Genter Julie Anne: Land Transport (Admissibility of Evidential Breath Tests) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Genter Julie Anne: Land Transport (Admissibility of Evidential Breath Tests) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 14 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6625. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. Tena koutou e te Whare. I would like to start speaking on the first reading of the Land Transport (Admissibility of Evidential Breath Tests) Amendment Bill. I would like to begin by acknowledging the member Scott Simpson for introducing a bill with the very worthy aim of reducing drink-driving. I think we can all agree that this is an incredibly worthy objective. The Green Party would like nothing more than to see a reduction in the amount of dangerous drink-driving that does occur already in New Zealand. 
However having considered this bill as it has been introduced I do think that it falls well short of the mark. It will do very little to reduce drink-driving if anything at all. There are multiple ways that we could approach the problem of drink-driving. I think that it is a serious problem that the Green Party would like to see addressed and we would be very happy to support members on the National side of the House or any members in the House or the Government to this end of reducing drink-driving. 
I think that the most obvious legislative change that the Government could make to reduce drink-driving would be to lower the legal limit for all drivers. I suppose I have a huge question in my mind: why is that sort of initiative not being taken? If this Government was actually serious about reducing drink-driving surely it would be willing to take a step that so many other countries around the world have already taken: to reduce the blood-alcohol concentration legal limit from 0.08 to 0.05. All the evidence shows it would make a dramatic difference in increasing safety on our roads and increasing the safety and well-being of New Zealanders—whether they be in cars or not—if they are in the land transport environment in New Zealand. So it is with some regret that I note that this bill will actually do nothing at all to reduce the drink-driving that occurs in New Zealand. 
Another very effective policy that the National Party or members in the National Party could take to reduce drink-driving and reduce onerous regulations which I believe they are opposed to would be to remove the requirements in district plans that currently force bars and pubs to provide massive off-street car-parks. On the one hand we have this policy a public policy that says “One shall not drink and then drive. One shall not drive under the influence of alcohol.” yet on the other hand patrons of bars and of pubs cannot avoid spending the money for the large off-street car-parks that district councils are forcing bars and pubs to put in through their onerous district council regulations. I know personally that I have spoken with a lawyer whose client had a prominent well-patronised bar in downtown Christchurch—this was prior to the earthquake—and that bar because of the requirements in the Christchurch district plan was required to put in 100 car-parks. That is 100 car-parks that they were forced to put in. It was a third of their overhead so we are talking about a pretty substantial cost imposed on developers which results in nothing if not people being more likely to drink and drive. It just seems to me that this is an easy policy win. It is a low-cost way of giving councils the signal that it is actually up to developers whether or not they are going to provide off-street car-parks. But particularly in the case of bars and pubs I believe it would be extremely important for them not to be forced to provide off-street car-parks. 
The question for the House is whether we really want to legislate to address what was only one problem in maybe one or two cases ever. That is what this bill does. It is for that reason that the Green Party will not be supporting this bill at the first reading. We simply do not believe that it passes the test of being necessary or being sufficient to address the problem of drink-driving in New Zealand. We are particularly concerned at the proposed wording in subsection (5) inserted by clause 4 which is very very broad and very vague. What this says is that it is going to change the rules around the admissibility of breath tests for any reason at all even though supposedly purportedly the bill is being introduced specifically for the case of when a blood specimen is not able— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! Time has expired.