Hughes Gareth: Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Hughes Gareth: Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:17799] 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. Nga mihi nui ki a koutou kia ora. 
I was just reflecting on the very entertaining speech of the Hon Shane Jones and I wondered what type of drink it would be. I guess it is more akin to a mocktail or a shandy—colourful filling but not a great deal of substance. Let us be frank: the previous Labour Government had maybe two or three opportunities to act on its Cabinet discussions about the blood-alcohol level but it did not act. I congratulate Labour on taking a strong stance now and introducing a member’s bill on the issue but we should have done this a decade ago. We have missed opportunities in the past; we cannot miss the opportunity as the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill passes through Parliament. 
I acknowledge the new Mr Assistant Speaker Mr H V Ross Robertson in the Chair. Welcome to the new role Mr Assistant Speaker kia ora. I acknowledge the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee members who heard a great number of submissions. I acknowledge the submitters. We heard some pretty powerful testimony. 
The bill we are talking about is not academic; we are talking about real people’s lives. Many people in this country have had their whole lives changed literally in a second on a road or on a motorway and unfortunately alcohol is such a massive problem in our country. When it comes to road safety the Green position is that we need to do everything we can to ensure our roads are safer. 
Road safety should be a priority for the Government. Unfortunately it is not. Its priority at the moment is trying to find $10.7 billion to invest in just seven new roads. I did not bring my graph with me tonight but a graph I have tried to table in this Parliament compares Government policy statements of the last Government and the current Government. What it shows is that Steven Joyce has raided the entire transport budget—across all the transport classes from road sealing to road safety—to fund his pet roads of national significance. 
The Green Party is proud to have always stood up for road safety in this Parliament. That is why we will vote in favour of the bill tonight but we have some concerns. First there are the good points. The Minister of Transport outlined some of the reasons why we support the bill. There are some good points in the bill even though the intent may be modest. We think it is important we do something about the terrible impact of alcohol on young and inexperienced drivers. 
My story is that on my 15th birthday I went out and got my learner’s licence. As soon as I got my restricted licence I hit the McDonald’s drive-through to get my first drive-through meal as I could drive by myself. I grew up in Gisborne and among all of my mates the driving ambition was to get a car as soon as we could. 
Hon Dr Wayne Mapp 
: You would’ve got a bike wouldn’t you Gareth? 
GARETH HUGHES 
: A bike? No as soon as I could I bought my car and drove to school every day. The Minister might not know. 
Paul Quinn 
: He’s got a car. 
GARETH HUGHES 
: No I think I might be the only member now who does not own a car but I am also a member who knows how to change a car engine. I was a bit of a boy racer when I was growing up in high school. I admit I did some stupid things in my car as a 16-year-old and I think many in this Chamber would also have some similar pretty dumb experiences. So it is important we raise the driving age. 
It has been a challenge for the Green Party to decide what we would do on the driving age but we support raising the age to 16 to move us into line with other countries. That will have an impact. We take an evidence-based approach to it. New Zealand’s accident rate for young drivers is 60 percent worse than Australia’s. We support the moves for interlocks and zero blood-alcohol levels for repeat offenders. We acknowledge the important but small-scale changes made by the select committee to cumulative workdays and to blood specimens which make the use of vacutainers easier and empowers the New Zealand Transport Agency to take more powers with regard to taxis. We support those moves. 
But when it comes to the key missing part of this legislation there are two things. On the one hand is the treatment of offenders and on the other hand is the reduction of the blood-alcohol level. Firstly I will speak about the treatment of offenders. Much like other alcohol legislation going through this Parliament there is a focus in the bill on the minutiae the easy-to-do. When it comes to young people it is easy to scapegoat them as offenders. Across this country we know that drinking is not a youth problem; it is a cultural problem. We know that 92 percent of our problem drinkers are aged over 20. So when it comes to treatment that is the missing part of the road safety puzzle in this legislation. We know that 80 percent of repeat drink-drivers meet the criteria for a drinking problem yet only 5 percent of the 30000 people who are annually convicted of drink-driving offences have a drug or alcohol assessment—only 5 percent. The Ministry of Transport said it would work with other Government departments on treatment options. It is a pity that the Minister of Transport is not here. I look forward to the Committee stage to find out what progress has been made because treatment is the key missing part of the puzzle. 
When it comes to the blood-alcohol level we are an international outlier. We know that 23 similar Western nations have dropped their blood-alcohol level to 0.5. Why have they done that? They have done it because it works. What we are talking about and what the officials are advising us on is that we could be saving between 11 and 33 lives right now in this country annually. We could be preventing between 300 and more than 600 serious accidents every year. The single most effective thing we could be doing but we are not doing is lowering the blood-alcohol level. 
Why are we not doing that? I am just not sure because the majority of the submissions to the select committee were clear. We had just a couple in favour of maintaining New Zealand’s international outlier position— 
Michael Woodhouse 
: Like the AA who represent 1.3 million drivers? 
GARETH HUGHES 
: I say to Mr Woodhouse that the Automobile Association is a really interesting point. The fact is that most of its members sign up to get its roadside assistance. I am not sure how much the association can talk on behalf of all its members but I think it made a serious submission. It raised some excellent points but the only submitters I can recall who submitted in favour of 0.8 were the Automobile Association Clubs New Zealand and the Hospitality Association. I asked them at the select committee whether their members had to be drunk to enjoy their premises. That is the thing: we need an entire cultural change. We do not need to be legally drunk. But Professor Doug Sellman in his submission said that driving with a blood-alcohol level of between 0.5 and 0.8 is driving legally drunk. We need to make a change. 
We do not need more research. We heard in the select committee that there are more than 300 international reports on lowering the blood-alcohol level. We would not be going out on a limb; we would simply be keeping within the World Health Organization’s guidelines. We know we could be saving a considerable number of lives. We know public opinion is on our side. One opinion poll put at 85 percent those who supported the 0.5 blood-alcohol concentration or the two drinks maximum. We are missing a massive opportunity in this country to save lives and the economy. We are talking about saving potentially $300 million or more at a time when we are borrowing $300 million a week internationally. 
I finish on the submission of Professor Doug Sellman one of the experts on alcohol use in New Zealand. I am glancing over his submission which states: “We have legalised drunk driving in New Zealand …” with our current blood-alcohol level. “Decisions like this make me ashamed to be a New Zealander.” As my last point I will read out a substantive paragraph: “Let every death and every injury that occurs in fellow citizens over the next two years and the suffering of their families be felt by those Members of Parliament who are actively conspiring against the safety health and well-being of ordinary New Zealanders for the sake of other agendas by supporting ‘more research’ rather than ‘action now’ on legal drunk driving; and shame on those Members of Parliament who sit back and do nothing while this scandalous decision is passed into law.” 
We are missing a massive opportunity. Will it happen in 5 years? Will it happen in 2 years? To finish on the words of Professor Sellman: “Do the right thing.”