Fenton Darien: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFenton Darien: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 03 July 2014. Volume:700;Page:19230. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DARIEN FENTON (Labour):I am pleased to take a call in the second reading of the Land Transport Amendment Bill as well. I also share the compliments of the Associate Minister of Transport Michael Woodhouse for the work of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee which was actually given a very short time to get this work done. As you also heard there were 106 submissions—a great deal of interest in this bill—so the committee did do its work diligently. I am really pleased that we finally have this measure back in the House and I hope that it will get through before the election.It has been a long journey for this debate about lowering the legal alcohol limit for adults. It started way back in 2009. We could have had this provision all of those years ago—5 years ago—when the former MP Darren Hughes introduced a member’s bill that would have done exactly what this bill is doing. That had a slightly different penalty regime but we would have had at that time if the Government had adopted it this provision as part of our road safety measures out on the roads in 2010 2011 2012 2013 and then of course well into this year as well. However I understand that the Government does not like taking good ideas from the Opposition so I understand why it did not do that.But in 2010 there was another opportunity to do something about this issue. There was a bill that came to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that followed on from the Cabinet consideration of the issue. That was the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. During the submissions on that bill the No. 1 issue that was raised by submitters was this issue of the adult blood-alcohol limit. Again and again submitters came along and said it was missing from the bill and it could be dealt with under that bill. We had submissions from the Drug Foundation the Cycling Advocates Network Alcohol Healthwatch the Drink Driving Interventions Trust the National Addiction Centre and even the Herald on Sunday. The Herald on Sunday at that time ran a campaign on this. At the same time Darren Hughes’ bill was taken over by Iain Lees-Galloway. The Herald on Sunday supported Iain Lees-Galloway’s bill and it got New Zealanders to pledge to drink a maximum of two drinks before they got in the car. It was a very successful campaign. So the Government would have been getting the same feedback as we were at that time that the public wanted it. There was poll after poll saying that the public saw this as one of the No. 1 issues.During the Committee stage of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill Labour put up an amendment that would have reduced the blood-alcohol limit back in 2010. So there was another chance for the Government to take up the issue. But guess what? Guess what?Dr Megan Woods: They didn’t.DARIEN FENTON: It voted against it. It has consistently refused to support members’ bills and assistance from this side of the House to try to get this issue addressed from way way back. Then there were other opportunities. There was of course all of the alcohol reform process.There were amendments that went up during that process. There were as I say ongoing opportunities for the Government to address it. Iain Lees-Galloway’s bill was drawn from the ballot way back at the beginning of 2013. We could have progressed that got on with that quickly picked it up got it off to select committee done the work on it and had it in place by now.It is disappointing that for some reason—and I have never really understood why—the then Minister of Transport Steven Joyce was very resistant to it. Despite the evidence that came before the select committee the research from around the world and the evidence from other countries that have adopted these measures of their success in reducing accidents and deaths on the roads the Minister insisted that we needed to have New Zealand - based evidence and that it would take 2 years to do. So it got sent off to some deep dark hole and ignored basically until now. Maybe it took a new Minister to get it up and kicking. I do not know. I do not know what happened but I do regret the fact that we have had this opportunity to do something about saving lives with a pretty straightforward measure and we are doing it only now.I also do not believe that we had to go through the whole thing of convincing the public. I remember way back when Steven Joyce became the transport Minister and he introduced the cellphone restrictions. He said that was a no-brainer. I agreed with him actually. You know Labour did not do it and it was a no-brainer even though people still break the rules. So I never understood why he thought this issue was not a no-brainer particularly when he went on TV on Campbell Live downed a whole lot of drinks and demonstrated that there was just no way that a man of his size could consume something like nine standard drinks I think it is and be able to meet the current alcohol limit and get behind the wheel. He said that there was just no way he could do it. We saw other examples of even larger men getting up to 12 standard drinks—beer after beer being thrown down their throats—and apparently allegedly it was safe for them to drive.Moana Mackey: Put them in a simulator.DARIEN FENTON: Put them in a simulator. That is right. It was terrifying really.At the same time as I said there was evidence from overseas. Australia did it years ago in New South Wales. The result of that was an 8 percent reduction in fatal crashes and a 7 percent reduction in crashes causing serious injury. Queensland achieved an 18 percent reduction in fatal crashes and a 14 percent reduction in serious crashes and on it goes—Belgium France and country after country. But I reckon if the Aussies could do it all those years ago why could we not? You know if you can persuade beer-swilling Aussies that they should reduce their alcohol intake and you change the law in the way that this bill eventually does why could we not do it way back then? However I do not want to sound bitter about it. I am pleased that this is one of the last bills I am likely to be speaking on before I leave Parliament and I am pleased that it will be something that finally becomes law. It is a sensible piece of legislation.There were some amendments made during the select committee consideration and we spent quite a lot of time around the issue of what happens if a driver refuses to take a breath test and then has to have a blood test or if they are required to have an evidential blood test how much they should be charged for it and then whether that money is recoverable. That caused a bit of a glitch for a wee while. The bill sort of disappeared back to the Minister’s office for I think 3 or 4 weeks while Gerry Brownlee tried to get his brain into gear and figure out what he could do. The select committee has come up with and recommended a solution but we will see how that goes.Labour has supported this bill because as I said to the media when they asked me about it we just want to get the damn thing done. But we do have concerns. I do predict there will be litigation around this area particularly when it comes to the point of trying to recover the costs of unpaid blood tests—setting Baycorp on people. It will be interesting and I do predict that there will be some interesting legal ramifications for this. Having said that I am very genuinely pleased to support this bill and may it become law very very soon. Thank you.