Lees-Galloway Iain: Alcohol Reform Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Lees-Galloway Iain: Alcohol Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 06 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7284. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 I am going to speak to Supplementary Order Paper 40 in my name which adds new Part 11 to the bill and would amend the Land Transport Act in order to lower the legal drink-driving limit from 0.08 to 0.05. What that seeks to do is to end legal drunk-driving in New Zealand. 
I want to say that I was a little bit of a latecomer to this argument. When Steven Joyce first started talking about lowering the blood-alcohol limit as a positive step to reduce the harm on our roads and to reduce the harm caused by alcohol I was not terribly convinced. But it was after a conversation with two National Party MPs whom I will not name for the sake of not embarrassing them today that I went away and looked into this issue a little bit more. Those two National MPs said that they had participated in the exercise where they steadily consumed more alcohol through the evening and went on a driving simulator to see how good their driving was and how confident they felt about driving. They both discovered that they became uncomfortable with being behind the wheel well before they hit the 0.08 level at which point it becomes illegal to be behind the wheel. 
So at that point I went away and had a look into this and I discovered some very interesting facts. Overseas where the limit has been dropped from 0.08 to 0.05—and many nations have done this many years ago; this is not a new initiative by any stretch of the imagination—what we have seen is not only have the people who have been between 0.05 and 0.08 been taken off the road but also there is a significant reduction in the number of people who are heavily intoxicated on the road. That is one of the arguments I hear repeated again and again as to why we should not implement this measure now which is that we ought to be focusing on the people who are heavily intoxicated. That was the argument made by the Automobile Association. That was also the argument made by the hospitality industry. 
However if we look at the evidence in other jurisdictions where the rate has been lowered we have seen a significant reduction in the number of people who are heavily intoxicated on the road. So we do not even have to focus on taking them off the road as they never seem to get on the road in the first place. Why is that? Well the reasons are varied. One theory is that when the change was made there was a lot of social marketing around it and people became much more aware of ensuring that they were below the limit and that they were safer to drive when they left the pub and got on the road. The second is that the limit is low and therefore people do not try to push themselves right up to the limit misjudge that and end up getting over the limit. But the most important factor appears to be that as people who are trying to get themselves to just below the limit get closer to 0.08 they are too intoxicated not only to drive but also to make a sensible decision about whether or not they should get behind the wheel. At that point they continue to drink—continue to drink—until they are heavily intoxicated and then they get behind the wheel and that is when the carnage happens. 
So I am surprised that I have even had to bring this amendment to the House because the Government has had ample opportunity to get on with the job. In fact I believe that if we had a free vote on this issue it would pass easily because I know there are a number of MPs from a number of different parties who support this amendment. I think that it will lose narrowly today—narrowly—and that is only because the National Party is going to block vote against it even though I know that a number of National MPs support this initiative. 
I have also appealed to Peter Dunne to get behind this initiative as well. His response was that this is a worthy thing to do it is the right thing to do but the way we should go about it is to amend the transport legislation. Well I would refer members to my Supplementary Order Paper—new Part 11 “Amendments to Land Transport Act 1998”. That is exactly what this amendment does. It is the right thing to do. It will save lives. The people want it to happen. The Government has had the opportunity to do it. Change your minds National members and get behind this amendment today.