Mr Speaker,
Every road user makes a simple assumption: that the people around them will exercise basic care. The motorcyclist riding home after work, the parent driving a child to school, and the pedestrian at a crossing all rely on it.
When someone drives after drinking or taking intoxicating drugs, that trust is broken. The risk is borne not only by the driver, but by everyone around them.
A collision can last seconds. Its consequences can last for decades. A life may be lost. A serious injury can change what a person is able to do, how a family lives, and what their future looks like.
That is why there is often a palpable sense of public anger when someone who did nothing wrong is killed or permanently injured in an avoidable collision. That anger is justified. Our task as parliamentarians is not to amplify that anger, but to tap into it, so that it can inform our work to reduce the chances of the next tragedy.
The law cannot undo irreversible harm. But it can set clearer boundaries, support effective enforcement, and make dangerous choices far less likely.
My comments today will focus on the changes concerning drink- and drug-driving, and the evidence on which these offences will be enforced.
Drink driving
Let me begin with alcohol. The message should be simple: if you are driving, do not drink. The legal limit should not be mistaken for a permissive drinking allowance.
Lowered thresholds
The Bill lowers the prescribed breath-alcohol limit from 35 to 15 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath, and the blood-alcohol limit from 80 to 30 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood. This is a substantial change, intended to shift behaviour as much as enforcement.
I support that direction. I ask the Minister to explain the evidence supporting the precise limits of 15 microgrammes and 30 milligrammes, including the relationship between these levels and the risk of impaired driving. I also ask how the new limits will be communicated. MHA’s safest advice is that drivers should not drink at all. Public messaging should reinforce that norm rather than invite motorists to guess at how much they might be able to consume without crossing the line.
More expeditious breath testing
That message must be matched by enforcement people can trust. The Bill will also allow evidential breath tests to be conducted at or near the place where the requirement is made. MHA intends to use portable Handheld Breath Evidential Analysers at the scene. Faster testing may give a reading closer to the time of driving. But that roadside reading may also become central evidence in a criminal case.
The more consequential the reading, the more important it is that the device can withstand scrutiny. What approval, calibration, and maintenance standards will apply? How will measurement uncertainty, rounding and device tolerance be treated where a reading is at or very near the legal limit? And where these records are relevant to a prosecution, will the accused be able to obtain the device, calibration, and operator records needed to test the evidence?
Drug driving
Mere presence of a substance
The need for a clear and defensible legal boundary is even more important for drug-driving. Under the present framework, enforcement may require proof that a driver was unfit and incapable of proper control. The Bill creates an additional offence where a controlled drug, psychoactive substance, or intoxicating substance is present in the driver’s blood, regardless of the quantity detected or whether impairment was observed.
I understand the enforcement problem. Different substances can affect people differently, and proving the precise link between a substance and a driver’s impairment may be difficult. A presence-based offence gives the law a clearer enforcement line. It also makes the scientific and operational meaning of ‘presence’ critical.
Which substances and metabolites will be tested, and at what analytical threshold will they count as present? MHA should publish the relevant detection windows, its treatment of therapeutic use, and any reporting or prosecution thresholds before the offence commences. Motorists must know the legal boundary, and courts must be able to assess the evidence consistently.
Lawful therapeutic use
The Bill already provides a defence for lawful use, including prescribed medication. The defendant must prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the substance was lawfully consumed or administered and that he or she did not know or have reason to believe it would affect proper control of the vehicle.
The existence of that defence is important. Its practical operation matters just as much. In practice, what evidence will ordinarily establish lawful use: a prescription, a dispensing record or medical evidence? MHA should also explain how ‘reason to believe’ will apply where a medicine carries only a general warning that it may cause drowsiness, and what guidance patients, doctors and pharmacists will receive before commencement. Once credible medical evidence is produced, the Minister should explain why the defendant should continue to bear the legal burden of proving both parts of the defence.
We should be firm against drug-driving without leaving responsible patients to interpret a criminal-law boundary from a generic label on a medicine packet.
Hospital testing procedures
The same principle should govern how evidence is collected in hospital: enforcement must never compromise necessary medical care. The Bill changes the procedure for taking breath and blood specimens from hospital patients and expands the role of nurses. For hospital breath specimens, the person immediately responsible for the patient’s care is expressly part of the statutory safety check. The blood-specimen provision is framed differently.
Will the Minister confirm that the patient’s treatment remains paramount, and that a specimen will not be taken where the clinician responsible for the patient’s care believes it would compromise that care or treatment? What training and professional guidance will be given to nurses involved in taking forensic specimens?
Conclusion
Mr Speaker, drink-driving and drug-driving can cause irreversible harm to people who had no control over the risk they faced. Parliament is right to strengthen the law.
Firm enforcement needs more than severe penalties. It must be grounded in evidence, testing that can withstand scrutiny, clear rules on what constitutes drug presence, and practical guidance for people taking lawful medication.
We owe innocent road users laws that prevent avoidable harm, and ward off the next tragedy. I am glad we are taking these steps. I support this Bill.
