Lees-Galloway Iain: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLees-Galloway Iain: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 30 July 2014. Volume:700;Page:19721. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North):It is always a pleasure to follow David Bennett in the debating chamber. Labour wholeheartedly supports this legislation the Land Transport Amendment Bill and the concept behind it which is to bring to an end legal drunk-driving. It is something to celebrate tonight that on 1 December this year it will no longer be legal to get behind the wheel of a car whilst intoxicated by alcohol.But it has been a long time coming. David Bennett raises some interesting points I think. The truth is that the evidence was first placed before the Minister of Transport by the Ministry of Transport in 2009. That is when the first tranche of evidence was made available to a Minister of Transport. It was in 2009 under the current Government. In fact at the time the Hon Steven Joyce who was the Minister of Transport actually indicated that he was supportive of the change. He was the one who was going around and telling people just how much alcohol it was possible to consume and still be under the current legal limit. I have to say that I for one was not at first convinced when I heard about this. It was actually after a conversation with two National Party backbenchers who were privy to the information that Steven Joyce had and who I believe had also participated in one of these kinds of anecdotal experiments—I suppose is a way you could describe it—and who said to me: “No you really need to look at this issue of the drink-driving limit. It is possible to consume an enormous amount of alcohol and still be under the limit.”That was from two National Party backbenchers. I will not name them. That would be embarrassing for them but it was after that conversation that I went away and looked at the evidence and found that they were absolutely right. At the time I anticipated that the National Government was going to move on this because the Minister of Transport had indicated that he thought it was something it needed to do. But somebody got to Steven Joyce and there are a few names that do come to mind. It was those who were the chief exponents of the term “nanny State” which was used so effectively by National Party members when they were in Opposition and they just could not bring themselves to do anything that might appear to put themselves into that nanny State category that they had created for political gain.So what did they do? They kicked for touch. For the sake of political expediency and for the sake of not being accused of engaging in nanny State policy themselves they set aside something that was guaranteed to save lives. They said that the international evidence did not apply in New Zealand and they needed to spend some time researching whether or not reducing the drink-driving limit would actually save lives in New Zealand. What that was really about let us be honest was kicking out this issue so that it would be addressed after the last election. That is what it was all about.The Government had another opportunity. We have spoken a lot about how Labour drafted a member’s bill and yes when it was drawn it was in my name but I was not the only one who held that bill in the ballot. When it was drawn it was in my name—and yes the Government did suddenly act rather swiftly after that bill was drawn. But the Government had an opportunity to act before then and that was during the debate on the Alcohol Reform Bill. I put by way of a Supplementary Order Paper an amendment to the Alcohol Reform Bill to reduce the drink-driving limit. It was absolutely in order. For a lot of people who have been advocating for a reduction in the drink-driving limit they saw it as part of the suite of measures that were required to reduce alcohol-related harm. Taking action on this absolutely fitted with what we were doing and should have been doing through the Alcohol Reform Bill.Sadly my amendment did not quite get the numbers. It missed out by one. The National Party the ACT Party and I am sad to say United Future Peter Dunne voted against it. But Peter Dunne was only really doing that because he felt that he had to stick with the Government to which he gives confidence and supply. He said at the time rather spuriously I have to say that the way to do this was not by amending the Alcohol Reform Bill; it was by amending the land transport legislation. I am glad to say that he realised he had to be good to his word and when my bill the Land Transport (Safer Alcohol Limits for Driving) Amendment Bill was drawn from the ballot Peter Dunne indicated that as it was indeed an amendment to the land transport legislation he would support it. We had the numbers so it was going to pass.That was the point at which the Government finally kicked into action. The Government realised it was on the wrong side of public opinion it was on the wrong side of the evidence and it was very soon going to be on the wrong side of a vote in the House. That is what got the Government to finally move on this. Let us be absolutely clear and honest about that. That is what finally got the Government moving. Good! Are we not pleased that we are finally going to get there? On 1 December this year our drink-driving limit in New Zealand will move into line with most other Western nations. We will finally catch up with what most other Western nations are doing.Denis O’Rourke: No. Not right. Not correct.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Denis O’Rourke shakes his head. The only two that he can think of are the United Kingdom and the United States. We should not just follow them every single time. We are smarter than that. Australia I am sad to say did this decades ago. We are way behind our closest cousins the country that we ordinarily compare ourselves to most often. We are decades behind them.Denis O’Rourke: Got it wrong.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: No it is absolutely right and I will be very pleased to hear how Denis O’Rourke will try to rebut that statement.We are pleased that this bill is going ahead but we do have a point of difference. We are not entirely convinced by this idea of having an infringement offence for those who are over the alcohol limit of 0.05 percent but under 0.08 percent. What Labour was originally proposing was simply to lower the limit and for it to be a criminal offence to be a drink-driver—to be drunk behind the wheel. That is what being over 0.05 percent is. It is being a drunk-driver. It should be we on this side of the House think a criminal offence to be a drunk-driver.The Government has offered up a couple of different arguments for this. The Government says that the drunk-drivers who are least drunk cause the least amount of harm. Well I am sorry but they are still a drunk-driver—they are still a drunk-driver. It has always been a criminal offence in New Zealand in the past to be a drunk-driver and it should continue to be a criminal offence in New Zealand to be a drunk-driver.The other thing the Government said is that it would clog up the courts with all the people who will drink in excess of 0.05 percent but under 0.08 percent. We would have to put them all through the court. That statement is based on an assumption that New Zealanders are fundamentally stupid and will not notice that the law has changed. Well we on this side of the House believe that New Zealanders are pretty smart. They are informed. They are educated. They watch the news. They read the newspapers. They will know that the limit has fallen and they will change their behaviour appropriately. We will not see the courts being clogged up with people who have been caught out as the Government would say by the change in the law.We have not seen any strong evidence. We know that there are different regimes around the world but we have not seen any evidence. The Minister did not refer to it. David Bennett did not refer to it. We have not seen any evidence that says that this regime is better than making it a criminal offence. We are open-minded. We are interested to see how it works but if it is not working in the way we anticipated we do need to come back and review it and ensure that we have done this right.This bill is a step in the right direction. It has taken far too long. It is not the step that we would have taken but we will support it because it is a significant improvement on the current situation where it is legal in New Zealand to drink and drive.