Sabin Mike: Land Transport Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSabin Mike: Land Transport Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 22 July 2014. Volume:700;Page:19287. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]MIKE SABIN (National—Northland):I would like to pick up on a couple of the points made by Iain Lees-Galloway and on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee’s deliberation on a couple of pertinent points that I think he is right to highlight. Firstly in terms of the 0.05 to 0.08 and whether that should be a criminal offence or an offence essentially punishable with an infringement notice there were some interesting reports provided to the committee.One point that particularly stuck in my mind was from someone who had had a number of drink-driving convictions. What was quite apparent from him and from his understanding of friends and colleagues is that the general perception out there is that the penalty in itself was far less of a determiner for whether or not they made a decision to drink and drive; it was actually the likelihood of being caught and the fact that there would be a swift and certain consequence to that particular activity. So his strong view was that lowering the limit to 0.05 in actual fact sent a message and put a very big question mark very quickly in the mind of the person who would drink and then go on to drive that if they did there was far more likely to be a consequence.I think the important thing to note there from someone who had committed a number of offences—and the penalties for drink-driving are certainly not insignificant certainly for repeat drink-driving—is his view that as soon as that limit came down it changed the game altogether because it was not a question of “Can I have a few and get away with it?”. It basically sent a message that drinking at all would likely result in a consequence and that the risks outweighed the reward in that sense.I think it was also important to note that the police raised a very good point around the amount of time that officers are required to be tied up dealing with an instance of excess breath-alcohol that may go on to be one of excess blood-alcohol and what have you. The process itself can be anything from half an hour to a number of hours depending on whether the police officers are in a rural situation and how far through the process they actually go—through to a full arrest or the like.So the ability for the police to be out on the road obviously gives them a greater deterrent impact. What was clear from the conversations with police and other submitters during the passage of the submissions to the bill was that the police are much more effective not when they are sitting in a booze bus but when they are actually out on the street providing a visual deterrent. Having an infringement notice component to the legislation between 0.05 and 0.08 actually speeds up the process significantly.What was also clear is that it is not the fact that someone may get some hefty fine or even imprisonment that was the great determiner; swiftness certainty and the likelihood that there would be a consequence were far more of a determiner about the behaviours and activities. Actually if we look across other areas of criminal offending that is common across many other facets not just with drink-driving. The challenge of course that you are dealing with when you are talking about alcohol is that you are talking about a mind-altering substance. So as soon as someone takes it the very first part of their function if you like that is altered is their ability to make judgments. So one thing that is certain is that this legislation provides an opportunity to say “Before you even start drinking be aware that even a couple of beers or a couple of wines could put you in a position where there could very likely be a consequence.” Having a greater number of police being able to be out on the street by virtue of the fact that they can turn over the notices much quicker adds to that.Just very quickly in terms of the point that the member made about the presumption of innocence around blood what came through very clearly and certainly in other jurisdictions was that when the consequence of the behaviour was insignificant in terms of it being a criminal offence or a fine it outweighed the need for there to be an exceptionally high standard of evidentiary proof required at that point. I am happy to leave it there.