Williamson Maurice: Land Transport (Driver Licensing) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Williamson Maurice: Land Transport (Driver Licensing) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:642;Page:12525] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 Can I say from the very outset that the National Party has agreed to support this Land Transport (Driver Licensing) Amendment Bill going to a select committee. But can I also say that the National Party—probably like other major parties in this House—has a wide range of views within its members. Some are very supportive some are not so supportive and some have some serious questions. I think the select committee will be the process whereby we can go through sorting out what those issues are. 
I have to say from my own personal perspective—and I will speak to this bill only from my own personal perspective—this is something that I tried once. Members will know that in 1998 in the Land Transport Amendment Bill of that year I tried to move the age for driver licensing to age 16. We got the proposal through most of the processes then it fell at the last hurdle. The reason I think was the rural-urban split kicking in with those from rural areas saying it would disadvantage their kids and we did not quite get the numbers in the House. 
I caution members to be very careful about being susceptible to hysteria such as the hysteria that flew around over some of the other aspects of that licensing legislation at the time. I will give members an example—although there are others—and that is the issue of the compulsory carriage of one’s licence. Federated Farmers and others said that it was an outrage and a disgrace. They said that farmers would be stopped every day and because they did not have their licences on them they would be prosecuted. They said that we must not have it. They came to Parliament and put in submission after submission saying that the compulsory carriage of one’s licence must be taken out of the legislation. I asked several farmers whether they had ever been stopped by a traffic officer in the last 10 years and they said that they had not. I asked them how that would happen now and they replied that that did not matter that it would disadvantage their members in the rural community and it must not happen. Well I am pleased that we got that measure through and I have never heard the issue raised again. 
Ron Mark 
: Like the photo licence. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Exactly. Ron Mark is right. That is a second example. 
The photo licence was going to be the biggest breach of one’s civil liberties. Chris Carter—not the member in this House—a talkback host said that having to have a photo on one’s licence was like Nazi Germany at its worst. War was waged against me. Questions were raised about whether my parents were married when I was born and all sorts of things. For the first year after the photo licence came in we saw the biggest 1-year drop in the road toll ever. Leighton Smith one of the other talkback hosts who opposed me asked how having a piece of plastic in one’s wallet made the road safer. I told him the answer was easy because for the first year after the measure came in we confiscated 22000 vehicles from the road. We caught people—and could identify them—who were driving while illegally on the road. Some were disqualified many times—four or five times for drink-driving. But under the old system when people did not have to carry the old piece of tatty paper they could swap it with a mate and the cops would not know who they were anyway. 
So I give a caution to this House to be very careful about hysteria when it comes to saying: “This will do all sorts of things.” and “This will stop all sorts of things.” I ask members of the House to just look at comparable jurisdictions around the world to see whether similar measures have resulted in disastrous consequences. For example I think there is a legitimate argument that says that the driving age should be aligned to the school leaving age. I think that is a very legitimate argument for a lot of rural communities. Where I grew up in Matamata we used to catch the school bus to school. But once we got to the point of leaving school we could no longer catch the school bus so to get to work we had to be able to drive. I think that is fine. But it might not have escaped the attention of too many people that the school leaving age was raised from 15 to 16—now 16 is the age. So I find it hard to believe that kids will be disadvantaged because they cannot get to sporting activities. 
Well what about the 14-year-olds? They cannot get to their sports unless their parents take them. My wife tells me she is a permanent taxi driver in Auckland taking kids to rugby and tennis. My girl has just come back from the aerobics competition in Melbourne. My wife says she is often on the road trying to get our kids here there and everywhere—and that is in the city. So get real! It happens for parents at any rate. I look at a state like Queensland where the distances from the cities to the rural parts are way bigger than we will ever experience in New Zealand. In fact some of them are bigger than New Zealand. Yet that state’s driving age starts at 17. 
I ask those who have grave concerns—I have heard them over and over again—to please think seriously about this matter. I think 15 is too young to drive. I personally think that 15 is too young to drive. If members want to think about some sort of a compromise—and I advocate that they do not—then let us look at giving some licensing exemption to some children who can be proven to be living way outside of urban areas who have no alternative when it comes to doing the things they need to and whose parents are unable to participate in moving them in and out of town. Based on their specific cases—on their address and for specified hours of the day when sporting or other such activities are going on—we may grant them an exemption. I am not a fan of that idea. I am really a big fan of things like the GST regime which gave no exemption to anything because the moment exemptions happen all sorts of lines start to be drawn in the sand then question marks arise on the other side. But if that is what members from the rural sector are concerned about then I hope that the select committee looks at the scenario carefully if there is a need. 
I say again that members should look at jurisdictions that are comparable to ours. I am a big fan of not reinventing the wheel. New Zealand should not say “Oh but we’re different.” We are not as different as that from any countries we like to compare ourselves to. Most European nations Australia and so on just laugh at the fact that we let 15-year-olds drive. 
One of my most amazing experiences in relation to photo licences was when I went to the California Highway Patrol headquarters. I went to the officers’ mess for a drink at the end of the day. They got my piece of tatty paper and handed it around and laughed and guffawed. They said: “This is not a licence. How would we ever ever apprehend anybody with this stupid piece of nothingness?”. But at the time if one listened to talkback and to the feedback one would hear that photo licences were the greatest crime ever imposed on this country. But I have never heard that issue raised again since the legislation was passed. How many members have people coming into their constituency clinics saying they are really concerned about the photo drivers’ licences? [ 
Interruption 
] Oh David Cunliffe has had somebody come in. I did not think people even knew where David Cunliffe’s office was but there we go he has had someone come in. Well I have not. 
In the last few minutes of my speech I want to repeat what I think the arguments are. I think that extending the time of the learner licence is a really good idea. If there was some way to do so I would love to measure how much driving people did during that time before they could get a full licence—just like pilots have to qualify with so many hours before they can get a full licence. That is not practical and it is not possible. It would be great to say to young people that they have to do say 100 hours of driving with somebody then when they have qualified with that 100 hours they can get a full licence. I wish that were possible but the technology is not available and people could cheat or rort it and say they have done their hours. So I am not going to get silly about it but just getting a learner’s permit on day one then doing nothing not even driving for 6 months then somehow getting a provisional licence then maybe doing nothing for 18 months then suddenly getting a full licence means someone may have done only 4 or 5 hours on the road. That does not seem to me to be sensible either. 
But two things do seem to be sensible. First we should align the driving age with the school leaving age—we always did and we always should. Secondly we should look to alternative jurisdictions. I said during the debate on photo licences and I will say it again: if any member of this House can show me a jurisdiction we would like to think ourselves comparable to—I am not talking about Burkina Faso in the Horn of Africa or anything; I am talking about a country that is comparable to us—that does let 15-year-olds drive and has a fantastic safety record then show it to us. I am happy to be persuaded. But in the debate on photo licences I could not find one. I actually got the Ministry of Transport to troll through every country we could think of to find one that did not have photo licences. We could not find one. Yet Chris Carter on Newstalk ZB said: “If Williamson gets away with this I’m leaving the country.” 
Peter Brown 
: He’s gone. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Well he did not actually go. They kicked him off Newstalk ZB but he did not leave the country 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Why not? He should have. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I agree that he should have but he did not. That was the hysteria of it but where would he go? Similarly in this case if a member says that he or she knows of a comparable country to ours that has a record of crashes and killing on the roads that is way better than ours and it lets 15-year-olds drive I will be convinced about it. But I do not believe such a place exists and I think it would be really foolish for this House to deny an opportunity for good debate in the select committee and for proper and careful consideration.