Dunne Peter: Land Transport (Driver Licensing) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Dunne Peter: Land Transport (Driver Licensing) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:642;Page:12523] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 I move  
That the Land Transport (Driver Licensing) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 This bill arises in rather unusual circumstances. Members will recall that a few weeks ago in the House following the recent tragic deaths in Christchurch of three 15-year-old drivers Emma Reynolds Melissa Norton and Chloe Cockerell I raised a question with the Minister of Transport who suggested that I should seek to test the will of the House on the matter. The House very graciously a week later gave me leave to introduce this bill as a Government bill. It arises because of those incidents and mounting public concern about road safety and young drivers. 
 The principal purpose of this bill is to raise the minimum driver-licensing age from 15 to 16 years and to extend the length of the learner-licensing period from 6 months to 12 months. At the appropriate time I will move that the bill be referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. 
It is a relatively short bill with some six clauses. The operative clauses are clauses 4 and 5 which make the age adjustments. The net consequence of this adjustment of moving the age from 15 to 16 and lengthening the period of the learner licence from 6 to 12 months will be that the time at which a person can obtain a full licence will rise to 18½ years. At the moment one starts the process at 15 and one can get a full licence as early as 17. The consequence of shifting the period that one starts at by a year and the period that one can hold a learner licence from 6 months to 12 months means that the age when the process can be completed will now rise to 18½ years. 
A number of comments have been made over recent weeks about whether a change would put New Zealand out of kilter with the international norm. I note that in Britain at the moment the House of Commons is considering shifting the driving age from 17 to 18 to align it with other European nations. I note that in Australia depending on which state one may be in young Australians cannot take to the roads until they are at least 16 or 17. In New Zealand the age of 15 was originally struck to coincide with the school-leaving age. That has moved up over the years and it seems appropriate to look at the minimum licensing age for drivers as a consequence. 
But there are other reasons as well and I want to draw to the House’s attention some of the statistics relating to the involvement of young drivers in road accidents. Although it is true that car crashes that involve 15 16 and 17-year-olds are similar overall to the number involving 18 and 19-year-olds on learner licences those figures change dramatically when these age groups get their restricted licences and are able to drive solo. For instance the number of crashes in the first month after gaining a restricted licence compared with the last month that one is on a learner licence increases about 2½ times for 18 and 19-year-olds and about 4½ times for 17-year-olds but there is a whopping eightfold increase for 16-year-olds and an even greater increase of tenfold for 15-year-olds. That clearly shows that the younger the age at which a driver gets a restricted licence the higher the chance that he or she will crash. That is really the point of this legislation. 
I have heard comments from some quarters that this will adversely affect rural drivers. I even had one person contact me and say this legislation is a total outrage—that he taught all of his children to drive at the age of 12 and why should the law interfere in this way? I have two comments to make in respect of those claims. Firstly I have little sympathy for the argument of saying: “I taught my kids to drive at 12 so goodness knows to hell with what the law might say.” But with regard to the legitimate case of rural drivers who may feel they are being discriminated against by these provisions I say that that is a matter the select committee should give some consideration to. It should consider whether there is scope or practical ability to give some form of limited licence in those circumstances. I am open-minded on that point. I have some doubt about its efficacy but I am prepared to see that matter considered. 
Overall we need to see this in the context of the consequences for young drivers of the current situation. It is certainly true that young people are overrepresented in our road-crash statistics. In the year to 31 December last year for example young drivers between the ages of 15 and 24 were involved in 121 fatal traffic crashes 813 serious-injury crashes and 3768 minor-injury crashes. If one takes the past 10 years 1997 to 2006 one sees that crashes involving 15-year-old drivers have resulted in some 37 deaths and 385 serious injuries. Similarly crashes involving 16-year-olds have resulted in 146 deaths and 949 serious injuries. In other words crashes involving 15 and 16-year-old drivers over the last 10 years have accounted for some 183 deaths and 1334 serious injuries. 
Some of those deaths have been the drivers themselves others have been innocent victims but the net effect has been a very serious impact on a wide range of New Zealanders at a time when through other road-safety measures our road toll has been reducing. The figures indicate very clearly that as with other developed countries the crash risk is inversely correlated with the age at which a driver starts solo driving. That is particularly so where that occurs before the age of 18. 
Members may say that New Zealand is no different from other countries that this is part of a worldwide trend and that these circumstances however shocking they may be are no different from what occurs elsewhere. There is some truth in that argument. But when one looks at OECD comparative figures and sees where New Zealand fits on the international league table one sees that we have the fourth-highest rate of road deaths for 15 to 24-year-olds per head of population. I do not think that that is acceptable particularly when we have placed so much emphasis under successive Governments—and I note that the member opposite Mr Williamson during his time as Minister of Transport was very strong on these matters—on bringing down our road toll because one life saved is one life to the benefit of this country. The net negative cost of injury death and the whole trauma associated with road tragedy is one that is controllable one we can make positive steps towards reducing. The logic to me of making a move now to change the minimum legal driving age to increase it to deal with these statistics is compelling and overwhelming. 
 We are not talking here about removing a right from New Zealanders; we are talking about protecting young New Zealanders about ensuring that the period during which they take their learner licensing test through to gaining their provisional licence and finally their full licence is one where they can be equipped with the experience and the skills necessary to be effective drivers and where their contribution to negative road-safety statistics can be reduced. 
I want to observe as I bring this speech to a close that there is overwhelming public support for this measure. The Television One Colmar Brunton poll on Monday night showed 82 percent in favour of it. There have been polls in newspapers showing similar figures. I think the  
New Zealand Herald  
figure was around 87 percent. Most of the people who have a vested interest in promoting road safety and better driving conditions are also in favour of this move. Finally I note as I began that the parents of the three young women who were killed in Christchurch recently in very tragic circumstances have also expressed to the Christchurch  
Press 
 their support for a change along these lines. I commend this bill to the House.