Shearer David: Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Shearer David: Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:18079] 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 I will talk on the title of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I think it should have another couple of words in it: “Selective Evidence”. What we have heard tonight is a lot of selective evidence to try to justify what is in terms of the alcohol question a pretty sad story. 
I will go back to what I was talking about before. What happened with this bill was that the Prime Minister John Key asked the Ministry of Transport to check whether a glass of wine might put people over the blood-alcohol limit. He was so nervous about that and what it might mean to the constituency that they decided not to change the limit. As it turned out Mr Joyce found that he could drink three-quarters of a bottle of wine which he termed “ridiculous” before he was over the limit. But by that stage they had already made up their minds based on thinking that perhaps a change would be too nanny State to keep the limit at 0.08 grams rather than 0.05 grams. Here is where it becomes interesting because there is a historical record that has nothing to do with evidence. Then Darren Hughes put up his member’s bill to bring the level from 0.08 down to 0.05. What happened? Well Mr Key said that National would make it a conscience vote. A lot of people over there on the National side would have voted—I guarantee Jackie Blue being a doctor would have—for the level to go down from 0.08 to 0.05. But Mr Joyce in caucus said “Well actually that makes me look rather stupid—or more stupid.” So what he decided was suddenly it would be a caucus vote. 
By this stage National has dug a hole so deep that it cannot get itself out of it but popular opinion is two to one in favour of bringing the blood-alcohol limit down from 0.08 to 0.05. And so we should. As Michael Woodhouse just said as the amount of alcohol permitted increases the incidence of accidents increases. If we compare 0.05 with 0.08 there is a pretty good chance that the accident rate increases as a result of the extra intake of alcohol. That is what he said and I completely agree with him. Therefore I cannot understand why that party is still saying it is basing its policy on evidence when it knows that it is based on political bungling on the part of Mr Joyce. That is what it is—nothing less than a bit of political bungling. 
If Mr Joyce was really interested in bringing the road toll down by approximately five deaths a year then he would probably do something about the road between Warkworth and Wellsford the “Holiday Highway”. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: We’re banging on that drum again are we? 
DAVID SHEARER 
: Oh yes. Five people a year die on that particular stretch of road. Instead the Minister is improving at great cost—more than a billion dollars—the road between Puhoi and Warkworth. Why is that? Because people turn off at Warkworth to go to their baches at Omaha including the Prime Minister. He has a bach at Omaha. I suspect that Mr Joyce finds himself going to that particular area as well. Over the holiday period he does not want to be tied down by cars stopping him from getting to where he wants to go—that is of course if he is not using the helicopter. Mr Key will now be able to drive up to Omaha in a seat-warmed BMW in the wintertime without any interference because the road will be nice and smooth. 
As a result of that work on the road between Warkworth and Wellsford is being delayed. On that road five people a year die. On the other road from Puhoi to Warkworth one person a year on average dies. We could make some incredibly simple cheap modifications to that road based on solid evidence. That is why I say the title of this bill should include “Selective Evidence”. Political expediency is why the Government is pushing through these clauses. We could make a real difference by improving the Warkworth to Wellsford road. We could make a real improvement in the status of the road. 
The other piece of evidence that has been overlooked in this debate relates to the raising of the driver age. We all know that anywhere in the world not just here in New Zealand drivers between 15 and 25 years old particularly males create the largest amount of traffic accidents and traffic deaths but it is important to note and nobody mentioned it on the other side of the Chamber that that rate is coming down. In 1986 nearly 17 percent of all road deaths were caused by people in the 15 to 19-year-old age group. By 2006 it had dropped down to just over 11 percent. It is important to note that for that particular age group the rate of driving accidents has reduced. There is absolutely no evidence that pushing up the driving age from 15 years to closer to 17—because by the time people get their full licences they will not be 16; they will actually be 17—will bring about a decrease in road deaths. 
Labour members agree with having better driver education. We think it is hugely important. UK driver education is superior to ours and that could be a contributing factor in the road toll there being less. An extended learner period for drivers is also important. It is very interesting to note that when 15 to 16-year-old drivers are in a car with an adult they have a lower accident rate than other adults. So it is not actually an issue of competence; it is simply an issue of experience in driving cars. Most studies will tell us that at least 250 hours of driving experience is necessary before somebody becomes a competent driver. So the experience of the driver not the age is the critical point here. No matter which age someone starts driving at the first 2 years after they get their licence are the most critical not only here in New Zealand but elsewhere internationally. 
I think that as a number of our speakers have pointed out by raising the driving age to 16—in effect 17—we will disadvantage many people particularly in rural areas. Many people aged 16 or 17 have started work and are doing shift work. They will not be able to get to work. We will disadvantage those people whereas today they are certainly not disadvantaged. Labour members are in the unusual situation of supporting Federated Farmers because its submission was actually a very good one. It pointed out exactly what I just said—the evidence as opposed to the rhetoric. I say that the position Labour is taking is possibly not the one that has the most popular support out there in the community but we are taking it because we believe we should put in legislation based on evidence. The Minister of Science and Innovation who is in the Chamber at the moment will agree with me because the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Adviser just released a report that said our policies and our law should be based more strongly on evidence. I totally agree with him. Yet in this critical legislation the Government is willing to throw that evidence out the window. 
The bill is supported by Labour. It has some really excellent provisions in it but it falls short on the issue of alcohol and the issue of the driving age.