Parliament hears submissions on drug "Samaritan Bill"

People witnessing a drug overdose might hesitate to call emergency services for fear of legal consequences. That is the message Parliament's Health Select Committee has been told this week, as it considers submissions on the "Good Samaritan" bill.

Green MP Kahurangi Carter's Drug Overdose (Assistance Protection) Legislation Bill would provide legal protections for people experiencing a drug overdose, those who call 111, and others who remain at the scene to help. According to the legislation's explanatory note, approximately three New Zealanders die from a drug overdose each week.

Beyond the subject matter of the bill itself, Carter's proposal provided a good example of the broad mix of submissions bills typically attract. These range from stakeholder organisations focused on the bigger policy picture, through experts examining the finer legislative detail, down to individuals with relevant personal experience.

Among those advocating for the Bill was the New Zealand Drug Foundation, which appeared before the committee on Wednesday morning and argued Parliament should treat accidental overdoses in the same way it treats other health crises.

Executive Director Sarah Helm drew parallels with Parliament's decision in 1961 to remove attempted suicide from criminal law.

"The then Health Minister was Rex Mason," Helm said. "He told the House that it was better not to fix the stigma of criminal law upon someone in crisis.

"We are asking you to apply that very same amount of insight to a different issue today, accidental drug overdose, that when someone is at their most vulnerable, the shadow of the criminal law doesn't protect them. It keeps them from reaching for help."

Detail submitters

Following the Drug Foundation, the committee heard from the New Zealand Law Society. While it broadly supported the bill's intent, its focus was less on the wider principle of the legislation and more on how it could be drafted more clearly, better achieve its intended purpose, and avoid unintended legal consequences.

Law Society representative Debbie Wilson questioned aspects of the bill's definition of a "drug-related acute adverse reaction", including wording that referred to an "unwanted" physical or psychological reaction.

She said it was unclear who would determine whether a reaction was unwanted in such cases, and warned some provisions in the bill may not operate as intended.

"What we're saying is that this bill will not quite, we think, achieve what it sets out to do," said Wilson's colleague Jeremy Finn.

Anecdotal submitters

Beyond expert, academic, and data-centric evidence, select committees also hear from people whose lives have been directly affected by an issue. These anecdotal experiences can provide an important human perspective that statistics and advice from officials cannot.

DISC Trust's Jason George described witnessing a serious overdose before naxolone became widely available in New Zealand.

He told MPs there had been deliberation about whether to call 111 and whether to move the person outside. Emergency services were eventually called and George began CPR, while others at the scene focused on hiding drug paraphernalia and several cannabis plants.

"Those actions were understandable in the context of fear of prosecution, but they were not the actions needed in the moment," George said. "The danger was not only the overdose itself. The danger was also the hesitation, uncertainty, and fear of police involvement that diverted people from seeking help and assisting the person in front of them."

The MP submitter

Also listening to evidence at the committee table was the MP behind the bill, Kahurangi Carter. She was also the final submitter the committee heard from this week.

While it is common for the MP or minister in charge of a bill to appear before a select committee considering their legislation, those appearances are not often made in public session.

Questioning from National MP Carlos Cheung prompted a brief exchange over evidence from overseas jurisdictions with similar laws. Cheung challenged claims about the effectiveness of Good Samaritan legislation in the United States and Canada, raising questions about links between such laws and broader drug use trends, and said "members opposite should do their homework".

Carter responded that the focus of the bill was not drug use rates but ensuring people were not deterred from seeking urgent medical assistance.

The Health Select Committee will continue considering the evidence and decide whether to recommend changes to the bill before it is due to report back to the House in October. Whether those changes will be enough to win over National and New Zealand First, which both opposed the bill at first reading, remains to be seen.

*RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk. Enjoy our articles or podcast at RNZ.