautious approach to limits.
“I’ve heard a lot of arguments from drug users that they are okay to drive despite using drugs; we hear the same arguments about alcohol,” Smith said.
“While it is true that the level of impairment can vary between different people, impairment is too difficult to measure – limits for breath alcohol and blood levels take a precautionary approach and we should do the same with drugs.”
“I do not accept that these problems are so difficult that we cannot randomly introduce drug tests on the roads.
“Australia and the UK have done it; we would take a similar approach.”
AUSTRALIAN AND UK APPROACH
Roadside drug testing was first introduced in Australia in 2004 in Victoria, but the devices used by the police to take samples have been criticized for its accuracy.
The Victorian approach is zero tolerance: if any type of illicit drug can be detected in a driver’s saliva, regardless of concentration, it is a crime.
In the UK, road drug tests were introduced in 2015 and include eight illicit drugs and also eight legally prescribed drugs that can be tested.
However, the UK system has established levels of legal substances that must be tested, while even “trace” amounts of illicit drugs that are detected constitute a crime.
The Ground Transportation (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill is currently open to public consultation.
News tip or more information? Email Luke Appleby or Follow @lukeappleby
[ad_2]
