Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:14070] 
Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I move  
That the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that the committee present its final report on or before 16 December 2010 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area despite Standing Orders 187 189(a) and 190(1)(b) and (c). 
Amongst other things this bill will implement actions from our Safer Journeys road safety strategy for addressing New Zealand’s high level of road deaths and injuries. It focuses on two areas where we believe we can make a real difference: young inexperienced drivers and repeat drink-drivers. Essentially we want to ensure that our young people have the skills and the experience to be safe on our roads. This is a top priority for the Government because last year 32 percent of people killed on our roads were under the age of 25. That is not just disproportionate; it is tragic. 
This legislation seeks to increase the minimum driving age from 15 to 16 years lower to zero the legal blood-alcohol limit for drivers under 20 and allow the New Zealand Transport Agency to strengthen the restricted licence test to encourage 120 hours of supervised driving practice. We are also looking to improve the road safety education available to young people and to increase access to it; to consider vehicle power restrictions for young drivers; to allow approved courses defensive driving and Street Talk to be undertaken in the learner licence phase; and to consider tougher penalties for breaches of restricted licences. 
We can debate all we like which of these initiatives is the most important but the reality is that most Australian states have most of these laws in place and our youth fatality rate is 60 percent higher than theirs. We cannot continue to ignore that statistic. None of these actions is a silver bullet on its own but when combined they will make a real difference to the road toll and to the safety of our young people on the roads. 
The other area we are really focused on in this legislation is drink-driving particularly recidivist drink-driving. This is important because drink-drivers are responsible for one-third of all deaths on our roads. If we can make an impact in this area as well as for young drivers we should see a significant reduction in the road toll. 
In terms of drink-driving the legislation will lower the limit for drivers under 20 years of age from a blood-alcohol level of 0.03 to a zero blood-alcohol level. It will subject repeat drink-drivers to a zero blood-alcohol limit for 3 years after they receive their licence back. It will provide for infringement offences and the associated infringement penalties for the breach of zero drink-driving limits. It will allow courts the option to require repeat or serious drink-drive offenders to use alcohol interlocks after a mandated 90-day disqualification. Interlocks must be used for at least 12 months and can be removed only where the offender shows a violation-free period of 6 months reducing to 3 months if an approved alcohol assessment is also completed. Offenders will be subject to a zero blood-alcohol content limit for the 3 years after the removal of their interlock. This legislation also increases penalties for dangerous driving causing death. 
In regard to the adult drink-drive limit this bill legislates for changes to allow us to carry out research to determine the actual level of harm caused by drivers with blood-alcohol levels between 0.05 and 0.08. This information is not able to be collected currently. It is important that we have all that data before we make what would be I believe a far-reaching change. The important thing is that debate in that respect continues. There is no final decision either way but we will have certainty in a couple of years’ time when the research is certain. 
Primarily this bill is about road safety. It is not always the sexiest of topics but it is very important because we all use the roads and we are all at the mercy of whoever else is on the road at the same time as we are. Driving is a serious job and many of us I am sure have been guilty at times of not treating it as seriously as we should. In the spirit of transparency—with an emerging theme of parliamentary confessions this week—I acknowledge that my own personal driving record in the past has not been perfect. I have been fined a number of times for speeding and once for careless driving—fortunately nothing in recent times. It is the responsibility of all of us to drive carefully on our roads. We will never be able to prevent all crashes but we can make an impact by better preparing our new drivers and instilling in them good habits. We can also keep the most dangerous drivers off the roads. 
As well as improving road safety this bill will improve the efficiency of our land transport legislation by removing duplicated legislation and streamlining the rule-making process. Changes to the land transport rules process will allow rules to be made by Order in Council like other secondary legislation. This is quicker and less complicated than the current rules process. Improving efficiency is a key goal for the Government. It supports other efforts such as ensuring that whenever possible new rules are introduced on either 1 April or 1 October so that keeping track of changes is more straightforward for affected industries and the public. 
I believe that the provisions in this bill will have a very solid impact on our country’s high levels of road death and injury and send clear messages about the dangers of drink-driving and the impact of drivers who cause death. At the same time we will use this opportunity to simplify and clarify our transport law helping to improve efficiency by allowing the repeal of duplicated legislation. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
: 
 The Labour Party will support the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill this afternoon. There are many areas in the bill on which we find agreement and I will touch on some of those. I will also mention some of the areas where we do not believe the bill goes far enough. 
I was fascinated just on a procedural point that when the Minister of Transport began his speech he moved yet again another truncated referral motion to the select committee not only to change the select committee process but to allow the committee to meet at the same time as the House is meeting. Once again there was no explanation given by a Minister as to why that has happened. That is happening far too often and we will not support— 
Hon Steven Joyce 
: It was to get the legislation in place. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: The Minister was not good enough to tell the House that fact and indeed if he had spoken to the Opposition he might have found some support for that given that some of these measures could take place this summer if they were properly shepherded through. But time and time again bills come through like this. Indeed recently we were asked to believe that the Arts Council bill needed to have a truncated select committee process. An arrogance comes through from the Government and that is regrettable. 
This bill ought to have been one that the Minister could build enormous political support for because some of its measures do enjoy support across the House. But unfortunately like so many of the other things that Steven Joyce has done he has got the optics right—he has got all the marketing the buzzwords the presentation and the media releases right—but he has not got the actual grunt and the substance right at all. There is no better example of his failure of leadership than his failure in this bill to reduce the blood-alcohol limit for adults from 0.08 grams to 0.05 grams. He has not been able to get that through in this bill at all despite the overwhelming evidence—the 300 studies over 50 years that exist—that says the adult alcohol limit is just too high. The Minister knows that. Everyone knows that the Minister thinks that personally. Everyone watches him answering questions in the House week after week on this topic looking increasingly uncomfortable about the fact that he knows his policy position on it is completely wrong. 
The Minister said this bill brings into effect Safer Journeys. That is true and if we go to the Safer Journeys documents and read the response of the Ministry of Transport to submissions in the consultation process that it undertook we find that one of the reports that was issued in March this year was called  
Further Information on the Proposal to Lower the Adult Drink Drive Limit to BAC 
—blood-alcohol content— 
0.05.  
The document backs up the Minister’s personal opinion as to why that should happen. It makes the point that all the research exists already. Yet the Minister refuses to act. Why does he refuse to act? It is not because the arguments are not strong enough; we have been able to disprove that week after week in this House. There is an array of international research—and New Zealand data is used in that research—that shows there is an impairment for drivers whose blood-alcohol level is between 0.05 grams and 0.08 grams. That is beyond doubt. No Government speaker today will get up and say he or she does not believe drivers within that range are impaired. I challenge Government members to do so. If they are so concerned that research does not exist let any of them go on the record of the House and say drivers are just as safe at 0.08 grams as they are at 0.05 grams. I guarantee that none of them will do that. In their hearts they know that is not right. 
But the Minister said one of the reasons that he was concerned about reducing the limit was the need for public support for that. He was also very concerned in a poll-driven way that there be public support to increase the driving age. I think the blood-alcohol issue is one example of the situations in which Steven Joyce has advised his National Party political colleagues in the wrong way. We know he is an expert on polling and focus groups and he is a very principled man in terms of running on the basis of what focus groups and opinion polls think—that is how he makes many of his decisions. But he got this one clearly wrong. The One News Colmar Brunton poll 
showed that 67 percent of people wanted to see the blood-alcohol content lowered. This bill does not do that. 
When Steven Joyce was confronted with those figures—previously he has said the Government would need public support in order for legislation on that to go through—his only response was that support for it would need to be higher than 67 percent. He said on Newstalk ZB it would need to be 75 percent before he would support making a change to the legislation in that respect. Putting aside the fact that he is prepared to sit in a Government that received 45 percent of the vote—it was fine to form a Government on the basis of 45 percent of the vote—when it comes to a change in policy in this respect one needs to have a 75 percent majority. Steven Joyce has put that forward as a whole new argument. 
So this is now the big bold position in this bill: we will do 2 years of research we will empower committees to decide whether to lower the blood-alcohol limit and we will unleash an army of analysts across the crash statistics of New Zealanders drivers to see whether that should happen. This is the staunch leadership on road safety that members opposite are demonstrating! Those members get up and say they are proud of the Safer Journeys programme yet what happened? When it came to a tough decision they ran for the hills and appointed a committee to decide on that issue for them. In 2 years’ time beyond the next general election they are prepared to really show some leadership. So if it is an easy decision they are in for it boots and all with a glossy document. But if it is a tough decision they will do an opinion poll run a focus group and if they are still not sure after doing that they will kick the decision out for 2 years and let the analysts say what they think about the issue. 
I hear my friend the Hon Tau Henare on the other side of the House asking about what Labour did. Well I could spend the balance of my time talking about that because when Labour left office in 2008 we had the lowest road toll since 1959—20 years after that member was born. Twenty years after that member was born in 1959 we saw the lowest road toll ever. That just goes to show that we were taking measures on road safety. But we can park that up. I ask National members opposite this: is it an argument to do nothing because 9 years of a Labour Government did nothing and 9 years of a National Government before it did nothing and 6 years of a Labour Government before it did nothing and 9 years of a National Government before it did nothing? Are we really being told by members opposite that unless something has happened before—that is nothing happened yesterday—there is an excuse to do nothing tomorrow? We are talking about road deaths in our country every single year and we know that one-third of our road deaths are associated with drink and with drugs—and that is before we get into the issue of serious fatalities—yet the only political argument that members opposite can put up is to say “Oh well it didn’t happen during the time of the Labour Government.” 
But let us hang on a minute because two other measures in this bill those to raise the driving age to 16 and to have a zero blood-alcohol content tolerance for drivers under 20 are in legislation that is sitting before select committees right now and they were introduced by the previous Labour Government. So if the argument is all about what the previous Government did can members opposite tell me why they have included into this bill provisions that have already had a first reading in Parliament and are washed up in select committees? One of those committees is chaired by David Bennett so of course surprise surprise it has been stuck there for a while and has not been able to return to the floor of the House. When it comes to the principle of road safety we have measures included in the bill that are not strong enough because the Government lacks the political motivation to do them properly and we have measures included in the bill that were started by the previous Labour Government and which have been marooned in a select committee during the 2 years of this Government. 
Let us not hear the arguments from National members opposite that the only reason not to lower the blood-alcohol limit for adults is that the previous Labour Government did not do that. That cannot be their only answer. If their only other argument is that there is not enough research I tell them that 300 studies clearly show the effect that alcohol has on drivers. If members do not want to read the 300 reports that is fair enough; they can go to just this short little report of 22 pages which the Ministry of Transport prepared for Steven Joyce. It goes through and explains how in every state of Australia—do we remember the country that once upon a time we wanted to catch up with; do we remember that country—that has lowered the blood-alcohol limit to 0.05 grams there has been a drop in fatalities and a drop in serious crashes. When we are talking about human beings and alcohol it is impossible to imagine that the findings in Australia could be any different at all to those in New Zealand. The Government is putting up just the flimsiest of arguments in order not to act on these issues. 
We support the Government in lowering the blood-alcohol content to zero for young drivers. I would like to know why the Government is doing that when there is no New Zealand research on it. There is actually New Zealand research of course in the same way that there is research for adults. The Government is saying it will not move to lower the limit for adults because there is not enough research but it is happy to move to do that for young people. We support the Government in lowering the limit for young people—I stress that—but it is using these arguments fast and loose. These are political responses to matters that should be beyond politics. 
Road safety should not be a left-wing or a right-wing issue; it should be a parliamentary responsibility. I feel very disappointed that Steven Joyce is playing such a strong political game on this rather than working constructively across the House. I believe that if he put up a bill to lower the blood-alcohol limit to 0.05 grams nearly every single member of Parliament would support it. He would get over 110 votes for it. I have a bill in my own name that I know has the support of the majority of members of this House. 
David Bennett 
: Come on Darren it’s not about you. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: No it is about the drivers in this country I say to Mr Bennett. That is exactly what it is about—the drivers and the people of the country. That member who has never once spoken out against his own Government has never had the guts or the strength to get up and say he believes something other than what his Government is saying. For reasons unknown he plays the yes-man card but doing that will result in no reward for him. That man will never be a Minister so he should get on and support something decent. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 That was Darren Hughes the Opposition’s spokesperson on transport. In 2 years of being the Opposition’s spokesperson on transport he has had only one suggestion which was to lower the minimum blood-alcohol level. He has done nothing else in regards to transport in that time and he has provided no leadership in the sector for his party beyond that. The only reason he is doing it is because he is seeking to be populist. He is trying to be another Winston Peters trying to take advantage of a situation when the reality is we need to do that research—research that the previous Labour Government refused to do. When it was in Government when it had the power to do it it did not do it. Now we have to do it so that we can make an informed decision. Labour did not do the research and now we have to do it. Labour members tell us how low the road toll was when they were in Government and that they did not need to make any of these changes. That is the Labour mentality. Yet now they say it is important to make those changes. 
So what has suddenly changed? What has changed in 2 years? All it is is that Darren Hughes is being populist and trying to get his name in the newspaper. He knows there is no publicity for him because he has no vision and no passion for the transport sector. Everybody knows that. He does not care about building up transport and infrastructure. All he is looking for is a populist argument that can get his name before Parliament. That takes away from the real nature of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill—a bill that is here to provide important avenues to improve road safety for New Zealanders. 
The road safety process that has been undertaken by this Government is huge. We have dealt with drugged drivers which the previous Government failed to do. Now we are looking at the minimum driving age. We are looking at tougher sanctions for serious and repeat drink-driving offenders. We are looking at the future of the lawmaking process to make sure we take into account all of the decisions and all of the research available. This is good legislation and shows that the Minister of Transport has a desire to make real progress on transport safety. The  
Safer Journeys: discussion document  
has been the impetus for many of these reforms. They are reforms that National and I believe this Parliament will support because they are in the best interests of New Zealand’s drivers. They are in the best interests of our transport sector. The Government is not going out there just to seek populist comments unlike Labour members who have no vision for transport. That is the reality of the situation. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 That was a very unpopular speech from a very unpopular member David Bennett who likes to talk about unpopularity. I think he is probably an expert in unpopularity particularly when it comes to talking about trains between Waikato and Auckland—boy is that member confused about that issue! As my colleague Darren Hughes said we will be voting for the first reading of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. We support it because we have done a lot on road safety over the last 9 years—a lot of what this bill builds on although there are gaps in it and I will get to those. It builds on Labour’s own programme called See You There—Safe As. Do members remember that? It was an excellent road safety programme that touched on many of the areas that the Government is now promoting through its Safer Journeys programme. As I say a lot of good work has been done and I will acknowledge that. 
This is a very comprehensive bill and again I join my colleague in saying that I am disappointed about its fast track through the select committee process. I am a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and we are quite busy. We have a couple of major employment law bills in front of us with hundreds and hundreds—indeed thousands—of submissions to be heard in a very short time frame. Then here we have very serious legislation about road safety being rushed through as well. I think the chance to consider what is in this bill will be curtailed by that process. 
I want to talk about two issues. The Minister did not say anything about them but I am interested in two things. One issue is the provisions around work time the tightening up of logbooks and the chain of responsibility in relation to truck drivers. The second issue I want to talk about is young drivers and increasing the minimum driving age from 15 to 16. In 2009 there were 54 people killed in truck-related accidents and 1133 people were injured. Economic factors are having a direct impact on the death and injury toll in this industry. So although I am pleased to see that there will be a little bit of tightening up around the work and logbook rules and although I am also pleased to see the reference to chain of responsibility I do not think that it goes anywhere far enough. 
A lot has been done on truck safety over the last 9 years—15 years in fact because there was an inquiry into truck crashes in the late 1990s. We had a horrific accident injury rate and a lot of things have been done. There have been safety improvements and truck injuries have reduced; even though one person a week still dies in a truck-related accident as a percentage of all road users the number of people dying in truck-related deaths and injuries is actually flat-lining. 
But the problem that is not being addressed and that this bill does not address in the trucking industry the transport industry the road freight industry—which is growing massively; we know that freight will increase massively over the next 30 years—is the hypercompetitive nature of the industry the very tight margins for the business and the unsafe contracting that is going on for owner-drivers. 
Back in April there was a story in the  
Sunday Star-Times  
about some owner-drivers and what was happening to them. It was a horrific story about what was happening to them and the link between the way they were being treated through their owner-driver contracts and unsafe and dangerous driving. So I proposed to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee at that time that we should look at an investigation. Of course that was just dismissed out of hand and the Government voted against it. But this is a serious issue. Truck drivers have talked to me about the problems in their industry with unfair and unsafe contracting for owner-drivers leading them to drive up to 100 hours a week—the limit is 70 hours a week. They are scrimping on maintenance and they are taking risks that impact not only on them and their families but on all road users. It is an industry-wide problem with trucking companies which are squeezing owner-drivers. 
As I said it is a highly marginal and competitive industry and the monopoly at the top of the transport industry chain or the supply chain—a duopoly—in our supermarket industry squeezes the prices downwards. So it is not just the contractors who are contracting with the owner-drivers; it is the people above them the people at the top of the supply chain and that is where chain of responsibility comes in in relation to health and safety. 
Drivers have been saying to me that they are so cash-strapped that they often take risks by not repairing their trucks to save money. I have heard some awful stories about them running down their inside tyres to the rims—big trucks have two tyres—because they cannot afford to replace them. They have also been telling me that it is very common for truck drivers to fall asleep behind the wheel to drive without certificates of fitness and repair work to save money to fiddle logbooks and cover up illegal hours to rack up debt on credit cards and bank loans and to remortgage their homes to cover living expenses. As a result of that they suffer horrendous marriage and family stress. There is a lack of holidays because of course as contractors they have no rights and no bargaining power. They have told me that this all adds to the pressure of the job which includes night shifts and being on call 24 hours a day. 
These drivers are on our roads and this legislation does nothing to deal with the problem. It fiddles with the work-time rule—the logbook rule—and it fiddles with the chain of responsibility. When we look at the chain of responsibility legislation which Labour brought in we see that there have been very few prosecutions and the legislation has been in place for a couple of years. I was pleased that in July I think there was a big prosecution and conviction of an Auckland transport firm for allowing its drivers to breach work-time and logbook rules. It is good that there was a successful prosecution but there have been very few of them. The health and safety of these drivers and other road users should be the responsibility of the people who are requiring them to work these hours but that is not happening. So I have been looking very closely at the chain-of-responsibility provisions—even though the Minister did not mention it—in this bill to see whether it makes any difference. As I said there is one truck-related death a week and many injuries and it is still going on week after week. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: You’re going on a bit long. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: The other issue I want to talk about is the issue of the driving age I say to Mr Henare. I thought he might be interested in this. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: No I’m not actually. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Well we are supporting this bill’s referral to the select committee and we would be very interested to hear evidence about what difference if any raising the driving age to 16 will make. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: Why don’t you want evidence on the blood-alcohol level? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: We have got it from every other country and that is what the select committee process is for. Putting the driving age up is like plucking low-hanging fruit. It is one of those things that everybody says will fix the problem: let us pick on the young people and put up the driving age but without finding out whether it will make any difference. I am looking forward to hearing from some young people during the select committee process. As I said Labour is supporting this bill. We will listen to the arguments and we will make a decision about the driving age at the end of that. 
As Darren Hughes said we could have done something about the zero alcohol tolerance for under-20s some time ago. A bill called the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill has been languishing at a select committee for 2 years. In March this year we offered the Government support to fast-track that legislation. We said we should do it. What happened? Absolutely nothing. Our support remains on that issue as does our offer to fast-track that legislation. However what we are doing with this bill is picking low-hanging fruit picking on young people. Let us make sure that we look at the real issues and I hope we will have genuine opportunity to do that at the select committee. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Tena koutou katoa. I rise to speak on behalf of the Green Party on the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. Road safety is hugely important. Already this year 265 people have died on our roads in Aotearoa New Zealand causing huge suffering. I have personally experienced as no doubt have others in this House loss through a truck-related accident and the loss of my best friend and my godchildren is still in my heart more than 20 years later. 
Bad driving is not just about alcohol and youth but about a range of social and economic issues which Darien Fenton alluded to in her speech. It is a very very important issue to all of us and to all our families. However recent progress on road safety has been going backwards. Compared with other highly motorised countries our safety record is poor with a fatality rate double that of Sweden and the United Kingdom. 
The Green Party supports making our roads safer and will support this bill’s referral to a select committee where we will attempt to improve it. Although we support initiatives to improve road safety and reduce drink-driving we believe that not all the initiatives in the bill will achieve their desired effect. We believe that targeting the blood-alcohol levels of under-20-year-olds only scapegoats young people and overlooks the fact that Aotearoa New Zealand has a pervasive drinking problem. Alcohol and drugs contribute to a third of all fatal crashes. The single biggest thing this Government could have done to reduce the road toll was to reduce the blood-alcohol level to 0.05 but unfortunately there is no provision to do so in this bill. The  
Safer Journeys  
report estimated that this would save between 15 and 33 lives every year and every death on the road is a tragedy. 
This bill attempts to promote road safety with methods such as increasing the driving age from 15 to 16 making the legal blood-alcohol concentration level—or BAC—zero for under-20-year-olds and introducing tougher sanctions for drink-drivers. It allows the police to gather blood evidence from drivers involved in serious or fatal injury crashes who have a breath-alcohol reading of between 250 and 400 micrograms per litre of breath. Also it brings some rules about enforcement—about parking bylaw-making powers etc—from older transport legislation into the Land Transport Act 1998. 
The Green Party is a great supporter of taking drunk and drugged drivers off the road. Driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol contributes to a third of all fatal crashes and results in 119 deaths and 572 serious injuries each year and we often forget that those serious injuries come at an enormous cost and stress to everybody concerned. Since 2000 we as a nation have made no further progress on reducing the number of deaths and serious injuries occurring from drink-driving. For 15 to 19-year-olds and 25 to 34-year-olds the trend has actually been worsening. The social cost of drink-driving is $833 million. 
Our current legal blood-alcohol concentration is 0.08 for adults. This equates to consuming six standard drinks within 90 minutes for an average man—a fact that was notoriously demonstrated by the claim of the Minister of Transport Steven Joyce that he could drink three-quarters of a bottle of wine and still be within the guidelines. We agree with the Minister’s description that the existing legal alcohol limits for drivers are ridiculous. 
The World Health Organization recommends a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.05 as a key to reducing drink-driving. France achieved a 30 percent reduction in drink-driving fatalities when it lowered its allowable blood-alcohol concentration from 0.08 to 0.05. New Zealand Transport Agency analysis suggests that 15 to 33 lives a year could be saved by such a move here with an estimated social cost saving of $111 million to $238 million a year. Who would not want to make that saving? Which of us parents and grandparents would not want our tamariki and mokopuna to be safer on the road? We could solve this long-term issue by taking a braver step than this bill allows. 
We are disappointed that the Government has chosen to place the blame on young people rather than highlight the most important recommendation to come out of the Ministry of Transport’s  
Safer Journeys 
 discussion paper. If this “keystone” element to saving lives on our roads is not addressed at the select committee the Green Party will move an amendment in the Committee stage to lower the alcohol limit for adult drivers to 0.05 micrograms per 100 millilitres to move our limit in line with that used by most countries. We are keen to look at other measures to reduce the terrible toll that alcohol is causing on our roads. We believe that reducing drink-driving needs more emphasis on treatment and not just on stricter penalties. We are looking forward to the select committee consideration which will allow greater investigation into how the bill might be improved to better achieve its aims. We will also raise important civil liberty questions raised by the expanded rights of the police to gather evidence from drivers suspected of being under the influence. 
In looking at raising the driving age from 15 to 16 years our caucus and our members challenged ourselves to look seriously at the issue and the evidence that our 15 to 17-year-olds have the highest death rate in the OECD. The Green Party supports raising the driving age to 16. However we look forward to hearing at the select committee submissions from rural communities and from young drivers who live in areas with very little or no public transport and God knows there are plenty of those. We would like to investigate the possibility of having exemptions for 15-year-olds where public transport alternatives are not available. This is a very real issue. Any of us who have lived in rural Aotearoa know that there are many regions where we need to talk about this because our tamariki are trying to get to school and events and they do not always have any options in regard to public transport and they can sometimes be very good drivers. 
Safer transport journeys are not limited just to the speed limit blood-alcohol levels drugs or driving age. This road safety bill fails to address the fact that pedestrians and cyclists are the most vulnerable road users. 
This bill is too narrow and unchallenging. The focus is heavily weighted towards vehicle safety and direct deaths and injuries caused by our road system. If the Government was taking a really broad look at road safety it might take a leaf from the Green Party’s submission on Safer Journeys and point out that it is now well-established that as many people die as a result of pollution from road vehicles as are killed on our roads directly. In addition greater reliance on cars as our primary means of transport is exacerbating our current obesity epidemic. Then we have people in this House like me who are wimps and do not want to ride a bicycle because we have seen too many people knocked over by mad drivers yet we would like to be more competent and far more fit cyclists. 
Our submission on Safer Journeys emphasised walking and cycling priorities including lowering urban speed limits supporting the 1.5m campaign encouraging a modal shift out of cars to safer more healthy modes of transport and broadening the current narrow focus of road safety to look at the wider impacts of our driving culture on health such as addressing obesity and the hidden particulate road toll. If we are to achieve Safer Journeys then we need a wider vision for road safety—one that incorporates indirect as well as direct casualties from transport. If we are to achieve Safer Journeys then this bill should propose ways of reducing overall levels of vehicular traffic whilst simultaneously encouraging investment in more active modes of travel like walking and cycling. 
The Green Party does support Safer Journeys for all Kiwi and urges the Government to do more than just scapegoat young drivers. It should lower the blood-alcohol level for all drivers and adopt a broader and far more holistic vision for road safety. Thank you. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tatou katoa e te Whare. I note a couple of things when I look through the stats on this take. The first point is that Polynesians drive less often than Pakeha—probably because we cannot afford cars as much as they can—but we get hurt in more accidents; the rate is three times higher than for non-Maori and we die more often from car accidents. The figure is 20 percent for Maori compared with 8 percent for non-Maori or 20 out of every 10000 for Maori compared with eight per 10000 for non-Maori. 
The second point is that Maori children are injured a lot more often than non-Maori in car accidents. A big part of that is about where a lot of Maori people live. For example Tai Tokerau and more specifically the Far North District Council has more unsealed roads than any other district in the whole country. It is a problem made worse by the fact that our rating base is not strong because of low socio-economic conditions. So there is not a lot of spare money to spend on roading improvements and on top of all that our roads are subject to massive wear and tear from forestry trucks as well. So the state of our roads is a major factor in that area as it is down the coast as well. 
Then there is the state of a lot of the vehicles on our roads. I see a lot of them up close when I am hitchhiking around the north and I do not mind admitting that I have got into some pretty dodgy looking vehicles over the last few years. But people have to use their cars and keep them running even without a warrant and registration because there is very little in the way of public transport which is another major factor. 
Driving behaviour is a problem common to all but it is made worse by our road conditions. There is too much speeding too much drinking and too little use of seatbelts. 
On top of those factors a lot of Maori are young—very young—so in terms of death rates from accidents their rates are more than twice that of the rest of the population. For young Maori those rates are even worse: 14 per 10000 compared with just three per 10000 for non-Maori. Given the horrific statistics that apply to Maori particularly young Maori I was more than a little disappointed but not particularly surprised that in the whole 93 pages of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill Maori do not get a mention at all. 
So what can we do about it? Well one thing I have noticed is that local health providers are working with whanau to make sure that all kids have car seats and they are teaching everyone how important it is for kids to use them. Defensive driving courses help. I know because my mokopuna has been asking for money to do a defensive driving course to shorten his time on a restricted licence. That is two pluses for me: he learns to drive better and my lawns get mowed three times to pay for the course. 
The Street Talk defensive driving courses like those being run at the Manukau Urban Maori Authority in conjunction with Te Wananga o Aotearoa help drivers improve their driving behaviour. Fran Hokianga reckons—and I am not sure about this; it sounds pretty cool—that they see about 70 students a month. She tells us that the wananga has a 98 percent pass rate and that the 2 percent who do not pass are the ones who do not show up at all. So it is good to see those kinds of initiatives being supported in the bill. 
We support the proposed zero breath/blood alcohol concentration for drivers aged under 20 but we would make that the case for all drivers not just for young ones. Although it is true that drinking is a problem for young people it is true that drinking is a huge problem for our whole society and our kids are really just playing follow my daddy. 
We know that increasing fines does not work because they just stack up the odds against people and make them more devious and more dangerous. 
We do not like the police getting new powers for blood collection particularly given their deceitful record in getting DNA under dubious circumstances over the past few years. 
We do not support for a whole host of reasons the proposal to raise the minimum driving age particularly in rural communities and we are disappointed that there is not enough in the bill about road safety awareness for young drivers. The better informed they are the better chance there is that they will behave better particularly in crisis situations. 
The Maori Party will support the bill to go through its first reading to allow for Maori groups and individuals who have a stake in this issue to make submissions to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on how they think the bill might be changed to improve services to Maori in the future. Our vote beyond the first reading will be determined by what we hear through the select committee process. Tena koe. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I rise in support of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. One of the reasons—in fact the only reason—is the number of young people killed on our roads every year. It is not just the act of losing a young vibrant life; it is what that loss does to a family to the community to the school to the university and to that young person’s place of employment. It has such an effect on those around the victim and it leaves such a hole in their lives. 
I for one think that we have an opportunity to try to do something as our road policy says. Our road strategy is called Safer Journeys. It is about me as a person wanting to travel on our roads without the fear of something happening that is out of my control due to bad driving a person under the influence or what have you. So I am absolutely in favour of the measures set out in the bill and I cannot wait until it gets to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and we hold our hearings on it. I think we will find that yes there is an issue over the fact that one side believes that the blood-alcohol limit is too high and needs to come down. I think we will find that most people around the country believe that for young new drivers there should be a zero limit. They just should not get into cars when they have been drinking. The country also believes that a 0.05 limit is going a wee bit close to saying that the limit should be zero. So I think that allowing— 
David Shearer 
: It doesn’t say that. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Sorry? 
David Shearer 
: The surveys are that 66 percent of people support— 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Is the member going to take a call? I think that the member should have taken a call if he really feels passionate about— 
David Shearer 
: I will. I am. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Good. We will wait for his pearls of wisdom. 
It is imperative that we set out a schedule of things—or to use the buzzwords and all of that jargon milestones or key indicators—that young people should reach before they get their licences. Getting a licence these days is one of the biggest steps that we allow our young people to take. I think that 90 percent of young people out there are good drivers and responsible drivers. But it is the 10 percent or so who create havoc. There is havoc not only for them but also for the rest of the drivers and the community. 
I am passionate about the effects that drink-driving and poor driving habits have on our community. I have been part of it and I have seen bodies lined up on the marae aged 18 19 and 20. People say that that is a tragedy and a waste; I say that a tragedy and a waste sometimes cannot be avoided but this sort of stuff can be. You know it is not as if it is an act of God. This sort of stuff—this carnage—can be sorted out and one of the ways to do that is what we are doing here. 
In conclusion I tell the House again that I cannot wait until the bill comes to our select committee. I think that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee is a good select committee and I am sure that we will have a bit of fun with the legislation as well. Kia ora. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 This is an interesting scenario. I follow the Hon Tau Henare in the debate and in fact I agree with an overwhelming amount of what he has just said. That makes a good change and perhaps we are on a new path in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee but I think perhaps not in the short term. 
I rise to speak in favour of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. Obviously this bill as others have mentioned is to put in place a number of key initiatives from the  
Safer Journeys: discussion document 
 which came out last year. It is the Government’s road safety strategy to 2020. The measures in this fairly comprehensive bill cover a range of aspects. They cover enhancing the enforceability of the current provisions within the Land Transport Act improving the safety of young drivers toughening the sanctions for serious or repeat driving offenders and clarifying and augmenting the powers of road-controlling authorities. 
We support the main aspects of the bill and I will talk about those. I start by saying that Labour believes in promoting road safety. As others have said many of the tragedies on our roads are tragedies that did not need to happen. The loss of people in this country and the implications for their families and friends and for our economy is terrible. So we support increasing the minimum licence age from 15 to 16 years. We support the zero limit for repeat drink-drivers. We support the alcohol interlocks for repeat offenders. We support doubling the minimum prison time for drunk drugged or reckless driving causing death. But what we do not support and this is where I do disagree with the Hon Tau Henare is this Government’s cop-out over not going through with the proposals to lower the adult limit for drunk driving from 0.08 to 0.05 blood-alcohol concentration. 
I will talk about that a little bit more because it is a very important issue for us but before I do I will talk about some numbers. One could call them statistics except that they are about people. The good thing is that over the past 35 years the road toll has dropped significantly so that is something to celebrate. However and this is what was shown in the work done on Safer Journeys the progress has slowed. The progress in reducing the number of road deaths has slowed and we really need to focus on what we can do to change that. The other thing that has occurred is that the number of serious injuries has risen by 6 percent since 2004. So there are some clear indications of things that we need to focus on. 
The other important bit of information I noted in this report was that compared with other OECD countries New Zealand has a relatively high rate of road deaths per head of population so clearly there are things we can do. Clearly other countries are doing some things better than us and we need to pick up those things and make some changes. This bill proposes a number of changes that we support. 
We are a highly motorised country; we use roads a lot. Some of that is to do with our geography and our demographics. We are spread out and we are quite a small population. Some of it has been about active choices and I will come back to that. But none the less even when we take that into account the figures still show that in a comparison of our level of deaths per vehicle kilometres travelled with the level in other countries we see very poor results for this country. Based on the 2008 results we have a road fatality rate of 9.1 deaths per billion vehicle kilometres compared with 6.5 deaths per billion vehicle kilometres in Australia. In France the figure is 7.7 deaths per billion vehicle kilometres travelled; in Ireland it is 5.7; and in the United Kingdom which is the best performer it is 5 deaths. This is about people. Those are not just figures; those are dead people. We need to take this very very seriously. 
I am glad that this bill will be coming before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and I am looking forward to working on it. The costs of those deaths and those injuries are huge. They are huge for people and they are huge for families that have lost somebody whom they love. The cost of serious injury can also be huge in terms of suffering in terms of loss of income and in terms of relationships within families. 
A very moving story in a weekend newspaper—I think it was either last weekend or the weekend before—talked about a couple who were in a serious road accident. Both of them survived but both of them had very serious injuries. Neither of them has got back to full-time work. Their marriage has subsequently deteriorated and they have split up. The cost to their children has been immense and the cost to the taxpayer has been immense. So in terms of personal suffering and financial costs we see that this is a significant burden for New Zealand. Again I reinforce that we need to do something about it. 
One of the things that is mentioned in the  
Safer Journeys 
 report is as I have said our dependence on cars. I made the point that there is potentially a choice and particularly in our major urban areas we have some choices. We have choices about whether we favour putting more and more money into road transport versus increasing the funding put into public transport. There has been a clear difference between the previous Labour Government and the current National Government in this regard. The relative weighting of funding has shifted from what we were trying to fund under the previous Government more towards roads. Yet we know that if are talking about Safer Journeys public transport—for example using bus lanes in Auckland—is generally going to be safer than car transport. We know that getting trucks off the road and replacing them with the movement of freight by rail will be significantly safer. 
In fact again we see that there is no doubt at all that truck crashes are more serious. I quote from  
Safer Journeys 
: “Crashes involving trucks are usually more serious than those involving lighter vehicles because of their greater size and weight.” Of course this Government is also allowing even heavier trucks on to our roads. So there is a real road safety question. We need to shift more freight off roads and on to rail. We make no bones about it on this side of the House. Labour loves rail. We think rail has a really important role to play here in terms of safety. 
I note that some major improvements in terms of rail will be opened soon in Auckland. I am sure that the Minister of Transport in opening the Onehunga branch line this Saturday and a week later the New Lynn train station will acknowledge that these were initiatives of the previous Labour Government. I am expecting to see and I am sure I will see the Hon Steven Joyce up there acknowledging the contribution of the previous Government in initiating those projects. I look forward to both of them. 
This is an issue in the mayoral campaign as well. There is quite a key distinction between John Banks who favours roads and thinks that eventually we might get a bit more public transport and Len Brown who has a vision for public transport in Auckland. 
I want to go on to the issue of alcohol. Certainly my colleague Darren Hughes is to be commended for his work in raising the issue of the Government’s complete lack of backbone in relation to the issue of reducing the adult alcohol limit for driving. We do not agree with the Government’s cop-out in failing to move to lower the adult drink-driving limit from 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood to 50 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood. There is a weight of scientific evidence to back that up and we certainly support it. There is clear public support. Despite what the Hon Tau Henare said there is huge public support for the issue of moving the drink-driving limit. I am sure my colleague David Shearer will be talking about this a little more—it is overwhelming. I think we all know why. I want to quote from a Bay of Plenty trial where a number of journalists started drinking excessively to see when they would get over the current drink-drive limits. In that particular case each journalist failed a breath test after consuming eight bottles of beer or five glasses of wine. I am sure that most people in this House know that if they drank as much as that they should not drive. Thank you. 
Hon HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the first reading of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. ACT will be supporting this bill to go to the select committee although we have a number of specific concerns about some provisions of this bill that we would like to see raised there. 
As the Minister of Transport has identified New Zealand has a serious problem with road safety. When we compare our statistics—not confining ourselves to young people but across the board—with those of other countries we see that we are not doing well. I have often been heard saying that there is no one silver bullet. The three things we should be doing are what I call the three Es. The first is enforcement of the current laws. We should be taking those very seriously and doing a better job. The second is education about driving particularly for our young people but not exclusively. The third is engineering. Certainly the overseas experience is that particularly in Europe when there are well-engineered roads the road toll drops significantly. 
Here in New Zealand too many Kiwis in particular our young people take a somewhat reckless attitude to driving. This attitude is all too evident in the statistics. When we look at them we see that we far outstrip our nearest neighbour Australia in annual road toll fatality rates. ACT is pleased that this bill identifies a number of the core factors in these fatality statistics. The bill attempts to crack down on those who have not just once or twice but time and again shown themselves to be irresponsible behind the wheel. It allows the courts to impose an interlock sentence on those who have been repeatedly caught driving under the influence of alcohol. The bill also doubles the maximum period of imprisonment from 5 years to 10 years for those found guilty of causing death while driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol or of driving recklessly. Certainly we are in favour of that move. Such measures are to be applauded; in fact they are long overdue. They will target those who have shown scant regard for the safety of themselves and more particularly of others when driving. 
The ACT Party has some concerns as I said about parts of this bill. The concentration has largely been around the minimum driving age. We are not convinced that the benefits of increasing the minimum driving age from 15 to 16 years outweigh the negatives. I think a large number of factors need to be thought of when we consider this change and we welcome the opportunity to discuss them at the select committee. 
One thing I have always been personally quite swayed by is the experience of the insurance industry. It needs to look very carefully of course at the patterns of behaviour so that it can put in place the premiums that it charges. I remember reading quite some time ago—I need to dig this evidence out again—that the danger period is not solely dependent on age but is when a person has been driving for around 100 hours. They drive quite carefully to start with and with a little more caution perhaps than they do once they become more confident drivers. That is when the accident rates start to spike. It does not seem that the starting age impacts very much on that pattern of behaviour; it is the 100 hours beyond the starting point for that driver that is the period of higher risk. Those things need to be looked at in detail at the select committee; I am hoping to sit in on some of those discussions. 
For many people particularly those in our rural communities cars are the only means of transport available. In rural areas there is simply no public transport system—no buses and trains—available and most often no taxis either. I grew up in a very small rural community in East Otago where everybody usually started driving the day they hit 15 if not before. Certainly kids who grew up on farms were driving well before that day. My experience was that those who started driving before the age of 15 on private property usually turned out to be very good and safe drivers. 
Rural communities have difficulty with roads that are not always up to scratch and we need to take a large number of factors into consideration but we cannot ignore the fact that the lives of young people are impacted on if the minimum driving age rises to 16. Depriving young people of the ability to drive in many cases deprives them of employment and of sporting social and educational opportunities. That consideration must not be left out of the mix when we consider what we will do with this legislation. 
Although there can be no doubt that young people are overrepresented in accident statistics whether simply pushing their right to drive back by 1 year will solve the problem is questionable. Certainly if I come back to my 100-hour rule the answer to that question would be no. It means that we would just delay the same patterns by a year. All of those things need to be investigated carefully at the select committee. Raising the minimum driving age to 16 is an approach that will disadvantage thousands of young Kiwis through no fault of their own. 
I go back again to what is most effective when we look at how we tackle our shocking statistics on the road. The three Es are very important beginning with the enforcement of the laws that we already have. In many cases we race to put laws in place when very good laws already exist but are not enforced adequately. Rather than rush to put more laws on the statute book we need to look at what we have make sure that there are enforcement opportunities and make sure that they are being routinely taken care of. 
Education is also hugely important. It is easy to say that but it is the long-term approach and it is shown to change behaviour over time. Probably the best example is defensive driving courses. Those courses will be maintained in the new legislation. There will be the incentive of decreasing the period of restricted driving for those who undertake a defensive driving course. My understanding is that at the moment those on learner licences are not able to participate in defensive driving courses but this legislation will allow that to be a viable option as it should be. There is no wrong time to educate our young people about driving alcohol consumption and the like. 
The third thing is that we must not allow this legislation to let us take our foot off the accelerator on engineering—on the fixing up of our roads. I am pleased to say that that is happening. I had a holiday in the South Island at the end of last year. It is an area that I am well used to. I was amazed at how much better the roads are now than they were even about 5 years ago. That is continuing but we must make sure that engineering and maintaining safe roads continues unabated. 
The ACT Party will support this bill’s referral to a select committee. We will support that referral to allow the select committee to study the various provisions in the bill investigate what has worked investigate what works well overseas that we could adopt here and come up with a final bill that will adequately address the serious problems New Zealand has with road safety without unnecessarily and unfairly targeting those who are driving responsibly. It is very important that we get the balance right and we hope to make a contribution at the select committee to achieve that balance. Thank you. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I think it is helpful to measure these proposed changes against the road safety priorities that were set out in  
Safer Journeys: discussion document 
. That document very helpfully laid out areas of high and medium concern and also the areas for continued focus and emerging issues. It is helpful because there are an infinite number of road safety initiatives that could be implemented and those initiatives were certainly amongst the thousands of submissions that have been received. It is simply not possible to do all of them. 
The areas of high concern identified were reducing alcohol and drug-impaired driving increasing the safety of our young drivers safer roads and roadsides safer speeds and increasing the safety of motorcycling. Those areas are all either addressed in the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill or have been implemented in previous actions by the Minister of Transport—for example the measure on mandatory headlight use on motorcycles and the drug-driver laws that we have recently passed. But I will talk about the first two of the high-concern issues and they are the reduction in drug and alcohol - impaired driving and the safety of our young. 
In respect of alcohol I think it is a bit of a shame that this debate has been dominated by the Government’s strategy of gathering more data on the impact of reducing the blood-alcohol limit to 0.05 because in this area there are a number of very good and meaningful clauses in the bill about alcohol impairment. Lowering the legal youth drink-driving limit from 0.03 to zero lowering the drink-driving limit to zero for recidivist drink-drivers and the use of interlocks are all very very effective measures. The Labour transport spokesman challenged a member of the National Government to guarantee that driving at a level of 80 milligrams would be just as safe as driving at 50 milligrams. Well that guarantee will not happen and the reason it will not happen is that we just do not know. The data does not exist to support it. The gathering of the data— 
David Shearer 
: Whereas we do know about the alcohol. We do know that. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: No there is no data that says that a person driving with blood-alcohol content of 0.05 will cause an accident and that accident will cause impairment. The data has never been collected in this country so it makes very good sense to collect it. I find it ironic that the member Ms Fenton is quite happy to ask our youth for evidence on increasing the driving age from 15 to 16 years because it should be supported by good evidence before we do it but she places no such requirement on the really bigger issue I think of reducing the blood-alcohol level. 
Darien Fenton 
: There is already evidence—lots of evidence. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: Well we will hear about that in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee I am absolutely sure but the data does not exist. 
I think the real issue that needs to be addressed—and that some of these measures will address—is that despite all of that an unacceptably high number of drivers continue to exceed the 0.08 level. Last year I think about 36000 people were convicted of driving while over that limit—36000. Despite the best efforts of our law enforcement agencies they will not catch every single person who currently drives when over the existing blood-alcohol level. We probably have several hundred thousand drink-driving incidents on our roads every year. Although I support the collection of data on the issue of whether the level should be 0.05 and 0.08 I very strongly commend the policies and the efforts of the police to reduce that shameful statistic. The introduction of zero blood-alcohol levels and interlocks for recidivist drink-drivers and the youth zero blood-alcohol level will certainly improve that statistic. 
I did not want to get into a political debate on this issue as we will get widespread support for it but Mr Hughes opened the door. In response to an interjection questioning why Labour did not lower the blood-alcohol limit in the 9 years it was in charge he said that a bill was introduced by the previous Government and the road toll had reduced under Labour. I am afraid that is simply not borne out by the statistics which show that in 2002 the 12-month road toll was 404 and in 2009 it was 406. It went up it went down and it went up again but it has basically slid sideways since the turn of the millennium. If we measure that in terms of deaths per vehicle kilometres we have very poor statistics. The statistics are also flat—declining slightly but not nearly as well as they are in other countries around the world. Over the period between 2002 and 2009 New Zealand had an 82 percent higher death rate per kilometre than in the United Kingdom a 60 percent higher rate than in Ireland and a 40 percent higher rate than in Australia. It is simply not true to say that the initiatives of the previous Labour Government were having sufficient effect. 
Everybody agrees even Labour members that this legislation is necessary. Despite that it is good that the vast majority of Labour members with perhaps the unanimous support of all members—I am not sure what the Greens are doing—will support the bill. It will provide a refreshing change I think for the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee to work perhaps a little more collegially over the next few months on this legislation than it will on industrial relations legislation and I look forward to that. I commend the bill to the House. 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 As has been stated Labour will support the referral of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. I think we can make some real improvements to the bill. As many other members have said this legislation is important. It is important in terms of the number of people who die or who are injured on our roads and it is also important in terms of the costs we incurred from the road toll. I want to speak to three points on which I think the Government is being rather inconsistent. I was not going to mention the blood-alcohol limit because Darren Hughes mentioned it previously but let me highlight a couple of issues. 
In terms of reducing the blood-alcohol level from 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood to 50 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood let me quote one physician Professor Jennie Connor an epidemiologist from Otago University. She said that reducing the level from 80 to 50 will have four times more impact in terms of fatal road crashes. Alcohol is a factor in one in three crashes. 
The Minister of Transport said that if he drank three-quarters of a bottle of wine in an hour or an hour and a half he would not be fit to drive. In fact he said it is ridiculous that he would drive after drinking as much as that. Yet that same Minister is prepared to keep the blood-alcohol limit exactly the same as it is. The Ministry of Transport says that reducing the blood-alcohol limit would save 33 lives 680 injuries and about $200 million a year. I do not understand how that Minister can be different from the rest of us. Is he not able to take as much alcohol as the rest of us? I do not think so; he is a big person. Yet he says it is ridiculous that he should be able to drive after drinking to the level that people are allowed to reach today. 
I ask what is different about New Zealanders. What is so different about New Zealanders that we have to do more studies to try to explain why we should not move the blood-alcohol limit from 80 to 50 immediately? In Australia the limit is 50 in the UK it is 50 and in France it is 50 and they know they have already saved lives as a result of moving the blood-alcohol level down. What is so different about people living in New Zealand that we have to have more studies to see what excess blood alcohol does to us as human beings? It does not make any sense. 
I believe that what we are seeing here is a spin on a public relations exercise that has gone badly wrong. The Minister said in a number of statements that he was surprised that in a poll on this issue about two-thirds of New Zealanders supported a reduction in the blood-alcohol limit. He thought it would be closer to fifty-fifty or even lower. So he took a punt on it was surprised then could not go back. Thirty-three people will lose their lives as a result of the Minister’s decision not to lower the blood-alcohol level any earlier. 
I want to speak on another topic and that is the Puhoi to Wellsford road—the “Holiday Highway”. The Minister of Transport Mr Joyce actually called it the “Holiday Highway” at a recent infrastructure conference. He too believes that it is a holiday highway and is there to benefit people who want to go to the beaches around Omaha quickly in the long weekends as the Prime Minister does. There are two reasons for building that highway: one is the economic benefit and the other is safety. The economic benefits simply do not stack up. The rate of return is 0.8. So for every dollar we spend we get 80c back. In other words we will get less back than we will spend on the highway. When I have spoken to economists about this none of them could understand how we could even get to 0.8. Most of them think the figure is closer to 0.3. I am talking about a $1.6 billion—possibly $2 billion—piece of roading. Just think what you could do with $2 billion—or $1.6 billion if you want to be conservative. You could restore the health cuts lower accident compensation levies or fund the SuperGold card for the next 60 years. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! 
DAVID SHEARER 
: Yet the Minister of Transport has been talking about withdrawing limiting or restricting its applicability. That money—for a highway that will not even produce a return—represents 60 years of the SuperGold card 
The second reason given for building the highway is that it will be safer. The ridiculous thing is that 50 people will die on the roads while this new road is being constructed based on the average road toll over the last 9 or 10 years. There will be 50 more deaths. Let me explain this because there are other alternatives. 
The Campaign for Better Transport and the Auckland Transport Blog did some pretty good studies on some alternatives. For $320 million as opposed to $2 billion we could get the current road upgraded to three lanes get centres strips put through the middle of the highway get a Warkworth bypass and even get a new bypass that takes away the Schedewys Hill bends. It would generate three to four times the cost-benefit that the current scheme will. I am pleased to see that the Minister is back in the Chamber because I would like him to hear this. The $320 million scheme as opposed to the $2 billion one would give you 90 percent of the benefits at about one-seventh of the cost. Then you can use that extra money for the SuperGold card for example. I say to the Minister that the SuperGold card could be funded for the next 60 years with what you— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: On numerous occasions the member has brought me into the debate. Members cannot say “you”; that refers to the presiding officer. That is what I mentioned before—SuperGold card or not it is not me. 
DAVID SHEARER 
: I apologise for that Mr Deputy Speaker and for any reference that the SuperGold card might apply to you. As I said we could have 60 years worth of SuperGold card for the cost of one highway. 
I want to mention one last feature and that is the report which came out today done by the  
Herald 
-DigiPoll about transport in Auckland. It is really really interesting. When Aucklanders were asked what they wanted more than anything else in terms of transport 23 percent or nearly a quarter of Aucklanders saw the No. 1 priority as a rail link to the airport. That was really surprising. It well and truly exceeded any upgrades to Auckland’s roads. 
The other interesting thing that came up in that report is that nearly two-thirds of Aucklanders would like to see rail and road on the new harbour crossing. Again Aucklanders are changing their perspective on the roading outlook to one that is more mixed with public transport. Unfortunately that does not seem to fit with this Minister’s outlook in terms of his dedication to roads. 
Just the other day when the Minister was asked questions in relation to the Auckland mayoral candidates and what they believe is needed he said that roading projects are still to be built and that they should come before any talk of new rail projects. That is what he said in August on Radio New Zealand National. The Minister is not visionary; he is merely “rear-visionary”. He looks behind him to what people wanted before rather than at what people want today. Thank you. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I appreciate the opportunity to close the debate on the first reading of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I do not want to spend too long on the bill but I would like to address a few remarks to those 15-year-olds out there who are obviously going to be disappointed that they will be held back a year before they can get their driver’s licence. I would ask them to understand that it has been estimated that moving the age up just one year to 16 years will save at least four lives a year and will prevent 25 serious injuries and 148 minor injuries a year. That is significant. It is also estimated that in social-cost terms there will be a saving of about $38 million. 
I ask those young people to understand that the world has changed enormously since I got my driver’s licence very shortly after my 15th birthday 45 years ago but the driving age has not been adjusted accordingly. When I went for my test the first thing you did was ring up the local traffic cop said you wanted to take your licence test and they gave you a time. You showed up you hopped in the car and the first thing you did was wind down the driver’s window. This was so that when you came to do the right-turn test you could stick your arm out the window to indicate that you were changing direction or if you were stopping to stick your arm out and give the “stop” sign. If you were turning left you stuck your hand in the front of the windscreen to indicate to oncoming traffic that you were going left. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! I am not— 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: I am sorry Mr Deputy Speaker. I should have learnt from your reprimanding of my colleague the previous speaker David Shearer and you are quite right. 
So I put my hand across the front of the windscreen and indicated. If the youngster was unlucky he or she was required to stop on a slight slope and show the ability to start again without rolling back. The driver went around the block the traffic cop said “Yes son you’re fine.” and in 10 minutes one had his or her licence. There was much less traffic on the road than there is now. Cars were far less powerful. I do not think I knew 15-year-olds who had the use of their own car. It was a matter of massive negotiation with one’s parents. There was certainly no suggestion that one would drive to school. A lot of lawns had to be mowed in order to get the use of the car once a week if one was lucky. I hope that 15-year-olds will appreciate that there is very very good reason for this change being made. I think many of us would think that it is quite long overdue. I am pleased to see it happening. With that I commend the bill to the House and I support its referral to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I move  
That the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee consider the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill 
 that the committee report finally to the House on or before 16 December 2010 and have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area despite Standing Orders 187 189(a) and 190(1)b) and (c). 
Motion agreed to.