Okay.
You mention again the aspect of being under the influence of a drug. But in the bill—specifically, subclause 3(3), “Testing for presence of alcohol or a drug”—it says:
If a peace officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that a person has in the preceding three hours had alcohol or a drug in their body while they were operating a motor vehicle
There's no requirement that the person be under any kind of influence, only that they have a drug, a schedule I to schedule V drug. There is no reference to impairment.
Are you concerned about that? How does that circumstance, which I've just described in my reading of the legislation, square with your views and recommendations here in relation to this?