O'Rourke Denis: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Rourke Denis: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 03 July 2014. Volume:700;Page:19236. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First):New Zealand First at first supported the Land Transport Amendment Bill as far as the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee because we wanted to hear what submitters had to say but we cannot support the bill any further. Although we in New Zealand First acknowledge that drink-driving in New Zealand is still a very serious problem and we know that there were 61 deaths between 2009 and 2012 plus over a thousand injuries this bill represents nothing more than minimal action and of course it is far too late.New Zealand First supports tougher measures to curb the worst cases of drink-driving but this bill is badly targeted and is aimed at the drink-drivers who do the least harm. The bill would lower the allowable breath-alcohol content from 400 to 250 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath and would reduce the current blood-alcohol limit from 80 milligrams to 50 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. Disobedience of these new limits is to be addressed only in the form of infringement penalties on the grounds that they are in the less serious range of offending. That actually is the real issue here because these people are not in the range of those who cause the deaths and injuries so targeting these people is not likely to have the desired effect of reducing the death and injury rate on our roads as we would all require.The lower infringement limits as proposed in this bill may in fact have an unintended perverse effect. There will be some people who will convince themselves that drinking to an estimated blood-alcohol range of 50 milligrams to 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood or between 250 to 400 micrograms per litre of breath when driving is OK because it is only an infringement offence for which a small fine and few demerit points are incurred if caught. It could have an unintended perverse effect in that way.Although there is some evidence and research that shows driver impairment between the proposed limits and the existing limits there is very little convincing evidence that people are likely to harm themselves or others if they do so. That is not the range in which the harm really occurs. It is therefore clear to me that New Zealand’s existing alcohol limits in relation to driving are unlikely to be too high and that lowering them would be unlikely to be effective. The main value of a significantly lower blood-alcohol limit is that it could result in drink-drivers making decisions much earlier in their drinking sessions about how much they will drink and whether or not they will go out and drive afterwards. That may in fact be true initially but the effect is very likely to wear off over time as people get used to the new norm so nothing much will have been achieved.We in New Zealand First believe that a better long-term effect could be achieved by firstly significantly increasing the penalties for offending against the existing alcohol limits of 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood and 400 micrograms per litre of breath and secondly by making the possibility of being caught actually a probability and to that extent I agree with the last speaker Mike Sabin. Having more police on the road and more random breath tests are what will actually make the difference. When people understand they will be caught then they will think twice. There is no indication however that the Government has any intention of improving the situation with more police on the roads or by having more random breath tests carried out.The new breath-alcohol limit of between 250 and 400 micrograms per litre of breath will not even be a criminal offence incurring the full force of the law and instead will provide for only a small infringement fine of $200 and 50 demerit points. The new blood-alcohol limit of between 50 and 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood will incur a fine of only $500 and 50 demerit points. Demerit points will eventually lead to only the loss of a licence so that does not have much of an immediate effect on people’s thinking and the fines are nothing more than derisory and will clearly not be an adequate deterrent. These new penalties do not reflect the seriousness of drink-driving offences generally. In fact they are likely to undermine the seriousness of drink-driving habits.The Government has yet again shown the same weakness on alcohol issues as it showed recently with the reforms for the sale of alcohol in New Zealand. Clearly the Government yielded then to the alcohol industry lobby on that legislation and it seems to me that this bill adopts a similar half-pie approach. The public actually wants stronger action and leadership on drink-driving than what this Government is apparently prepared to take. New Zealand First wants penalties to reflect public opinion but in the end what we really need is a culture change towards more sensible drinking habits especially among young people. That change and achieving the road safety objective will not come from penalties perceived especially by young people to be soft. They must reinforce and underpin the process for social change and better drinking habits along of course with continued education and promotional efforts.To summarise New Zealand First will vote against the bill because we want better detection of drink-driving with more police on the ground and that means more random breath-testing. When people understand that if they go out and drink and drive they will be tested and there will be very significant penalties then that is what is likely to be effective not these sorts of proposals. We want to target the offenders who do the real harm—the people who drink a lot of alcohol and then drive—where the blood-alcohol content is over 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood and we want significantly tougher penalties for those people. So for those reasons New Zealand First does not see the value of non-criminal infringement offences for 50 to 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood and 250 to 400 micrograms per litre of breath. The public wants tougher action. The public wants more effective action. The public will not be impressed by half-pie actions of this kind. Remember we are particularly speaking to younger people who have a very poor drink and driving culture in this country. They will see this almost as an invitation rather than a deterrent and it is not good enough. New Zealand First will vote against it.