Parliament's Health Select Committee took oral submissions on the Good Samaritan bill during the week of 24–25 June 2026, according to RNZ. The bill makes narrow amendments to two statutes: the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 and the Bail Act 2000.

The core mechanism of Good Samaritan legislation in this context is well understood. By carving out limited immunity — or reduced liability — for people who call emergency services when someone overdoses, the bill attempts to remove the legal deterrent that can delay or prevent timely intervention. The Misuse of Drugs Act amendment targets criminal exposure for the caller; the Bail Act amendment addresses the specific position of people already on bail conditions at the time they seek help, a cohort for whom the risk calculus is especially stark.

New Zealand has lagged behind several comparable jurisdictions on this front. A number of Australian states and many US states have had analogous protections in place for years, and the domestic evidence base — including from needle exchanges, harm reduction services, and emergency clinicians — has consistently pointed to legal fear as a material barrier to bystander action during overdose events.

The select committee stage is where the legislative detail gets stress-tested. Submitters at this point typically include medical and public health bodies, iwi health providers, legal advocates, drug checking services, and people with lived experience of drug use — exactly the voices that can identify where a narrowly drafted immunity might still leave gaps. The committee will report back to the House with any recommended amendments before the bill proceeds to its third reading.

What the bill does not do is equally relevant for practitioners following it. It is not a broad decriminalisation measure; it leaves the primary offence and penalty structure of the Misuse of Drugs Act intact. The scope is limited to the circumstances of an overdose emergency, and the immunity is for the act of seeking help, not for possession or supply more generally. That narrowness is likely to feature in submissions from both directions — from those who argue it does not go far enough to change behaviour at scale, and from those who want assurance it won't be read expansively by courts.

The bill's progress through the committee will be worth tracking closely. The specific drafting of the Bail Act amendment, in particular, will determine whether it achieves its stated purpose for the people most at risk: those already enmeshed in the criminal justice system who face the most acute disincentive to call for help.