Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:18028] 
Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Amendments to principal Act 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I need to inform the Committee that I am withdrawing the amendment to clause 12 on Supplementary Order Paper 226 and the items relating to the Land Transport (Driver Licensing) Rule 1999 to allow these same provisions proposed in Supplementary Order Paper 229 to proceed. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Tena koe. I am uncharacteristically using a modest voice. I shall correct that deficiency. 
As has been intimated to the Minister in the chair the Minister of Transport in broad terms Labour supports the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. Two particular areas have caused us considerable angst and I will talk about the first one. It relates to the blood-alcohol limit. The Minister in the chair made reference to the fact that as a consequence of his history and his physiology he was more than capable of absorbing the equivalent of three handsome glasses of vino without it impairing his ability to drive and without offending the regulations pertaining to people driving whilst having had a bit to drink. Quite apart from the lack of wisdom of a Cabinet Minister making such a statement when one believes one walks on water one can say virtually anything until such time as the forces of nature otherwise known as the electorate correct that misapprehension. 
The reason we were hoping we could find some common ground with the Government on this issue is that we felt that a lowering of the limit would send a message that would amplify throughout the spectrum of drinkers. As I have said earlier we know that there is an element of awkwardness in people making a transition. There would be hardly a member in the Chamber who has not been to a rugby game or to some other spot had a drink or three and then chanced his or her arm and driven home believing that he or she was not over the limit. 
We are very concerned about the young impressionable drinkers. They absorbed a new set of cultural standards and they realised that society—as reflected through their submissions and interaction with the Law Commission and as was evidenced through the media reports over the last dare I say 12 months—is repulsed by the notion that more and more of our young people are suffering as a consequence of not being able to handle their alcohol and of getting behind the wheel of a vehicle and creating havoc. All we have been saying is that had we taken that particular stance it would reinforce the message that New Zealand needs to hear. 
We heard from a whole host of parents and advocacy groups. We have only to read about such prestigious institutions as King’s College to see that there is an endemic culture. If we as parliamentarians feel disinclined to challenge that prevailing youth binge drinking culture then I think that is a very serious indictment. I do not personally believe that the current Minister of Transport wants to let that binge drinking youth culture go unimpeded. However I think he has missed a very good opportunity by not lowering the blood-alcohol limit. 
There are a variety of other things that we agree with though; I do not want to be too churlish. But I do not think that there is anything petty or unreasonable in challenging the Minister to suffer a road to Damascus experience have a change of heart and agree with my colleagues and me and with the work done by my predecessor Mr Darren Hughes who hopefully has the time to listen into these contributions. We are carrying on from work that he initiated. If we want to attack the element of our societal culture that either celebrates or remains indifferent to binge drinking then a good way to do it is to pass a regulation and cause young people or their parents or other role models to suffer as a consequence of not being prepared to change their ways. It sounds brutal but it tends to work in other spheres of life. 
It would be good to hear the Minister give the Committee an account as to why he has not taken on board the public’s concerns. I know that he lives by the polls. Of course he will die by the polls but that is another matter. I know that National members poll on a tediously regular basis. He has obviously taken a poll outside the Titirangi Golf Club up at the Auckland Bridge Club in Remuera down at the Waitemata sailing club and at the various other pursuits that this Minister who is unfortunately known in the north as the “Minister of Dead Ends” is up to. But I ask Minister Joyce to please tell us why. We will not attack him on his profligate approach to roads of national significance in this context—well not in this speech anyhow. We just want to know why he has not taken on board the concerns of and the appeals for leadership from mothers brothers sisters and schoolteachers. 
He should not hide behind the media and he should not hide behind the usual smug somewhat supercilious garb. He should come out and tell New Zealand why he is leaving this limit the way that he is proposing to leave it and why he is relying on goodness knows what kind of research which he has lumbered the police and various other agencies with. The majority of the anti - drink-driving advocates and garden-variety parents—and as I said vocational guidance counsellors ministers of religion doctors and people who operate our hospitals and the actual emergency wards—have all told us that we need to take every proactive step to stop the suffering of more young people their families and indeed innocent people. 
Not long ago not far from where I hail from a person in his middle age was so drunk that he wiped out a beautiful young woman and child and injured other people. People expect the courts to deliver a decision but the courts will deliver a decision only when the highest court in the land the sovereign court—Parliament—has spoken. The party on this side of the Chamber is making a very sensible plea to Minister Joyce to please change his stance to not hide behind more reports to trust in the instincts of the people who are at the front line dealing with this carnage and on these issues of life and death to not hide behind polls. 
This is the kind of thing that we would expect a senior Minister of the Crown to embrace and race towards exercising some leadership on. This is not some sort of shady commercial transaction that we have recently tried to pin on him—no. This is about simple God-fearing Kiwis being afraid that this culture of binge drinking is going unimpeded. No one has more power in this area than the Minister of Transport so I think it is right that we amplify the fact that he has remained impotent on the issue. 
It is not unreasonable for us to have a go. I know that advocates from sports clubs and from entities such as the Automobile Association will have a go at whichever Government might be in power over whether this is too heavy-handed but we cannot trade on the language of strategies such as Safer Journeys or in our case See You There—Safe As. The rhetoric is fine but unless we are proactive on changing the elements that make for safer driving and a safer culture I have serious concerns. 
An additional area that has concerned me is the disproportionately high level of negative statistics that come from our young people—by that I mean rangatahi Maori young Maori drivers. I have a fear that if we put up the age of licensed driving it will have a disproportionately negative impact on our young people. As the Automobile Association has said there seems to already be a different culture governing the decisions of many of our young Maori drivers. Te Puni Kokiri has long since stopped doing anything proactive in that stance as befits the approach of the current Minister of Maori Affairs and his party. 
This Minister has an opportunity to deal with the elements in society that disproportionately need leadership. They do not want to change their ways until such time as some State fiat forces them to change their ways. It could affect the pockets of our community and dare I say our people—te rangatahi Maori—who seem to be operating to a different set of cultural principles when they hop behind the wheel of a vehicle. I am not seeking to countenance that and I certainly do not want to give anyone that impression but I have seen it myself. 
If one indiscriminately changes the way that licences are to be obtained; if one does not take into account how the most vulnerable group who need the ability to travel safely and legally on the road in order to get a job or better training whilst they are young will be affected; and if one makes it more difficult for them then one is actually making it difficult for them to escape from the poverty trap that many of them find themselves in. 
A whole host of attack lines are coming out of the New Zealand media. We do not need to repeat them so early in the debate; the Minister knows what they are. We will amplify them during the course of this year. I come back again to this: a simple demonstration of leadership from this person who prides himself of being the unseen force behind the current senior Ministers— 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I am happy to take a call on Part 1 of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. Part 1 is the guts of the bill. It has the majority of the various provisions in the bill so I imagine that we will have a fairly long and lengthy debate on this part. I too want to address a couple of concerns upfront. I will start with the blood-alcohol limit. My colleague Shane Jones has started the debate in a very eloquent way. I advise the Minister of Transport that Labour is here to help. We have tabled an amendment that will allow him to save face by agreeing to decrease the blood-alcohol content limit from 0.08 to 0.05 grams. The reason he needs to take this amendment seriously is that everybody supports a decrease. We have only to look at the variety of polls there have been; numerous polls have been conducted throughout the country. People are extremely puzzled about why the Minister and the National Government are not prepared to put this amendment into this bill or into another bill if it were the appropriate vehicle. 
I am not sure that the Minister has taken an awful lot of notice of the submissions on the bill. There were a lot of submitters who came to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. There were 81 submitters and we heard from 31 I think. Many of them were concerned about the lowering of the adult blood-alcohol content. We are saying very strongly—like the New Zealand public has been saying very strongly—that we think now is the time for us to do it. We do not agree that the Government should be kicking this to touch and using the excuse that it needs to have 2 years of research. The advice from officials is very very clear that a lower blood-alcohol limit will prevent between 15 and 33 deaths and from 320 to 688 serious injuries. That on its own is enough to take action rather than waiting for a couple of years. 
There have been 300 international studies—300 international studies—that have all shown the road-safety benefits from lowering the blood-alcohol concentration. We do not believe that collecting New Zealand - specific data is necessary because of those 300 international studies. What is so different about New Zealand? We do not understand why we have to go to the expense why we have to spend money when the country is struggling why we are wasting money on collecting research that we do not need and why we are not taking action right now. 
I want to refer to some of the submissions that came to the select committee. There were a range of groups. There were some very concerned groups. A group from Whangaparaoa and Rodney came down; 77 of them were involved in putting together a submission. The Seventh Day Adventist Church Grey Power Auckland area committee Active West Coast Christchurch City Council the Drug Foundation and the Cycling Advocates Network all said that we should be taking the opportunity to reduce the blood-alcohol content from 0.08 to 0.05 grams. Alcohol Healthwatch strongly supported that also. It should know—it has to deal with the consequences of people who have problems with alcohol. We know we have a culture of binge drinking. We know we have alcohol problems in our country at the moment. The Law Commission has highlighted that very clearly. Alcohol Healthwatch talked about how we need to change people’s drinking behaviour. That would not only stop crashes and people dying on the roads but also it would lead to better outcomes in other areas such as being less of a drain on the health sector. 
Some other really significant groups came to the select committee such as the Drink Driving Intervention Trust. Professor Doug Sellman from the National Addiction Centre was extremely interesting. He strongly recommended that we lower the blood-alcohol limit. He said that the current blood-alcohol limit amounts to legalised drink-driving. I think the Minister of Transport himself was very surprised when he found out that he could drink three-quarters of a bottle of wine and still get behind the wheel and drive legally—[ 
Interruption 
]—and still run the Cabinet agenda; that is right. Professor Sellman went on to say that there is enough international evidence to show that lowering the blood-alcohol limit has positive effects on lowering the incidence of drink-driving—not just saving lives and stopping injuries but actually changing behaviour. That is one of the key measures the Government should be taking. 
The  
Herald on Sunday  
ran a campaign on lowering the blood-alcohol limit and some people signed up to it. I am not sure whether members of the Government were brave enough to put their names to it but I know some of them agree with what the  
Herald on Sunday  
said. It held a nationwide campaign to get New Zealanders to pledge to two drinks max. It also said that there is enough evidence to show that we would get real positive results from changing the blood-alcohol content. 
The Alcohol Advisory Council also recommended lowering the blood-alcohol limit. It talked about changing the drinking culture of New Zealand. The problem with the drinking culture in relation to our roads is that if people can drink three-quarters of a bottle of wine like the Minister did and be legally smashed but then get into a car and drive why would they change their behaviour? They think that is OK. They measure the number of glasses of wine they can have or the beers they can have. They say that as long as they have not had three-quarters of a bottle of wine they are OK. They do not think about how that impairs their driving they do not think about the impact that it has on their ability to drive safely and they do not think about the impact it has on other drivers as well. 
Members of Rural Women New Zealand were very interesting as well. I would have thought they are a good group and good friends of the Government but they said that the Government should be lowering the blood-alcohol limit across the board and most of their members actually support zero tolerance. We are not suggesting that; we are simply saying that we should use the international research that is available to us. Why does this Government not take a brave step that will save between 15 and 33 lives every year? We do not need to wait for 2 years for New Zealand - specific research. The New Zealand Nurses Organisation represents nurses and knows about the impacts of alcohol and drink-driving. It has said that judgment about the ability to drive safely is severely compromised at 0.08 grams. It also suggested a nationwide education programme. In addition to lowering the blood-alcohol concentration a nationwide education programme should ensure better understanding of alcohol-related harm and the associated costs of this harm because as I have said it is not just about people dying other road users being at risk and people being injured; it is the cost to the health system and to people’s lives. Losing someone in an instant on the roads has an enormous impact on people’s lives. If they are badly injured of course there is an ongoing cost both to the families and to our health system. 
So there were many submissions in support of lowering the blood-alcohol concentration and a number of polls and trials have been conducted throughout the country. A number of employees at media organisations including those from the  
Herald on Sunday 
 ran tests to see how much they could drink and still be legally below the limit. They found it quite frightening that they were able to get behind the wheel and drive their cars on the road. 
As my colleague Shane Jones has said we support quite a number of the features in Part 1. We support the zero limit for repeat drink-drivers because that addresses the issue of drink-driving. We also support the zero limit for drivers under 20 years of age. The provision relating to alcohol interlock devices is a good thing; we really support that. We support doubling the minimum sentence time for drugged or reckless driving that causes death. People have to start taking this seriously. But unfortunately they will not take it seriously until this Government takes the brave step that it needs to supports the amendment that I have put forward and gets on and lowers the blood-alcohol limit instead of mucking around for another 2 years looking for New Zealand - specific research. It should not muck around with that; it should get on with it. Let us fix it up. Otherwise we think the Government has copped out on this. It is a cop-out. It has done some good things in this bill. There are some things that we disagree with but the Government could make it better by agreeing to lower the blood-alcohol concentration. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I will make a couple of points if I can at this stage. I appreciate the support that the Opposition has given to a number of the measures in this bill but I am a bit concerned at the double standard it now appears to be taking with regard to young drivers versus the blood-alcohol level. Firstly if we look at the evidence and at what this bill is trying to achieve—I think it will make very strong inroads—we will see that the biggest problems on our roads sadly are our young drivers where we have a very tragic situation. We have a 60 percent worse fatality rate in this country than in Australia. It is a shocking statistic that we all need to take some responsibility for. High-risk drivers are sadly again dominated by people who are not just under or just over the legal blood-alcohol limit but are actually well over the blood-alcohol limit. 
I take the point that the Hon Shane Jones was making to a point when he told the Committee of the terrible story of the person who was blind drunk in Northland. We all have those stories. The point is that that person was obviously well over the current legal limit. In terms of the youngsters whom the Hon Shane Jones referred to I agree with him entirely which is why we have proposed a nil alcohol limit for young drivers. We have imposed that limit not because we want to punish young drivers but because we all know partly from our distant memories and partly from our own children in our lives that teenagers are not that good on making decisions about when to drink and when to drive. We have had a number of tragic cases in this country where the least drunk teenager has been picked to drive home with sadly horrible consequences. We have only a 0.03 grams limit now for young people. A nil limit for young people—having it as an infringement penalty between 0.0 and 0.03 grams and taking into account the tolerance for mouthwash and all those things—sends a very straightforward message to the under 20s and tells them that if they have a drink they should not drive. That is the deal and we are making it very straightforward and very black and white because we are all conscious that we are 10-foot high and bulletproof when we are young. 
The contradiction in the Opposition’s position is that on the one hand it says the polls state that everybody says we should lower the adult blood-alcohol limit despite the fact that there is no evidence of the actual harm caused by drivers with a blood-alcohol concentration between 0.05 and 0.08 grams in this country; there is no evidence. On the other hand the Opposition says that it is not necessarily in favour of raising the driving age by a year which is actually a more popular initiative in this country—if we are going to be populist—right through rural and urban areas than the call to reduce the blood-alcohol concentration from 0.08 to 0.05 grams. So that is a bit of a contradiction in terms particularly when we know the evidence of the difficulties for young drivers. Sadly we know that we have a 60 percent worse fatality rate in this country than the rates in other countries. 
People have raised the issue of mobility of young drivers and I completely understand that. But I ask why it is so different to give a 14-year-old a drive to the sports game but suddenly it is not possible to do that for a 15-year-old. I do not buy that. I think that someone can take a young person to events until they reach the driving age. That is not the excuse. 
The question we have to ask ourselves is: what is an appropriate age at which young people can drive? There is a chart which we have shown to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee in answer to Darien Fenton’s concerns and it has also been shown to all the members who have shown an interest. This chart shows quite clearly that the younger someone is with the same level of experience the higher his or her accident rate will be. That is the reality. In fact there are many people who think the driving age in this country should be another year older again than what we have proposed in the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. 
We have to consider that very very carefully because there is another chart which we have shown the select committee and it is in the high-risk drivers report. It is a very sad chart that shows the number of passengers in vehicles who die at the hand of their young driver friends when their driver friends are out on their restricted licence or learner licence late at night in places like the Bay of Plenty Waikato Auckland or out the back of Hawke’s Bay. There are young kids out there making bad driving decisions and unfortunately taking the lives of other kids with them. We have to make the call that we need a young driver package—it is not just one measure—that says that driving involves more responsibility than they think. We need to take that step so the Government has put together a young driver package that is about a zero permissible breath - blood-alcohol concentration for under-20-year-olds changes the minimum age for driver licensing to make it the same as in Australia toughens up the restricted licence provisions so that young drivers are encouraged to have 120 hours training and also looks at things like vehicle power restrictions which we will have a report on later this year. We are saying that here is a whole package because we do not want to have a fatality rate for our young people on the roads that is 60 percent worse than that in Australia. We do not want that. 
I will raise one other matter in terms of the adult blood-alcohol limit. It was addressed at the time that the UK was also looking into lowering its limit from 0.08 grams to 0.05 grams. The UK is an interesting place. It has half the road fatality rate as New Zealand when using the same population basis. It has one of the lowest rates in the world but it has a 0.08 grams blood-alcohol level. The UK looked at lowering its blood-alcohol limit too and said that maybe it should be dropped to 0.05 grams because a lot of countries have that limit but it said no. It has made a decision now. The decision is that it is high-risk drivers who are the problem and that it is high-risk drivers that they will focus on in the UK. We have made the same decision in this country because the evidence is clear. If we look at the two areas high-risk drivers and young drivers who have not already been classified as high-risk drivers together they comprise 53 percent of at-fault drivers in fatal crashes. More than half the at-fault drivers in fatal crashes are either high-risk drivers or young drivers. By high-risk drivers we mean people who are well over the blood-alcohol limit people who have had alcohol licence problems before and all those sorts of people. They actually have an alcohol problem which turns up the roads. That is the problem we are dealing with. It is an alcohol problem that unfortunately turns up on our roads. 
The other initiative that this bill allows for is alcohol interlocks. That is a big step forward for this Parliament: the ability to provide a technological solution that in many cases will separate the drinker from his or her driving. We have to try to do that. Unfortunately we cannot have someone in every driveway saying “You can go on the road” or “You cannot go on the road”. The road is a very democratic place; everybody has access to it. What we can say is that when someone is the sort of person who cannot make responsible decisions once he or she has had a couple of drinks then having an alcohol interlock in place will make that decision for him or her. As Darien Fenton has pointed out we will also have a nil alcohol limit for repeat drink-drivers. 
I think this is a cohesive package. I ask the Committee to keep a real focus on young drivers; on the fatality rate that is 60 percent worse compared with that in Australia which I think is very sad for this country; and also on the real issues with adult drink-driving which are at the serious end of the spectrum. Once this bill has passed we will collect the actual data over the next 2 years on the harm caused by drivers who have a blood-alcohol level of between 0.05 grams and 0.08 grams and then we will settle what has been an emotional and long-running debate in this country about whether moving the blood-alcohol limit from 0.08 grams to 0.05 grams will actually make the difference to the road toll that its advocates say it will. 
I will say a final word on those advocates. I understand the Labour Party’s view is that sometimes to achieve social change the rules in other areas have to be changed because it likes to do a little bit of social engineering but I think we are talking about transport here. This issue is actually about transport and what it is safe to do on the road. To all those groups like Alcohol Healthwatch Alcohol Advisory Council and the rest who want to use the road as a means to achieve wider societal change I say good on them but this is actually a transport issue that we need to deal with and we need to deal with it on that basis. We do not punish people just in the hope that if we really come down hard on them then we will change the alcohol culture in this country. If we want to change the alcohol culture in this country that is fine but many people who are quite happy and law abiding will have a few drinks at home and not drive anywhere and those people will not respond well to the suggestion that this is all about social engineering. Thank you. 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora. Nga mihi nui ki a koutou kia ora. I rise to take a call on Part 1 of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I look forward to taking a few calls on this bill. I acknowledge the contribution we have just heard from the Minister in the chair the Minister of Transport. In general I agree with what he has said about road safety. We have a problem in New Zealand and we need to do something about it. It has been a longstanding problem. We have improved somewhat over the last several decades but we still need to do more. 
I agree with large chunks of this bill. When it comes to changes to the powers of parking wardens to alcohol interlocks and to procedural rules for the New Zealand Transport Agency I think that stuff is all great. Clearly the big issue the bill addresses is alcohol and when looking at the issue of alcohol this bill cannot be taken in isolation. We have a national cultural drinking problem. It is not just a problem of alcohol on the roads; New Zealand has a wider cultural problem. 
Unfortunately this bill is not doing the single most effective thing that could be done to deal with alcohol on the road. Likewise with the Alcohol Reform Bill we are simply targeting young drinkers with changes to the legal drinking age. We are not looking at the broader cultural problems. We are not addressing the massive amounts of alcohol advertising we have changes to hours or ready-to-drinks; we are simply looking at youth stereotyping. 
Likewise with the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill the focus is on young drivers. I acknowledge the work that Miss Fenton has done with her amendments but the Green Party will not be voting for them. 
As the former youngest member of Parliament—I acknowledge Jami-Lee Ross who was just here—I wanted to oppose this bill. Getting my licence at 15 years old was an important part of my journey to adult life as I know it is for lots of young people. Because of the terrible state of our public transport in many our provincial and rural towns young people do not have options. We in this Committee may be surprised but many 15-year-olds provide income to their whanau. They are out working hard and they need to get to work somehow. 
This was a challenge for me and my caucus to discuss but we looked at the evidence and I think it is pretty compelling. Australia has a 60 percent lower accident rate for the same age bracket. We support the raising of the minimum driving age to 16 years old. We support further initiatives when it comes to driver training. I note that in Germany it costs around €2000 to €4000 I understand to get a driver’s licence. Although I do not advocate for that in this Chamber I think we should strengthen driver training. 
Clearly the main thing we need to do for young people between the ages of 15 and 16 who will not be able to drive is to give them better public transport. Unfortunately that is not happening under this Government. 
The Greens support the lowering of the blood-alcohol limit for under-20-year-olds but we think this should be done only in conjunction with the general lowering of the blood-alcohol limit for adults. There are two issues here. There is the transition: someone who is almost 20 can have only 0.03 grams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood yet a day later on their birthday they can go all the way up to 0.08 grams which is totally outside the bounds of the OECD average. New Zealand is an international outlier when it comes to this limit. There will be transition problems and I acknowledge that. 
There is also an issue of consistency: the blood-alcohol limit for young people should be the same as the limit for adults. We are sending the wrong message. We are sending young drivers the message that we do not trust them with alcohol when in fact the problem is a broader cultural problem. It is the same with the Alcohol Reform Bill. Ninety-two percent of our problem drinkers in New Zealand are over the age of 30. We cannot stereotype young drivers. We acknowledge that there is work to be done here; enough will be said about the 0.05 limit today. 
I challenge a couple of the comments made by the Minister. He said there is not enough evidence. I understand that 300 international reports show this evidence. The experts and the people who produce Safer Journeys were pretty compelling in their argument that we could save between 15 and 33 lives. I do not believe that the New Zealand Transport Agency plucked those numbers out of thin air. There is an evidential basis for lowering the blood-alcohol limit. We are simply moving into line. Lowering the limit is not going out on a limb; it is simply moving into the OECD average. It is simply listening to the World Health Organization which is the expert. 
The proposal to lower the blood-alcohol limit is clearly popular. We have had a public consciousness shift over the last couple of decades when it comes to the drinking level. We are missing the opportunity to lower the blood-alcohol limit. The bill is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. We have the public behind us we have the evidence behind us and we have the desire. I do not know why the Minister did not advocate in his Cabinet for lowering the blood-alcohol limit. I thought the Minister was going to advocate for lowering the blood-alcohol limit after the work he did in the media around his wine consumption and driving. What happened in Cabinet? I would love for the Minister to take a call. 
Hon HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 It gives me pleasure to stand and speak on Part 1 of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. 
In large part the ACT Party supports the bill and agrees with most of its initiatives. Most of the initiatives make a good deal of sense particularly the provisions on education for young drivers. I take on board the points the Minister of Transport made when he took a call just before the Green member Gareth Hughes to talk about the initiatives he has put in place on education for young drivers. 
The Green member made a very pertinent point when he said that problem identification is very important. That is absolutely correct because unless you are able to identify the problem accurately there is no way you can get the solution right—except the odd time by good luck. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member. It is for use of the word “you”. The member keeps bringing the Chair into the debate—twice. 
Hon HEATHER ROY 
: My apologies Mr Chair. 
One cannot get the solutions right if one has not identified the problem correctly. 
The Minister spoke about two particular initiatives in Part 1 that are relevant for the ACT Party because we will be having a split vote on Part 1. Two initiatives in particular concern two of our members—that is me and Sir Roger Douglas—first the initiative in clause 12 about raising the minimum age for driver licensing from 15 to 16; and second the initiative in clause 23 to lower the blood-alcohol limit for the under-20s to virtually nothing apart from a general fudge factor. Those two issues are important. We support in principle the reasoning the Minister gave for putting in place the package around young drivers but not those two particular details because I am not sure that the problem definition has been well identified and looked at as a whole. 
Why are we different from Australia in our road deaths rate? My understanding is that it is not just the younger drivers who are affected but everybody across the board. Three things seem to me to be very important when we look at why we have difficulty on our roads. I call them the three “E”s. The first is education the second is enforcement of the laws we already have in place and the third is engineering—the state of our roads. Many other countries have those three “E”s—for want of better terminology—better sorted that we have in New Zealand. 
Of late in the past decade the engineering of our roads has improved significantly. I know that the Minister has worked long and hard in that regard to improve the state of our roads. For many years we had roads that really were substandard. The camber was wrong and we had tight corners. We had difficulty largely because of our engineering. It has been improving but we still have some way to go yet. I applaud the Minister on his initiatives. In the ACT Party’s view he is doing absolutely the right thing in focusing on that part of the infrastructure for the nation. 
Education has also improved. I look back on when I got my driver’s licence. As many other members will remember getting one’s driver’s licence was about hopping in the car and having a spin around the corner or around the block with the local policeman. That is certainly how I got my licence. It gave one an enormous amount of confidence but did not necessarily make one a very good driver. Education is hugely important and although the ACT Party is rarely in favour of compulsion I am in favour—because I have seen it with my own children—of putting in place defensive driving courses. I think they significantly improve drivers’ skill and awareness and improve outcomes. I am all in favour of that sort of initiative. The education component of the bill is hugely important. 
The third thing is enforcement. We already have pretty sound laws in place. They are let down by the lack of enforcement. If there is one thing we should do it is focus hugely on enforcing the current laws we have before we change what is in place and put in new things. It seems to me that it would be better to concentrate our efforts on improving the enforcement of many of the things we already have—whether that be blood-alcohol levels or some of the initiatives for young drivers. Those sorts of things need to be focused on—engineering education and enforcement. 
KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 Thank you very much Mr Chair for the opportunity to speak on the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I will start by saying that although Labour supports the bill we have already made it clear that there are a number of areas where we think it lacks teeth. Make no mistake; we will support the bill. We support measures such as the zero limit for repeat drink-drivers. That is a no-brainer. We support having a zero limit for drivers under 20 as the Minister in the chair the Minister of Transport pointed out to send a strong signal to those younger drivers to not drink at all if they are planning to get behind the wheel. We also support the interlocks. Using technology to make sure we can crack down on repeat drink-drivers is another good measure in the bill as is making sure we get tougher on recidivist drink-drivers by doubling the minimum prison time for drunk and drugged reckless driving causing death. 
As I mentioned earlier a number of my colleagues have already mentioned a couple of areas where we think the bill comes short of the mark. The obvious issue we have put attention on in the Committee today is the failure of the Government to recognise that there is a large amount of public support for reducing the blood-alcohol content level from 0.08 to 0.05. 
The Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill is an appropriate title for this bill. I went looking for a measure that would take strong action to lower the blood-alcohol level from 0.08 to 0.05. It was not in the road safety measures or in the other provisions and we believe that it should have been especially at a time when the Minister had the opportunity for cross-party support late last year with the member’s bill that Darren Hughes put forward. We would have got broad cross-party support to make sure we could take real measures to reduce the number of alcohol-related deaths on our roads. That was a lost opportunity. What did we get? We got another 2-year study to look at the effect on drivers who are found to have a blood-alcohol level of between 0.08 and 0.05. As Gareth Hughes mentioned before studies over a number of decades plainly show that if we send a signal to the public that we will not tolerate that level of alcohol in drivers’ systems then the number of deaths on our roads will reduce. What do we have? We have 2 more years of stalling. 
Before I hear a barrage of heckling that Labour did not do anything in the 9 years it was in Government I say that we are in the here and now. We have the opportunity to look forward. We had an opportunity for cross-party support. We have a bill before us that we support as I said but we also have a lost opportunity to take real action on the roads. Unfortunately instead of taking pragmatic action we have politics. From a Minister who cares about optics we have no action. 
The issue is really about what happens on our roads and the Minister has already talked about his own personal experience. He said that it is just ridiculous that he can drink three-quarters of a bottle of wine and still be able to legally get out there on the road. Most New Zealanders think that too. It is a shame the Minister does not have the courage of his personal convictions— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member cannot challenge a member’s courage; that is a personal reflection. The member will withdraw and apologise. 
KRIS FAAFOI 
: I withdraw and apologise. It is a shame that the personal opinion of the Minister is not reflected in this bill. 
As we have said this is about a priority. We have an opportunity with the bill in front of us now. The priority is—and there is plenty of media coverage about this—that New Zealanders do want the blood-alcohol level to be reduced. Some research from UMR Research in the  
New Zealand Herald  
on 19 May found that 70 percent of respondents supported lowering the allowable level of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood to 50 milligrams. Again in the  
Otago Daily Times 
 on 9 April 2010 a poll of 500 people found that 63 percent supported the lowering of the adult blood-alcohol limit from 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood to 50 milligrams. That poll also found that 84 percent were in favour of having a zero blood-alcohol limit for drivers under 20. Here is another statistic that may be of interest to members from Hamilton: in a poll of 418 Hamilton people conducted by researchers for the  
Waikato Times 
 on 1 September— 
Sue Moroney 
: Very good city. 
KRIS FAAFOI 
: —ha ha—68 percent of people said that they were in favour of lowering the blood-alcohol limit. Let us also go to the  
Timaru Herald 
 on 27 July last year— 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 One of the prerogatives of the Minister of course is that he gets to take a call whenever he wants and when he did he probably stole about 95 percent of the things that I wanted to say on the two most important aspects of Part 1 of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. But I will persevere nevertheless because I think there is plenty more to say about it and I am very happy to flesh out— 
Sue Moroney 
: Oh trying to upstage the Minister now. 
Hon David Parker 
: Obviously ministerial material. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: —thank you; I appreciate the further endorsement from the members on the other side but not in transport I am sure—the issue of evidence. 
We are really talking about risk and harm reduction. We have heard from the Labour members that they are absolutely hell-bent on reducing the blood-alcohol concentration level to 0.05 grams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood because the current level is high-risk and because it is obvious that we should be doing more in that area. But in a strange kind of double backflip they are taking a very libertarian view about the age at which someone can get a driver’s licence in the face of the relative risks of serious injury or death in those two cohorts. I will quote the results— 
Darien Fenton 
: Why aren’t we doing a 2-year study on that? 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: Well let us just look at the studies that have already been done because there is quite a bit of data about that. 
Firstly let us talk about the relative risk of a blood-alcohol concentration of between 0.05 grams and 0.08 grams. I will quote the  
Safer Journeys 
 strategy which says we do not know the exact extent of the harm caused by drivers in that area. However between 2004 and 2008 it is estimated that adult drivers with a blood-alcohol content within that range were responsible for at least 7 deaths and 45 serious injuries. So we are talking about fewer than 2 deaths a year of people who have had alcohol in their systems within that range. The document does not say whether those blood-alcohol concentrations actually caused the fatal accidents. 
Let us turn then to young drivers because I think that young drivers are at far greater risk. Young New Zealanders aged between 15 and 24 are 14 percent of the population but they have 37 percent of the fatal crashes. They have killed more people than older drivers. For each young at-fault driver killed 1.3 other drivers have been killed. 
David Shearer 
: Are you going to set the legal age at 25 mate? 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: Well that is exactly my point. Mr Shearer asks that question. What would we do about that? The easiest way to solve that problem is to set a driver age of 25 or 30. But why stop there? We might make a driving age of 50. 
The point is that we accept a level of risk in everything we do. That is what life and living is about. The question is whether we accept the right risks and target the right harms. In focusing on our young we recognise that the fact of simply being young simply being aged from 15 to 19 will increase the risk of having a fatal accident by five times when alcohol has not— 
Carol Beaumont 
: Is that the same for males and females? 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: No. Actually males are at greater risk so gender is a factor. There are a number of contributing factors to risk on our roads but this bill targets one specific risk and increases the driving age. I mean I do not know how many studies there are about the development of the prefrontal cortex in young males. However the paradox to changing the driving age is that although we know that the younger we are the greater at risk we are the only way we can learn to drive is by doing it—by gaining that experience. So the Government has to accept that paradox. I think the Government has set a very very good balance in both increasing the driver age and increasing the number of supervised hours that are required before someone gets a full licence. I am absolutely amazed that Labour is opposing that—more dog-whistle politics I suspect. 
I will come back to the evidence regarding a drop to 0.05 grams because the Minister mentioned the United Kingdom which is a fascinating study. Our fatal injury rate due to accidents is 82 percent higher than the United Kingdom’s notwithstanding that that country also has a blood-alcohol content legal limit of 0.08 grams. So there are so many other factors at work. The United Kingdom is a country geographically about the same size as ours but it has a population that is about 15 times greater than ours. It has the infrastructure to create the sort of engineering that Heather Roy is talking about in respect of safer roads. But I think also in respect of the lowering of the blood-alcohol limit studies—and there are 300 of them and not a single one has been quoted yet by Labour—those studies show high levels of co-relation and often use language like “That strategy resulted in a reduction in the fatal accident rate.” But it is not actually true to say that one caused the other. The simple fact is that we just do not know. 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 I take a little bit of exception to what the member Michael Woodhouse was just talking about. Last week Sir Peter Gluckman came out with a very good report about basing legislation and policies on evidence. Evidence has been used in a rather ad hoc way in Parliament today. 
Let me look for example at the road age—the driving age. Our road death rate per 100000 in 2005 was 9.9 which was slightly above the OECD average of 9.5. We all agree in this House—there is no disagreement—that we need to improve our road death rate. But if we look at the US as well as the OECD we see that all those countries have a higher driving age yet in the US the road death rate is 14—about five deaths higher per 100000 than here in New Zealand—Poland’s rate is 14 Belgium’s is 10 Portugal’s 11 and Spain’s 10. If we go down the list of OECD countries we find that those countries even though they have a driving age that is higher than New Zealand’s have a greater rate of road deaths. We can selectively look at the UK and Australia and say that their road death rates are lower than New Zealand’s so we must be failing in some way. But I tell Mr Woodhouse that if he goes across to Australia and drives around there he will find that the roads are different. They are quite different from New Zealand’s roads. The weather conditions are very different. Some of the driving conditions are very very different. New Zealand has much more difficult driving conditions than Australia. I can tell members what else is different in Australia. It has a blood-alcohol limit of 0.05 grams rather than 0.08 grams. Australians have been smart enough to bring down the limit. I think statistics and evidence are being used rather selectively in this debate. 
I come to one other point. I think we all are talking about the same things. We all want the same things from this legislation. We support the Minister’s zero limit for repeat drink-drivers and zero limit for drivers under 20. I think it is logical. We support the alcohol interlocks for repeat offenders and the doubling of the minimum prison time for drunk drugged or reckless driving causing death. We all agree with those so in that list why cannot we also agree on a reduction from 0.08 grams to 0.05? 
I say to Mr Woodhouse that the answer is not in the evidence but in the way the debate has been carried out in this House. What happened was the Prime Minister asked the Ministry of Transport for an opinion on whether people would be over the legal limit after one glass of wine. He was so concerned about what he thought the answer was that he decided we would not do that. It was all about polls; it was not about evidence at all. When Darren Hughes put up his member’s bill Mr Key was willing to have a conscience vote on it but he got rolled by his caucus—that is Steven Joyce who would have looked rather stupid having stood up in this House and said he did not want a conscience vote and did not agree with having one. Like Gareth Hughes I would have liked to be a member of that National caucus so that I could have found out what went on when the Prime Minister did the about-face on the conscience vote and agreed to a party vote. 
Here is a front-page article from the  
Bay of Plenty Times 
. It details how four  
Bay of Plenty Times 
 journalists each failed a breath test but only after consuming eight bottles of beer or five glasses of wine. One of their female reporters was rolling drunk on wine and amazingly she blew under the limit. Importantly all four thought they should not drive. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 I really appreciate the opportunity to speak on the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I am in the interesting position of having been on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee when it was considering this legislation and more recently on the Justice and Electoral Committee when it has been dealing with the Alcohol Reform Bill. So I have been dealing with a lot of people submitting on questions around alcohol harm and drink-driving for quite some time now. That has meant I feel very very strongly in support of the amendment that my colleague Darien Fenton has put up about reducing the blood-alcohol limit while driving. I want to go through the reasons for that because I find it unbelievable that in this day and age in light of all the evidence and practice in other countries all of the submissions and all of the views of the public the Government is putting its head in the sand on this issue. 
In fact I heard the Minister of Transport say earlier that this bill is not about social engineering; it is a transport matter. Well actually driving drunk is most certainly a transport matter. Driving drunk means people die. It means people get injured. Families lose family members and friends lose their friends. So this is a very serious matter and this bill is a huge opportunity. The reason it is a huge opportunity is that unlike many other pieces of law reform where the Government has to show leadership in this particular case the public are ahead of the Government on this matter. So it is not even a matter of having to show leadership and cop a few criticisms out there or many criticisms; the public want to see this change. I have heard thousands of submissions now. We heard 90 hours of oral submissions on the Alcohol Reform Bill and just about everybody raised the issue of dropping the blood-alcohol level. Those people were told that the issue was out of scope for that bill but it was being dealt with elsewhere in the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. 
The reality is that it is not being dealt with here. In fact this bill is the most pitiful response that one could possibly imagine. We are to do 2 years of research. How many people will die in that time? How many people will be injured in that time? It is an absolute disgrace. I say again it is unbelievable that the Government is not taking this opportunity when in fact the evidence is there and the public is willing to see the change. I feel confident that in their heart of hearts many National members opposite actually agree with dropping the blood-alcohol level to 0.05 grams. I bet members that is the case; I would put money on it. I urge those members to stand up say something and do the right thing because this matter is critically important. 
We had many submissions both on the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill and currently on the Alcohol Reform Bill about why people feel that blood-alcohol levels should be dropped. There has also been the anecdotal kind of evidence and the rather public evidence created by journalists. I heard about one example of that when we were hearing submissions in Dunedin. It was a Christchurch  
Press  
stunt if you like. The Christchurch  
Press  
journalists did it off-road; they did it on a racetrack. They got four young people driving then they gave them alcohol and got them driving again. They watched and evidenced what happened and what changed in their driving. By the time those four people went over 0.08 grams they were absolutely unable to drive safely and later they were aware of that. In fact they made that comment themselves. 
I think we need to be really serious about this issue. Lowering the blood-alcohol level will save lives and it will prevent somewhere between 320 and 686 injuries every year. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 Today we are discussing the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. First of all I want to acknowledge that we are fortunate to have a Minister of Transport who has a desire to progress road safety in New Zealand and who is making a difference to the roads of New Zealand not only by building good roads but also by establishing effective rules and regulations around how we use those roads. 
For a decade a Minister in this Parliament has not taken the opportunity to put some decent rules in place that make some difference. Labour members come to this Chamber here tonight and spout on about how we should be doing this that and the other thing but when they had their chance they never did it. What they are saying does not ring true because if we look at the fundamental policies of this legislation we will understand why this legislation is framed in the way that it is. 
The fundamental policy of this legislation is to look at at-risk drivers and then look at the youth who are part of that at-risk group. If we look at at-risk drivers in respect of alcohol we see that they are well above the blood-alcohol level of 0.08. Those are the real at-risk drivers because they put other drivers on our roads at risk and that is what the Minister talked about in relation to the British experience. The focus was on the real danger not on the political expediency that Labour is trying to promote here today. 
Young drivers are a big part of this policy as well. If members look at what we are doing they will see that it is a two-pronged approach. We are looking at the driving age and we are talking about how we can make young people safer on the roads. I congratulate the Green Party a party that promotes itself on supporting young people. It has seen that it is in the best interests of young people to have the minimum licensing age raised from 15 to 16 and the implementation of new rules on the drink-driving limit of young people as encapsulated in the legislation. 
This legislation has two parts to save young people on the roads. The first relates to the minimum licensing age. Moving the minimum licensing age from 15 to 16 gives young people a chance to survive on our roads. Second reducing the alcohol limit for young people to zero will save more young lives on New Zealand roads and that is the important part of this legislation. This will lead to saving young people’s lives on our roads in New Zealand and we should be very very mindful of that. 
Opposition members have talked about the Australian approach. They say that Australia dropped the blood-alcohol limit to 0.05. But we should look at the driving age there. People would not even be driving at 16 in Australia. In its graduated system people are probably 17½ or 18 before they actually drive. So to have that approach we have to look at the other tests done in Australia and compare apples with apples; we should not compare one part with another without taking into account the fullness of its system as one of the previous Labour speakers had done. 
This legislation is good legislation. It is there for road safety purposes. It is practical legislation that enables us to look at what other options there may be in the future. But it is legislation that will work. It is legislation that will make a big difference in saving our young people’s lives on the roads and it also looks at those high-risk drivers that we need to be taking into account in the future. This is good legislation. It is for road safety. It will save lives and I congratulate the Minister as it passes through the House. Thank you. 
LOUISA WALL (Labour) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Chairperson. Tena koutou katoa. It is my privilege to follow my colleagues and to speak on Part 1 of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I obviously have not been here to listen to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee hearings but to begin I state my support for initiatives that make the journeys of all New Zealanders on our roads safer. 
Paul Quinn 
: Did Phil write this? 
LOUISA WALL 
: No I did actually. It is devastating when we lose those we love through road crashes and I support evidence-based initiatives that protect all of us when we are travelling on New Zealand roads that address the design of our roads that address the design and safety standards of our vehicles and that reflect the current behaviours and needs of all New Zealanders and the roles they play within their families and communities. 
I will specifically speak about the proposal to raise the minimum licensing age from 15 years to 16 years. I actually agree with some of the ACT members which is interesting. Our Labour team does not support the increase from 15 years to 16 years but we do support the extension in the learner-licensing period. We do not support this proposal because there is no evidence that raising the age will reduce accidents for 15-year-olds. One cannot attribute teenage crash rates to the age at which we or our young people start driving. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: Why not make it 12 or 11? 
LOUISA WALL 
: No 12 is ridiculous is it not? 
Hon Member 
: Make it 25. 
LOUISA WALL 
: Yes make it 25; that was that member’s answer. In essence Labour supports an extended learner-licensing period that allows young drivers from the age of 15 to safely garner driving experience and hopefully with a bit of maturity to obtain their full driving privileges. We agree that young people who have limited driving skills are more at risk of having an accident but this risk applies not only to 15-year-olds but to any person whatever their age when they start driving. It is about the act of driving learning to drive and the experience of driving as opposed to the age one starts to drive. 
I support the position of Federated Farmers which will probably shock some people over there the Automobile Association and Students Against Drunk Driving who totally oppose raising the minimum driving age because of the impact on their communities of interest and because it will not do much to increase road safety which is the primary intention of this bill. The Federated Farmers spokesperson Donald Aubrey supports Labour’s position that young people need to be supervised and that extending the learner-licensing period from 6 to 12 months would improve safety so that our young people would have greater opportunities to become good drivers. If one lives rurally the reality is that one has to travel to get to school work and sports. I actually got in my first senior team when I was 12 but I remember when I was 15—and that was a few years ago obviously—I had to learn to drive to get to my training. My parents actually encouraged me to get my licence early which enabled me to make my netball training. I then got into the South Waikato team and I eventually made it into the Silver Ferns. The reality is I could not have done that if I did not have the opportunity to drive. This proposal not only limits the opportunities of young people like me— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Somebody would have dropped you off. I used to get my brothers to drop me off all over the place. 
LOUISA WALL 
: —is that right; well I say “Good on you”—but also creates more pressure on parents and caregivers. We have to look at families within the wider context particularly those who live rurally. Actually John Carter will know. He would support the fact that we should not be increasing the driving age. 
I acknowledge that New Zealanders have a high teenage crash rate for 15 to 19-year-olds but again I highlight that no research can attribute the rates of crashes to the age at which those people started driving. I reiterate Labour’s position that an extended supervised period from 6 months to 12 months where young people have more supervised driving experience is what is needed. Why does the Government over there not put its hand in its pocket and make sure our kids are getting the education they need? It is focused on national standards; what about creating some standards in this area and ensuring our children can continue to participate as I said in sport and other activities? Why is the Government not doing that? I am here to support my colleagues and I thank them for providing me with the notes that have enabled me to participate in this debate. We will continue to advocate for 15-year-olds to continue to have an opportunity to be licensed. We put pressure on the Government to ensure 15-year-olds have the skills and the education to make them safe. 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora. I acknowledge the debate we have had in the Committee on this important bill the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. We have talked about the good: the alcohol interlocks and the common-sense changes. We have talked about the missing: the change to 0.5 in the blood-alcohol level. 
Missing from this debate and missing from the Safer Journeys document is the single most effective thing we could do to reduce the road toll in New Zealand: take cars off the road. It is simply to give motorists an alternative—a real alternative—to driving. I am talking about better buses better trains walking and safer cycling. With petrol at $2.19 a litre at the moment which is the most expensive it has been in New Zealand’s history I asked the Minister of Finance what the plan was. I asked whether the Government was even planning to start planning to reduce our dependency on oil. I got a no. The Minister said that Kiwis are smart they have alternatives and they will respond to those market signals and find the alternatives. 
I ask the Minister of Transport what Safer Journeys did and what his Government is doing to give Kiwi motorists realistic alternatives. I am seeing regional railways potentially closing across the country. I am seeing the railway station closing in Wellington. I am seeing $10.7 billion spent— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I remind the member that this debate is not about railways; it is quite specific. When we are in the Committee stage we must focus on Part 1 and not extend beyond it. 
GARETH HUGHES 
: I guess I was bringing in the broader transport context because the most effective thing we could do is take cars off the road. 
I will read briefly from our submission to Safer Journeys which mentioned what we should be doing to make our roads safer—which is not in Part 1 of this bill. We endorsed the lowering of the speed limits. We would increase the adoption of lower speed limits in urban arterials and we would increase the effectiveness of speed limits. In our submission on Safer Journeys we talked about cycling and the need for the 1.5m To Survive campaign to support it. 
In a nutshell this bill has a whole bunch of common-sense parts to it but it misses in terms of the 0.5 blood-alcohol limit. It misses the whole point about the most effective thing we can do to save motorists’ lives to save the 400 to 600 people who potentially die every year in New Zealand as a result of air transport pollution and—as we read about in the  
Dominion Post  
last week pretty tragically—to help the impact on premature births from living near motorways. We need to be doing more. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I will rise and take just a short call; there are a couple of things I omitted to do earlier. One was to thank and acknowledge the Hon Peter Dunne who has had a bill on raising the driving age in this House for a couple of years now. He of course has indicated his support for these measures. I would also like to acknowledge the support of the majority of the ACT Party members. Surprisingly I found myself on the same side as the Greens at least until Mr Hughes gave his second speech and then things sort of diverted once again. 
I thought I would raise an issue of consistency for the Labour Opposition. On Thursday 15 April 2010 the Labour leader told the New Zealand Press Association that his party’s 43 MPs would back the law change to lift the driving age from 15 to 16. That is quite interesting. What we are seeing today is possibly a bit of a revolt against the leader’s direction in that regard. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Table the document! 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Mr Jones can check the New Zealand Press Association story by all means. I suppose my comment to Opposition members because they have been flipping and flopping around on this issue—at least some of them have; we are not sure what the leader still thinks—is that perhaps they might like to make up their minds and join the evidence-based solution before they get a chance to vote on this part. They have to be aware that their leader said he would support it so if they vote against it or vote in favour of their own Supplementary Order Paper then I suppose it has to qualify as a little bit of a slap in the face for the leader and a bit of a revolution. I suppose that is a judgment for the senior members of the House to make and it is fair enough that they should do that. I think they probably need to make a careful decision about this Supplementary Order Paper before they dive in. Thank you. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to take a call in the Committee stage of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill on Part 1. As some of my colleagues have mentioned previously drink-driving is a really big issue in the Waikato where I come from and in particular in Hamilton. 
I know that the local Government members have been trying to confuse the issue by telling people who are concerned about the lack of leadership from the Government on reducing the legal blood-alcohol limit for drink-driving that it is not an issue for the Alcohol Reform Bill that it is a Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill issue and that we will deal with it in that bill. Mr Bennett is shaking his head but I have been at a meeting where Mr Macindoe said exactly that to submitters who wanted to submit on the issue of reducing the legal blood-alcohol limit in the consideration of the Alcohol Reform Bill. They were told by the Government MPs that the Alcohol Reform Bill was the wrong bill. Those MPs tried to look sympathetic about it and as if they agreed with the audience. They said people would get their chance when the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill came forward. 
Of course now that that bill is before us where are those Hamilton MPs on the issue of reducing the legal blood-alcohol limit? They are not pushing for that measure to be included in the bill. Nanaia Mahuta and I are the only Hamilton-based MPs who are pushing for a lowering of the blood-alcohol limit— 
David Bennett 
: You’re not Hamilton-based. Where do you live? 
SUE MORONEY 
: I live in Hamilton as Mr Bennett well knows but I thank him for allowing me to clarify that. 
David Bennett 
: You don’t live in Hamilton. 
SUE MORONEY 
: I can tell Mr Bennett that yes I do. He might want to look at the new register that has come out. I live in Hamilton and the member will have to swallow his words as he will many more times. 
I will come back to the issue which is about who in Hamilton is prepared to stand up for the view that was so clearly expressed in the survey from the  
Waikato Times 
 in which 68 percent of the people of Hamilton said they thought the blood-alcohol limit was not good enough. Only 19 percent of the people in that survey of 418 people in Hamilton said they agreed with the current limit. The Government is on the side of 19 percent of Hamiltonians. That is where the Government sits on the issue. 
The other 86 percent of Hamiltonians will be looking towards this side of the House to represent their views that the limit ought to be lower. That is what those Hamiltonians firmly believe. Why do they believe that? It is because they have had enough of the carnage on the roads. They have also had enough of how alcohol affects our entire community to the detriment of the community. They have had enough of that and they want leadership on the issue of the blood-alcohol limit. Sadly with this bill they are not getting leadership from the Government on that issue but they can look to the Labour benches for leadership because Labour is prepared to stand up and vote for a reduction in the blood-alcohol limit for drink-driving for over-20-year-olds. 
I know that the Chair ruled that the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Bill perhaps has nothing to do with railways but I can say that the bill has everything to do with other forms of transport because they are a way that road safety can be improved. The Government is absolutely opposed to putting in a passenger train service for Hamilton and Auckland. That is another issue on which Hamiltonians will have to look to this side of the House to have addressed. Only Nanaia Mahuta and I are standing up and fighting for getting a passenger train service between Hamilton and Auckland— 
Paul Quinn 
: Relevancy! It’s got nothing to do with trains. 
SUE MORONEY 
: —which of course will improve road safety and I say to Mr Quinn that I believe that road safety is what we are debating. A passenger train service along with some of the measures in the bill will improve road safety. Is the Government interested in pursuing that train service? Not only is the Government not interested in pursuing the train service but also it is in outright opposition to getting that very logical sensible service between the fourth-largest city and the largest city in our country. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I like it when the Hon Shane Jones is in the Chamber because he brings some interesting questions to the debate. Time and time again he says that the bill in front of us—the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill—is Labour policy. He said three or four times that it is Labour policy. I do not know whether he says it just to put people off or whether he seriously believes it. But if he seriously believes it then why do we not already have this measure? When Labour was in Government not so long ago why did it not implement any of this or is it a case of saying to Parliament and to the New Zealand public: “Oh well because they’re doing it we want it too and we want to say it’s our policy.”? 
The fact of the matter is that the people made a choice 3 years ago and that choice was to get some infrastructure going to get some benefit out of our own country to look after the lives of young people and not to kick them around to make sure that we put in place some things that will help— 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Relevance! Talk about parking wardens. Tell us about parking wardens. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I will tell Mr Jones what is relevant: we are here and he is there so that is enough. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Well do what’s right then. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Goodness gracious me! I can hear the cackle from Sherwood Forest. Sue Moroney asked who would speak on behalf of the people of Hamilton. I will give her two names and they are elected people. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Nanaia Mahuta. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: No that is one name. The man cannot count; it is one name. In fact I could give three or four names but one of them is David Bennett and another one is Tim Macindoe. 
Sue Moroney 
: How is he voting on this? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: If the member for wherever who lives in Matamata but decides to say that she lives in Hamilton wants to get up— 
Sue Moroney 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The assertion that the member just made about where I reside is absolutely incorrect. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I know where the member resides. This part of the debate has been light-hearted— 
David Bennett 
: It’s not a point of order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am on my feet ruling. That is not a point of order. It is a debating point and I am sure that if the member gets another call she might like to respond to it. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Here is another name—another member who looks after the folks of Hamilton—that I want to throw into the hat: Lindsay Tisch. He looks after— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: One thing the member cannot do is bring the Chair into the debate. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I am sorry Mr Chairperson but you do a good job. This is all about making sure that young people are looked after and that they are not kicked around and used as an excuse by members opposite to drop this drop that and drop something else. [ 
Interruption 
] Well if one listened to the barmy left one might as well have a policy that nobody drinks and nobody drives—a zero limit—because that is where we are going if we listen to members opposite. This measure is not about hurting young people. It is about saving their lives and making sure that we are in the position— 
Sue Moroney 
: You had better read what you are voting for here Tau because you are voting for a zero rating. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Sorry? 
Sue Moroney 
: You’re voting for a zero blood-alcohol level in this bill. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: The member should not be silly. 
Sue Moroney 
: You are. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: The member should not be silly. Of course we are not. We are with young people but not overall. On this side of the Chamber—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Members will quieten down please. I would like to hear what the speaker is saying. This is meant to be a debate and I would actually like to hear something about the bill. The member has less than a minute to go. Could we just concentrate on what Part 1 says. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I will try to fit it in Mr Chairman. Here is something: this is not about everybody. Of course it is about young people but it is not about young people alone. This bill is about safe driving. It is about making sure people do not die or injure themselves when they are drinking and driving. That is what the bill is about. It is not about some ragtag mess driving a car down to the local video saloon. It is not about that at all. 
Phil Twyford 
: Video saloon? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Well that member had better go and ask Mr Jones about that. What we are here to do is make sure that young people are looked after. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 If there were ever an advertisement for reducing to a zero-alcohol intake that speech was it from the Hon Tau Henare. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. One cannot say suggest or even imply that a member has been drinking. I want to go further. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No I hear what the member says. I just remind members to be very careful about what one says. Let us have a debate on Part 1. Time is running out and I would like to think we could actually say something constructive about Part 1. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I seek leave to make a personal statement to the House. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: About what? 
Hon Tau Henare 
: About the accusation that has been made. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I want to go on record as saying that I have never and will never take a drink or even look like I take a drink. Everybody I know who knows me knows that I actually hardly ever touch a drop of the devil’s water. 
KELVIN DAVIS 
: I would like to apologise. We all realised he was sober when he made that speech. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: That does not add any value whatsoever. The member has made a personal statement. That is the end of the matter and let us keep it on those terms. 
KELVIN DAVIS 
: I apologise for the offence that was taken. I also take issue with what the Minister Steven Joyce said about the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill simply being a transport issue because it is not. It is about my uncle Tony who wrapped himself around one of the three bridges between Kawakawa and Moerewa some 30 years ago. It is about him the widow he left behind his seven kids and the impact that that accident has had on our whanau in those 30 years. It is about the young fellow I played rugby with 5 years ago. He did not actually have enough time to play enough games with us for me to get to know him properly and know his name. I played rugby with him one Saturday and the next morning at 7 o’clock he too wrapped himself around a bridge at Waipapakauri. It is about the young fellow whose tangi I attended in the valley across from where I come from who had an accident and when we looked at him in his casket we could see that his head had caved in. That is what it is about. It is about people’s lives and the impact of deaths on families. That is what it is about. It is not simply about just getting in the car or on a motorbike and travelling from point A to point B. It is about people’s lives. That is why we have to get it right. 
I agree with Gareth Hughes. We are talking about a land transport bill. As far as I am aware trains do travel on land. If we could reduce the amount of heavy trucks and heavy vehicles transporting goods on our main roads that would make things safer for us. In fact new section 16A talks about a restriction of heavy traffic on roads. Let us have a restriction; let us move the heavy traffic and transport heavy goods by rail so that there is more space on our roads for cars. Let us look at actually maintaining the rail line between Whangarei and Auckland so that we can remove the heavy vehicles from roads in that region. 
New section 16A states: “The Agency … or another road controlling authority … may by public notice direct that any heavy traffic or any specified kind of heavy traffic defined in the notice may not proceed between any 2 places by way of any road or roads specified in the notice.” I put in a plea for those of us who live in Kaitaia and the far north that one of those places that heavy traffic may not travel between is Victoria Valley and Mangamuka Bridge. In between those two locations there are 13 kilometres of windy Northland road and alluvial clay which just cannot handle that heavy traffic. When people are driving between Victoria Valley and Mangamuka Bridge and come up behind a logging truck there is nowhere to pass. When they can finally get past they speed off ahead and within 200 metres they come across another heavy logging truck. They overtake that one finally and then there is a third truck. These are the roading conditions we have to live with up in the far north on a daily basis. 
No section in this bill drops the blood-alcohol level from 80 milligrams down to 50 milligrams. What evidence do we need other than looking in the newspapers and on the news every day and seeing the accidents and the fatalities? If we need evidence why do we not just look at the news? That is the evidence we need. We do not need all those long reports to see what is happening to people. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: Tell us what your uncle’s BAC was. 
KELVIN DAVIS 
:Who cares what Michael Woodhouse thinks? Who really cares what he thinks? Michael Woodhouse is so removed from reality like this National Government that he actually does not know what is going on. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I am very pleased to speak in the Committee stage of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill particularly on Part 1. This bill is all about improving road safety in New Zealand and it really complements the Safer Journeys policy which the Minister of Transport brought out earlier in the parliamentary term. It outlined the Government’s policy to 2020. It is a very impressive document and an excellent policy and I think the Minister has shown great leadership. Basically he is implementing that policy. 
This legislation and Part 1 in particular targets the two key types of drivers who are a problem for our roads: young drivers and at-risk drivers. I will give members the statistics on why young drivers are an issue and are overrepresented in the statistics. Young people aged between 15 and 24 which is the definition of a “youth” make up below 14 percent of our population. They represent 16 percent of all licensed drivers. Yet in 2008 they were involved in about 37 percent of all fatal crashes—37 percent of all fatal crashes—and 38 percent of all serious injury crashes. If that does not paint a picture nothing else will. Young drivers are a real problem on our roads. 
Of course there are also at-risk drivers. These are drivers who drink while driving or drink despite having committed previous offences and do not adhere to the rules. Neither of those groups is particularly new; we have known about them for some time. Though we have known about them little progress has been made so this bill is long overdue. The Minister mentioned a shocking statistic: we have a 60 percent worse fatality rate among our young drivers than does Australia. That means we are seriously behind Australia and we need to address that statistic immediately. 
The other thing is that 72 percent of all alcohol-related crashes resulting in death—there is a recent study from which data has been produced—were associated with high-risk drivers. They are those with a previous drink-driving conviction or a first-time offender who is 50 percent over the limit. 
Really Part 1 covers strategies to address those types of at-risk drivers. Those strategies include increasing the minimum driving age to 16 and I am absolutely supportive of that provision. I find it astonishing that the Labour Opposition wanted to retain the age of 15. Quite frankly when I learnt to drive some 30-odd years ago the roads were not as dangerous as they are now. There were about 1 million vehicles on the road; now there are over 3 million and the cars are considerably more powerful. Quite frankly to be a driver on our roads we need our wits about us and that extra year of maturity can help. 
During the consultation phase of the Safer Journeys documentation there was absolutely widespread support for increasing the age to 16. This is not a populist move; this is a move to help save lives particularly the lives of our young drivers who need more common sense. That extra year will give them that. I make no apology for that. 
The other measure is the zero blood-alcohol limit for those under 20. There are many other measures such as alcohol interlocks which bring technology solutions into this legislation. Importantly the alcohol interlocks are not paid for by the State; they have to be paid for by the person who volunteers or wishes to use alcohol interlocks. There is no cost to the State for that measure. 
Obviously for drink-driving offenders there is a zero blood-alcohol limit. It is not acceptable for them to drink then drive and it is not negotiable. Drink-driving offenders cannot drive at all with alcohol in their system. Of course strengthening the penalties for causing death is another measure. 
I take the opportunity to talk about our alcohol culture. We have a problem with youth drinking and binge drinking. I know that the Alcohol Reform Bill which is currently under consideration will go some way to addressing that problem. 
I take the opportunity to digress a little and talk about FebFast. When FebFast finished the Christchurch earthquake had occurred and it was not really the time to congratulate members who had taken part. FebFast was an initiative whereby people elected not to drink alcohol for the month of February and the money raised went to youth drink-driving prevention programmes. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) 
: 
 I am taking a very short call on the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I was surprised to hear the Minister in the chair the Minister of Transport say this bill is just a land transport road safety amendment bill. That completely ignores some of the evidence that came out in the Law Commission report on blood-alcohol levels. I was surprised to hear that from a Minister who I know in his heart believes he should take stronger measures on the blood-alcohol limit and change it to a limit we have always supported from 0.08 grams to 0.05 grams of alcohol for every 100 millilitres of blood. The Minister in the chair knows that he should do this but he says that this bill is only a transport issue. If it were then in this bill we would be looking only at technical solutions for safety on the roads like barriers getting big trucks off the roads freeing up road space and other technical roading issues. But it is not. 
Labour initially supported this bill because we thought it built on our own approach to roading in the See You There—Safe As policy statement we put out. It was picked up very responsibly by National with the Safer Journeys policy. We hoped this would be an all-embracing bill but sadly we cannot support it in its entirety because the Minister is not lowering the blood-alcohol limit and he is increasing the minimum driver age from 15 to 16. I do not want to hear members opposite saying Labour members are irresponsible in supporting a driver’s licence coming in at 15 without adding that we are very very strong on having a learner-licensing period in that time and are supporting education initiatives for teaching young people how to be responsible drivers. I was appalled when a drive safely programme in one of the high schools in the Rotorua electorate where I used to be the electorate MP was cut. That programme was to teach young women drivers how to be safe when they were driving. Those sorts of initiatives defensive driving education which Labour supports have now been cut. We support those initiatives plus extending the learner-licensing period to 16 plus a zero-alcohol limit for young drivers. 
I was surprised to hear Jackie Blue who is reasonable and had her statistics bang on about young drivers. I live in a region where young people want to come into town and work at McDonald’s play sport on a Saturday or go to clubs and they have to travel up to an hour to get there to partake in what I see as normal healthy young participation in community life. Will their parents now have to bring them into town? Labour saw it as only fundamentally correct to continue to support a minimum driving age of 15 for a licence with a restricted learner-licensing period until 16 for those rural kids to be able to live a normal life and participate in normal healthy activities that young city kids can undertake. 
Labour sees this as a very important issue. We support the zero limit for repeat drink-drivers. We support the zero limit for drivers under 20. We support the initiative to have alcohol interlocks for repeat offenders. There is a lot in this bill that Labour supports. I think it is a pity the Minister did not do the brave thing MPs are elected to do and that is to make policy to protect the public good. There was an ideal opportunity in this bill and the Minister did not do the right thing or the responsible thing to lower the blood-alcohol level. The Minister knows it and I think it is an absolute cop-out when the Prime Minister has a Minister of Science and Innovation sitting beside him to advise him on what is the right thing to do and when the Law Commission stated emphatically in its wide-ranging report—it left no doubt in our mind—that alcohol limits must come down. That was in the Law Commission’s report. The Law Commission reports advise the Government of the day— 
JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 Just following on from the last speaker I tell the Committee that the Green Party also supports much better access to good driving programmes. In some ways the younger people we are talking about here have more recent training have to study the road code etc. to get their licence have a learner-driver period and are able to develop skills at a young age compared with people who are a bit older like many of us here—me in particular. I got my driver’s licence 44 years ago and on no occasion in those 44 years have I been required to do any additional driving course to do a defensive driving course to look at the road code or to do any tests—absolutely nothing. 
We have provisions in Part 1—for instance in clause 52 “Compulsory attendance at driving improvement course or dangerous goods course” whereby the court may order compulsory driving tests and things like that. It is good that those provisions are in the bill because if people have committed offences then they clearly are not up to it in terms of safe driving. Sure they should be put through a course but what about the rest of the community? There should be courses available and encouragement for people to attend them. As the last speaker Steve Chadwick said the Government is cutting back on funding for courses—in this case for younger people. But there should be more financial provision for driving courses for the whole community and encouragement for people to attend them. At the moment these courses apply only to those at a very young age when getting their licence or to those at an older age whose sight might be going a bit and they can take a test as a lot of older people do. But in the many decades in between there is no requirement to do anything or any encouragement to do anything and I think that is pretty bad. 
There is a provision in this part about heavy traffic which states there can be a restriction on having heavy traffic on certain roads. Well it is also good that that provision is there but what is the Government doing and what has it done over the last little while? It has extended the allowable weights for trucks so that we have bigger trucks and longer trucks on roads. That provision has come in from the Government’s decisions. A very unsafe environment has been created where the longer and heavier the trucks are the more danger there is on the road. Obviously the longer the truck is the more difficult it is to overtake it and more cars will be taking the risk of overtaking a long truck and occasionally being caught up in a head-on collision with people dying which is what happens too frequently on our roads. No matter which braking system heavy trucks have on them the heavier a truck is the more difficult it will be to stop it. It will take that bit longer to stop it which creates more dangers. Often I have noticed unfortunately that one of the problems we have on our roads is that people drive too close including truck drivers. I often see trucks driving a very short distance behind much smaller cars and I think: “Oh God what happens if that car in front stops very suddenly?” which now and again happens. The heavier our trucks are the more we get into that problem of accidents. 
With those few comments I say that I really support having much more resource devoted to making driving courses available to members of the community. Hopefully the courses will be free to give them that encouragement. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take my first call in this debate on Part 1. To me what we are looking at here particularly in terms of the clauses relating to the blood-alcohol limit is a triangle of intuition evidence and polling. On the first one we know that the Minister in the chair the Minister of Transport had the right intuition. He said it. He said that it was “just ridiculous” and that he was surprised to find that after he drank three-quarters of a bottle of wine legally he could still get behind the wheel. The Minister’s first intuition was right. He is very worried though—and we know this from other issues—about the optics of the situation and that is where we come to the next thing: the evidence. He went looking and he asked what evidence there was. Interestingly in the regulatory impact statement for this bill we have some notion of the evidence from the Ministry of Transport. It went through the things that the Government could do: lower the adult drink-driving limit from a blood-alcohol content of 0.08 to 0.05 grams lower the youth drink-driving limit from a blood-alcohol content of 0.03 to zero and introduce infringement penalties for the proposed excess blood-alcohol offences. Then the ministry expected that these actions are estimated to save between 17 and 35 lives and to prevent between 363 and 729 injuries each year. That is the social cost of not making changes. 
That evidence was provided by the Minister’s own advisers in the Ministry of Transport. But I know that the Minister is a man who has a bit of the accountant in him. He has a bit of the accountant in him so he knows about the cost of everything and the value of nothing. We can talk to him about the costs because the Ministry of Transport’s advice went on to state that “This equates to an annual social cost saving of between $127.5 million and $254.5 million” as at June 2009. 
Not only do we have the evidence of the social cost of not making these changes—of what the Minister has not put forward in front of the Committee—but also we have the economic cost. That is the evidence. The intuition was there the evidence was there but Mr Joyce has not gone ahead with that and we have to ask why that is. Well perhaps we can tell why from a recent newspaper story about what the Prime Minister was worried about. It was about the Prime Minister being concerned about whether one glass of wine could put a person over the limit. In reply he was told that “the public would react badly to a cut in the drink-drive limit—even though research and polls show most drivers are keen to see the limit reduced.” and that is where it all went wrong. That is where it all went wrong for the Minister. 
The intuition was there the evidence was there but his boss started to get nervous about the polling. If we know one thing it is that this Minister worries about the polling. The focus groups were done. I am sure that they were pulled in. Mr Joyce would have been there. He would have been there on the other side of the one-way glass looking in on the focus group and getting nervous that his intuition was not there; he was not going to back it. The evidence was telling him that he had to do it for the good of New Zealand—he had to lower that blood-alcohol limit—but he would not do it because the polling was not going to stand up because his boss started to get nervous. 
This is a situation I say to Mr Joyce when it is time to stand up and do the right thing. It is time to do the right thing that is based on evidence that will save lives that will save money in the economy and that will save money for the health system. That is just plain good for New Zealand. But Mr Joyce still has an opportunity. We have an amendment in Darien Fenton’s name on the Table that will make the change that the Minister’s officials have told him is the right thing to do. They told him that he will achieve the objectives of the Safer Journeys strategy if he goes ahead and makes this change. 
Mr Joyce has stood up in this Chamber and he has played a bit of politics. He asked why Labour has not made this change. Around this Chamber I believe there is a consensus that this is the right thing to do. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Why didn’t you do it the last time that you were in Government? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: That is the point I say to Mr Henare. Now is the time for Mr Joyce to show the leadership. There is a consensus around this Chamber. There is not even really a debate about this change. I ask Mr Henare whether it is the wrong thing to do. The member can tell me whether it is the wrong thing to do. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: 10 years and nothing. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: That is not an answer I tell Mr Henare. I asked whether it is the wrong thing to do. This is the problem with Tau Henare; this is the problem with Steven Joyce. We have the evidence that says this is the right thing to do. The opportunity is there to back Darien Fenton’s amendment and to make sure that the consensus that actually exists in this Committee can be brought into law. This is where the evidence is this is where the Minister’s intuition was and he should go ahead with it. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Motion agreed to. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I do not want to question your acceptance of the closure motion but Part 1 is an enormous part in the bill and we had several members still standing to take a call. Part 2 is very small— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I hear the member. The voting process has already started and I cannot change that. We have spent an hour and 52 minutes on Part 1 and everybody who was going for the call was given a call. The voting is now in process and we will continue with it. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Darien Fenton to Part 1 be agreed to: 
to omit clause 12. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 43 
New Zealand Labour 42; Progressive 1. 
Noes 79 
New Zealand National 58; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Darien Fenton to Part 1 be agreed to: 
to insert the following clause after clause 23: 
23ASection 11 amended 
Section 11 is repealed and the following section substituted: 
“11Drivers not to exceed specified alcohol limits 
“A person may not drive or attempt to drive a motor vehicle while— 
“(a)the proportion of alcohol in the person’s breath as ascertained by an evidential breath test subsequently undergone by the person under section 69 exceeds 250 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath; or 
“(b)the proportion of alcohol in the person’s blood as ascertained from an analysis of a blood specimen subsequently taken from the person under section 72 or section 73 exceeds 50 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.” 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Darien Fenton to Part 1 be agreed to: 
to insert the following clause after clause 23: 
23BSection 56 repealed 
“56Contravention of specified breath or blood-alcohol limit 
“(1)A person commits an offence if the person drives or attempts to drive a motor vehicle on a road while the proportion of alcohol in the person’s breath as ascertained by an evidential breath test subsequently undergone by the person under section 69 exceeds 250 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath. 
“(2)A person commits an offence if the person drives or attempts to drive a motor vehicle on a road while the proportion of alcohol in the person’s blood as ascertained from an analysis of a blood specimen subsequently taken from the person under section 72 or section 73 exceeds 50 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.” 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments (with the exception of the amendment to clause 12) set out on Supplementary Order Paper 226 in the name of the Hon Steven Joyce to Part 1 and the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 229 in his name to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 73 
New Zealand National 58; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 3 (Boscawen Calvert Hide); United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 2 (Douglas Roy H); Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Repeal revocations and consequential amendments 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The debate on this part includes schedules 1 to 3. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 I will talk about the provisions on zero-alcohol licences that are outlined in this part and the consequential changes that they require. Labour supports most of this bill the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill including the provisions on having a zero blood-alcohol level for those who are repeat drink-drivers and for those who are under the age of 20. We think that those are positive moves that will make a real difference to alcohol harm and the cost it has in lives accidents injuries and families losing their loved ones. 
In that regard we are very supportive of these provisions and the required changes that will bring into place the zero-alcohol licences as outlined in this part. However the real concern is that this measure does not go far enough. In providing for zero-alcohol licences in these situations and retaining the 0.08 gram blood-alcohol limit in other situations—that is the non - zero-alcohol licences—we are well out of step with the research well out of step with what most of the public want and well out of step with what we need. My concern is that by failing to address that specific point the Government does not realise how seriously the public takes this matter. 
As somebody who has sat in on submissions on the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill and who is currently involved in the select committee considering the Alcohol Reform Bill I have heard many many submitters. On the Alcohol Reform Bill we have had thousands of submissions and approximately 1000 of those people have wanted to make oral submissions. Most of them have submitted that they want to see the blood-alcohol level reduced from 0.08 grams to 0.05 grams. What is really concerning is that when dealing with that issue in relation to the Alcohol Reform Bill the select committee was told that reducing the blood-alcohol limit to 0.05 grams is out of its scope. It is out of scope for the Alcohol Reform Bill but in fact it was clearly within scope for this bill. We were told that it was out of scope for that bill because it was being dealt with as part of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. Consequently we see that this bill has not made any change and that the Government has not been willing to do the right thing. 
Unlike a number of my colleagues I do not think this issue is about doing the brave thing. I think that on this issue the public’s mind is fairly clear: people want to see this change. They want to see it probably for the same reasons that my colleague Grant Robertson said: in their guts they know it is right. The public have seen the evidence of what it looks like when people have drunk enough alcohol to go over the limit at 0.08 grams and they know those people are drunk. Most people are drunk at that limit and should not be driving a vehicle. People know that. 
One of the perverse consequences of all the publicity and the media stunts on this issue that has probably shocked us all—I reckon most of the members in this Committee have probably been quite shocked as was the Minister in the chair the Minister of Transport—is the fact that one can drink so much and have one’s blood-alcohol level remain at under 0.08 grams. One of the perverse consequences of this which has shocked people is that more people now know that they can probably drink more than they thought they could and still drive. I hope that there is not an irresponsible section of the public who now use that information to go out on the road when those people previously would not have done so. 
The important thing about setting the blood-alcohol limit is that it sends a very important signal of what we think is acceptable. In setting a zero-alcohol limit for repeat drink-drivers and young drivers—which is provided for in this bill and which we wholeheartedly support—we are sending a very clear message as would be sent by dropping the blood-alcohol level to 0.05 grams. That specific matter could have been dealt with as part of this bill as well and that would have made a huge difference. I raised it both in terms of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill and in terms of the alcohol reform process. That opportunity is provided by— 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 I appreciate your choice Mr Chairman Roy and it was a difficult choice because of the talent standing here waiting to be called. 
In referring to Part 2 of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill I would like to go to the consequential amendments which are in clause 97 and in particular to the part of schedule 1 under the first heading which is about the Land Transport (Driver Licensing) Rule 1999. I come back to some of the comments made earlier in the debate about the age of driver licensing. It may well be that the public out there overall is supportive of putting up the driving age. That is possibly because we have not adequately explained the issues around doing that and the inconvenience it will cause to young people particularly young people going to sports practice as Louisa Wall explained in her contribution earlier. She talked of what it meant for her to be able to do that. Also I do not think we have explained sufficiently the point about the evidence. The gut reaction is to quietly up the age and to expect that upping the age will somehow bring about a lower death toll. Actually there is no evidence to support that at all. 
Labour finds itself on the same side as Federated Farmers which is rare. National is on the other side of the fence from Federated Farmers. I completely understand Federated Farmers’ point of view. Overwhelmingly and the Chair will appreciate this people in Southland support the age remaining at 15 and not being raised to 16. Here is some of the evidence behind that. In 1986 15 to 19-year-olds caused 16.9 percent of the deaths on our roads. In 2006 that figure had dropped by 5 percent down to just 11.7 percent. There is no doubt that young drivers on our roads now are better drivers. They are certainly not perfect by any means. As we heard before they are still in the higher percentile of those causing accidents. 
When I made a contribution earlier I said that even in countries where the age-limit is higher and the United States is one of those countries the death rate of young drivers is much much higher than it is in New Zealand. So simply raising the age will not be a cure-all that brings down the deal toll. In fact we know fairly conclusively that no matter what the death toll is the 2 years after drivers get their licence is the most dangerous time—certainly for those under the age of 25. Steve Chadwick in her contribution earlier on made a couple of very important points about our approach to this particular issue. If we have better driver education if we extend the learner period and if we drop the permitted blood-alcohol concentration for the under-20s down to zero then we have a much better chance of bringing that 11.7 percent down much further. 
In this short contribution I just wanted to come back to schedule 1 which outlines the raising of the age-limit from 15 to 16 and 6 months. There are some other details or complications around that as well. I want to point out that in no way does the evidence support it. In fact it will seriously disadvantage many youngsters who are very responsible and who are driving cars responsibly in the countryside. Thank you. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on Part 2 of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I want to refer to schedule 4 “Offences against Act”. I do not think there has been any discussion in this debate so far about the provisions in the bill that deal with the issue of logbooks work-time regulations and so on and the issue of providing for search warrants for the police to gather evidence in terms of “chain of responsibility” offences. 
Part 1 of schedule 4 sets out the infringement fees for excess weight offences. Part 2 sets out the infringements for distance recorder offences and there are other things in Part 2 that deal with issues of heavy road transport. I support this measure. I congratulate the Minister in the chair the Minister of Transport on putting that measure in. I acknowledge that an awful lot has been done in terms of truck driver safety over the years but whether or not we like it we still have a problem. Although I congratulate the Minister on doing something in this bill I think the opportunity to do more has been missed. 
Last year 57 people were killed in truck-related crashes—that is 15 percent of all road deaths—and 865 people were injured in truck-related crashes. That has cost New Zealand $358 million. Of course truck drivers are not always at fault. In fact often they are not. I accept that but when a car comes up against a truck the driver and passengers in the car come off second-best. That is why we often end up with very horrific instances of truck-related crashes. 
I am pleased that we are dealing with the work-time regulations and the logbooks and so on but I was quite perturbed to get the information that last year the number of heavy motor vehicle drivers issued with traffic infringement notices for breaching logbook requirements was 1690 people. Also there were 137 traffic offence notices issued for the same thing. It is good that we are catching truck drivers who are breaching those rules. 
Obviously the police are doing their job but the Labour Opposition is concerned about the fact that this is continuing to happen and the number of truck-related deaths is not coming down. I think the Government is failing to address the fundamental underlying issue of our road transport industry. I am talking about small businesses so Tau Henare might be interested. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Say it again with some feeling. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: I thought that member’s Government was the party for small business but he is clearly not interested in hearing what it is like for owner-drivers who buy a truck mortgage the house spend a fortune on the truck and then have a contract imposed on them that means they are unable to make a living without breaching logbook rules without driving long hours and without scrimping on maintenance and all of the other sorts of things. So there is another solution that needs to be looked at here. I have called on the Minister before as he knows and I have called on National to look at this issue of the link between what truckies are paid and safety on the roads. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Make a call on your own party. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: That member can keep his head in the sand; that is fine. I know that truckies out there are not very happy with the Government at the moment. At the moment our select committee is considering legislation about road-user charges. Truckies are not very happy; in fact they are threatening another strike. Last week they told us that they will be better organised than they were when Labour was in power. 
I want to tell listeners that Tau Henare is pulling faces to indicate that he does not really care and I am really interested that he does not care about truck drivers or the road safety of the travelling public. He does not care whether truck drivers are on the road driving unsafely and putting other road users at risk. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 I will take an opportunity to speak on Part 2 of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill because I particularly want to make sure the member who just resumed his seat Tau Henare knows what he is voting for. When he made a contribution to the debate on Part 1 he referred to the loony left. He said the loony left would soon have us voting for zero blood-alcohol limits. I want to inform Mr Henare that he is voting for exactly that. I want to make sure that Mr Henare realises exactly what he is voting for because he seemed to be a bit confused. He was accusing this side of the Committee of daring to suggest that we might be voting in this Parliament for zero alcohol limits. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Stop your lying. 
SUE MORONEY 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take exception to the unparliamentary language used by the interjector Mr Henare. He just accused me of lying. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: My attention was taken by the fact that I am trying to get some Supplementary Order Papers into shape so I understand them. I did not hear the comments. Offence has been taken so the member will withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
SUE MORONEY 
: As I was saying regulation 7 from Part 2 of schedule 2— 
Grant Robertson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Even in the short time that I have been in the House I know that when people withdraw and apologise it is meant to be the end of the matter. Mr Henare just said—and it was audible to me on this side of the Chamber—“I didn’t mean it.” after he sat down. I ask you to bring him back into line. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: That is not what I said. I said to my colleague on my right: “I meant it.” 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I am not sure that was helpful. If the comment was an aside and was not directed to the House that is something I cannot determine because I did not hear it. But I caution the member; he should not make life more difficult for us all than it needs to be. 
SUE MORONEY 
: I hope the member Tau Henare takes your very sound advice on that point Mr Chairperson. Mr Henare is the member I am addressing in order to draw to his attention the fact that I expect he will vote in favour of regulation 7 from Part 2 of schedule 2 which brings in zero alcohol licences. Zero alcohol licences are the very issue he accused the loony left of trying to drag Parliament towards voting for. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: It is the loony left; everybody knows it. 
SUE MORONEY 
: There he goes again; Tau Henare is suggesting that the loony left will vote for zero alcohol licences which are an issue that his own Minister of Transport has brought before Parliament. Yes Labour will vote for the provision but it will be very interesting to see whether Tau Henare does. He claims he will not vote in favour of zero blood-alcohol licences but those licences are very much in schedule 2. I think he should read schedule 2 urgently to make sure his vote in favour is cast properly by the National whip. I would not want him to be under any false illusions. 
Mr Henare’s Government has missed the opportunity to respond to the call of the majority of fair-minded New Zealanders who want leadership on another issue to do with blood-alcohol. They do not want to keep the same blood-alcohol limit of 0.08 grams per 100 millilitres of blood for those over the age of 20 years. They want that limit to be reduced in line with the limit of other countries where it has been proven that lives are saved by dropping the blood-alcohol limit from 0.08 grams which is currently what we have and will continue to have under the National Government to 0.05 grams which is the amendment to schedule 2 that Labour will put forward as it did for Part 1. 
Mr Henare has been very very noisy this afternoon. He seemed to spend most of his time wanting to know where I live. I will put it on the record in this debate. I will not give him my address because I do not really want him to turn up at strange hours of the night—or at any time actually. I will not give him the actual address but to put Mr Henare’s mind at rest I can tell him that I live in Melville which is a suburb of Hamilton—and very proudly so. In case the member is interested I first moved there in 1991. I have put that on the record because it seemed to be what took up most of his speech. He seemed to be consumed with the issue of where I live. I think he said I live in Matamata. It is very flattering but I have not lived there since I was 16 years old. It is very flattering for Mr Henare to think I may still be 16 years old but it is an awfully long time since I have lived in Matamata. It was a very flattering comment from him none the less. 
Labour will support Part 2 of the bill because it deals with zero alcohol licences and alcohol interlock licences which we think will be a big improvement but we wish the Government had had the courage to address the issue further. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 I will refer to schedule 2 of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill and the zero alcohol licence provisions. The tack I am about to take may raise the hackles of my colleagues on this side of the Chamber and a lot of the people out there who are watching tonight but I have to agree with something Tau Henare said in the Committee today. 
Hon Member 
: Oh my goodness! 
KRIS FAAFOI 
: It has raised hackles. In an earlier contribution during the debate on Part 1 of the bill—funnily enough in an interjection during Kelvin Davis’ speech—Mr Henare said: “If you don’t want to die don’t drink and drive.” He is 100 percent right. But unfortunately— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Oh here comes the “but”. 
KRIS FAAFOI 
: Of course there is a “but”; I am talking about Mr Henare. Unfortunately he is part of a Government that supports a bill without provisions to take serious action and send a signal to the New Zealand public that they should do what Mr Henare said. The Government and the Minister of Transport have failed to put serious provisions in the bill for lowering the blood-alcohol content limit for drivers. 
As I said earlier Mr Henare made that interjection during what was a personal story for Kelvin Davis. I have heard from Michael Woodhouse as well today; I have come to know him a bit better and I have respect for his views on the Health Committee. He wants evidence-based arguments. I am not an expert on the exact figures and research but I have a personal story on this issue like Kelvin Davis did. My name is Kristopher John Faafoi. Just before I was born a very close family friend John Sione was taken out by a drunk driver. Mr Bridges might think that is funny but it is not funny at all. He was a very close family friend and he was taken out. I never met him but I bear his name. 
Thirty-five years ago drink-driving was a problem. With this bill the Committee has an opportunity to take serious action on drink-driving. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: So we didn’t do it 10 years ago. 
KRIS FAAFOI 
: My argument in response to Mr Henare’s comment as he interjects again is that I do not want a history lesson. I am here as one of the newest members of the Committee and I want to make sure we are in the now and that in the future people like me can make sure—[ 
Interruption 
] Yes it is a sad tale. I say with the utmost respect that Mr Henare is 100 percent right but I am disappointed that the bill does not include provisions to seriously tackle the drink-driving problem in New Zealand. 
I have dealt with that cop-out: the bill not dealing with the problem. Let me deal with the minimum driving age and the cutting of corners on that issue. As I said before Michael Woodhouse has raised some interesting issues on the minimum driving age argument. He wants to ensure we have an evidence-based approach. I see a contradiction here. With the minimum driving age the evidence is that when someone is young swift action will be taken against him or her. But with the drink-driving prevention provisions if someone is intoxicated and does not think he or she can drive we will wait a couple of years figure out what is actually going on and then take action. I do not think that is right. 
Earlier Paul Quinn told members to look at the polls. I will tell the Committee what the polls say: 67 percent of respondents to a Television New Zealand poll said Parliament should take action to lower the blood-alcohol limit; one poll result from Research New Zealand went from 50 percent to 63 percent; and UMR Research had 70 percent of Kiwis wanting to ensure that Parliament lowered the blood-alcohol limit for drivers. 
I will go back to the minimum driving age and the impact it will have on rural communities in particular. In my electorate areas such as Paekakariki and Pauatahanui have large rural communities. They are concerned about what this change will mean for their young ones and the opportunities for social community and sporting events that are open to them. We should take that concern seriously. It is an argument that has been floating around for a long time. When I was a journalist I did a story on a mother and daughter in Kaiapoi in Clayton Cosgrove’s electorate of Waimakariri who were concerned because the daughter potentially would not be able to get a licence to drive the 25 minutes to school. We also heard earlier from David Shearer around the Southland District Council. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I will speak on Part 2 and the schedules of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I will pick up where I left off in Part 1 because the same matters that I was discussing at that point are dealt with in the schedules. I was discussing exactly what stopped the Minister of Transport from going with his gut on the bill and from going with his intuition that lowering the blood-alcohol limit was the right thing to do. This issue is dealt with in the schedules in terms of the zero alcohol limit. There was an opportunity to lower the blood-alcohol limit. Not only was the intuition there for the Minister to lower the limit but also the evidence was there. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Read the evidence. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Mr Henare is not very familiar with evidence. It is a difficult concept for him to grasp. It is what happens when people study things look at the situation in other countries and then come up with the evidence. The evidence certainly supports lowering the blood-alcohol limit. The question then is how we ended up in a situation where the Minister is not following through on what he wanted to do. The answer is that Mr Key clearly got nervous. Mr Key got nervous and decided he could not go ahead with it. He could not go ahead with backing the gut reaction of his Minister. That is incredibly disappointing. 
Labour will support Part 2 because there are things in this bill that are good. There is a recognition that we need to do more to protect New Zealanders from those people who drink and drive and to stop people from drinking and driving. That is important. Very few members of the House have not been affected in some way or other by people who have been drink-driving. We need to do more. The opportunity was on the Table for the Minister. Darien Fenton’s amendments to Part 1 were on the Table to do something about drink-driving and the Minister bottled. He just could not do it. He could not go ahead with it. We saw in an article in the  
Herald on Sunday 
 on 2 January of this year that when John Key got involved he got nervous. That is the problem with what has happened with this bill. There was a lack of courage and commitment to follow through on what the Minister knows is right what Mr Henare knows is right and what Mr Bridges knows is right. The right thing to do was here on the Table and it was not picked up. 
Over and over again we have seen from the Minister a transition from somebody who had a gut feeling that he was doing the right thing. His own experience told him that it was ridiculous—that was his word—that he could drink as much as he did and still be within the limit. His intuition was right and the evidence backed his intuition but he bottled it at the end because John Key got nervous. John Key’s office was writing directly to officials in the Ministry of Transport bypassing the Minister to see whether they were concerned about whether someone who had had one glass of wine could go over the limit. It was an issue that John Key was personally concerned about. That is what his adviser was telling the Ministry of Transport. In the end officials were put in a position even though the regulatory impact statement stated that lowering the blood-alcohol limit could improve New Zealand improve social outcomes and improve economic outcomes that the recommendation was bottled when the Prime Minister came on the scene. That is incredibly disappointing because the zero alcohol limits and the things coming in in the schedules will do good things. I tell Mr Henare that we are not the loony left; he is voting for the bill. He might fit one of those words but he does not fit the other. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: That was funny. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Thank you. The bill is something that everybody in the House can support but it is an opportunity lost. People right around New Zealand are looking for politicians to take a leadership role on the issue and this is an opportunity. They are looking for politicians who look at the evidence internationally and in New Zealand and say the evidence is there—and people actually want the limit to be lowered. For reasons that go against the intuition of the Minister the Government is going against the evidence on the Table. But because the Prime Minister got nervous and got spooked suddenly we do not have support for it. 
The worry that we on this side of the Committee have is that we have missed the opportunity now. I believe that everybody in the Committee wanted to lower the blood-alcohol limit. The opportunity has gone. Although we have a bill that will do some good things and therefore we can support it it misses out on the very very real possibility of making a major change that would improve the lives of all New Zealanders. I am sad that has happened. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chair; kia ora tatou katoa. I te ra nei i whakarewahia ko te purongo kua puta i te paepae motuhake mo  
Te Reo Mauriora 
 e ki ana kia kaha tonu tatou ki te korero i te reo Maori ana koina e tu ake mo te wa poto kaua mo te wa roa ki te whakatakoto i etahi whakaaro mo te Pati Maori. Me ki kei te tautoko ake te Pati Maori i te nuinga o nga korero i roto i tenei pire. E tika ana kia ata titiro ki tenei kaupapa na runga i te ahuatanga o nga korero o tena o tena mo te ahuatanga o-mate kua pa mai ki tena ki tena o tatou; ko te hunga rangatahi nei e taraiwa haurangi ana. Me ata titiro ki tetahi kaupapa hei karo i tera uauatanga e ngau nei i a tatou me ki te motu. Kaua i te iwi Maori i tona kotahi kaua i te iwi Pakeha i tona kotahi engari ko tatou katoa. Kua rongo tatou ki te ahuatanga o-mate na runga i te mahi taraiwa haurangi. 
Ko ta matou tino raru na te mea i ahua noho taupatupatu nei i waenganui i a matou o te Pati Maori ko te pikinga o te tau taraiwa mai i te 15 tau ki te 16. Ara ano matou e wananga ae ranei ka tino kite i tetahi painga o tera ara ko te pekenga o te tau taraiwa. Ki a matou kaore matou e tino kite i tera. Ko te mate ke ko te Honore Tariana Turia e mea nei kai Whanganui a ia e noho ana i runga i te pamu e mahi pamu ana i te taha o tana hoa rangatira a Hori. Ko te mahi nui ko te taraiwa o te hunga tamariki i a ratou ano ki nga papa takaro ki wahi ke atu penei i ta Steve Chadwick penei i ta Louisa Wall e korero nei mo te taraiwa i a ratou ano ki te papa takaro. Ahau tonu tokorima waku tamariki. Kai tawhiti ke toku kainga i Rotorua ki Ngongotaha wahi rongonui o te motu. Ka mutu tera pea tekau ma rima rua tekau meneti te taraiwa atu ki te taone nui a e tokorima nga tamariki ia ra pera tonu te ahuatanga ki nga mahi hakinakina. Ka tipu nga tamariki ki te tau e tika ana a ka ki atu ka pai kai a koe te tikanga. Hoko koe i tou ake waka kai a koe te tikanga. No reira tera tera korero. Kei te ata whakaaro ake mo te hunga e pera ano te noho a kai tuawhenua kei nga pamu kai tawhiti nga taone nui. 
Ka mutu ko te tino take i whakatakotohia e matou ki waenganui i a matou ano mena e tika ana kia ki te pakeke ki te tamariki anei matou kei te pai te unu waipiro ki tetahi taumata engari koutou kao kao. He rereke nga ture ki a koutou tamariki ma rangatahi ma taiohi ma. Ko ta matou e ki nei ko nga korero e pa ana ki te pakeke me pera ano hoki ki te ahuatanga o te tamariki. Mena ka ki atu tatou kare tatou e whakaae kia paku unu kia paku unu tetahi pakeke i tetahi paku karahe waina pia ranei. Kaore e whakaaetia ki te tamariki me pera ano hoki ki te pakeke. He aha te pai mo te ki atu ki te tamariki a me penei koutou engari kua rereke te ahuatanga ki a matou. 
No reira koinei ta matou e korero nei he paku whakaaro no matou. Kei te whakahe i era wahanga engari ko te whanuitanga o te korero kei te whakaae atu i te mea me titiro tonu ki tenei o nga ahuatanga a nga ra kei mua i te aroaro. 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Chair and to all of us. It was stated in the independent panel review report Te Reo Mauriora that we must make an earnest effort to use the Maori language and for that reason I rise to take a short call not a long one to put forth some thoughts in Maori on behalf of the Maori Party. The Maori Party supports much of what is in this bill. It is right that we consider this proposal very carefully based on what each of us has said about young people drinking and driving and any death resulting from that. It has affected each of us in some way or other. We and the nation need to find a way to avoid that difficulty that is gnawing away inside us. Maori and non-Maori people on their own will not solve it but everyone has to take responsibility. We have all been affected by the tragic circumstances brought about through drink-driving.  
What caused us great concern when we the Maori Party were debating this issue amongst ourselves was the raising of the driving age from 15 to 16 years. It was while we were debating away yes or no that we found a positive reason for raising the age. There was a problem in the case of the Hon Tariana Turia who said she lives on a farm in Whanganui working alongside her husband George. The big problem was with the children driving themselves to sports venues or other places. That was similar to what the Hon Steve Chadwick and Louisa Wall had to say about driving to sportsgrounds. I am the same too with my five kids. My home is in Ngongotaha a famous place in the country and some distance from Rotorua. It is a drive of about 20 to 25 minutes to the city so there is a daily ritual with five children in pursuit of sporting events. So when the children get to the right age you say to them: “OK over to you. Buy your car; it’s over to you.” So that is that statement. But I am thinking about those in a similar situation in rural areas on farms and quite far away from larger towns.  
In rounding off the debate amongst ourselves we ended up asking whether it was right for adults to say to children: “We are fine we can drink to a certain level but you cannot—absolutely not. The laws are not the same for you kids teenagers and young people.” The point we are making here is that what we say to adults must apply to children as well. If we say that we will not allow children a single drop we will not allow an adult to have a single glass of wine or beer; do not tell them that we do not allow them to take a single drop while an adult can take a single glass of wine or beer. Just as for adults it will not be allowed for children. Where is the justice for children if we say “You have to do this but it is different for us adults.”?  
So that is what we are on about — just a little thought of ours. We oppose those clauses but agree to most of the bill simply because we need to monitor this aspect of the bill in the days before us 
.]  
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The question is that the question be now put. Those of that opinion— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Some of us have not yet debated Part 2. We had the closure of Part 1 which was a significantly long part. Some of us have been trying to use the opportunity to take a call on Part 2. I urge your reconsideration of accepting the closure motion. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I do not put closure motions lightly. The member ought to be aware of that. I have listened to a significant number of speeches that had very little to do with Part 2. I have made the decision that the Committee is ready to move on and I will test that decision by putting the closure motion. If members are opposed to the closure motion they should vote against it. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 229 in the name of the Hon Steven Joyce to clause 97 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 1 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 229 in the name of the Hon Steven Joyce to schedule 1 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Schedule 1 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 2 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 226 in the name of the Hon Steven Joyce to schedule 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Schedule 2 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 3 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 226 in the name of the Hon Steven Joyce to schedule 3 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Schedule 3 as amended agreed to. 
New schedule 4 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 229 in the name of the Hon Steven Joyce to add new schedule 4 be agreed to. 
New schedule 4 agreed to. 
Clauses 1 to 3 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to take a call on the title. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Which one? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Well there is a good question—which one; which title? I will give Tau Henare some suggestions about what it might be. I am happy to take a call on the title clause clause 1 of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. The title I believe is based on the Government’s Safer Journeys road safety strategy to guide improvements in road safety over the period 2010 to 2020. Gosh 2020 is a long time away but it will be here before we know it. The Safer Journeys strategy which is related to the title has as a long-term goal: “The vision a safe road system increasingly free of death and serious injury”. There is no problem with that—no problem with that. It is a motherhood and apple pie kind of vision. The Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill is supposed to implement that goal. 
Maybe the title should have been “Land Transport (Missed Opportunities) Amendment Bill” because the words “Road Safety” in the title are a little misleading. Although the bill goes some way towards addressing issues in relation to improving road safety between 2010 and 2020 it ignores of course the elephant in the room the missed opportunity that the title should reflect. It ignores the overwhelming evidence including that in the  
Safer Journeys  
document which the title of the bill is based on and which is what this bill is supposed to be about. It ignores the elephant in the room which is the lowering of the adult drink-drive blood-alcohol limit from 0.08 grams to 0.05. It could have been done in this legislation. If it had been maybe the title could have been “Land Transport (Road Safety: Labour is Here to Help) Amendment Bill”. If the Minister of Transport had accepted my amendment to Part 1 we could all now be going forward on this bill feeling pretty happy about it. The public would have been feeling pretty happy about it too because the missed opportunity to save 15 to 33 lives every year would have been taken up. 
Unfortunately the Minister has kicked the issue into touch. We have a 2-year research period for getting more evidence when the evidence is already there. More lives will be lost and more money will be wasted when we did not need to have that. Maybe the title of the bill could be “Land Transport (Road Safety: What a Waste of Money and Time) Bill”. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Cop out! 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Well there is another good suggestion for the title. It could be the “Land Transport (Road Safety: the Government Copped Out) Amendment Bill” because the Minister has copped out on this issue. It could be the “Land Transport (Road Safety but Only If We Feel Like It) Amendment Bill” or it could be the “Land Transport (Road Safety: Let’s Drink Three-quarters of a Bottle of Wine and We Can Still Drive) Amendment Bill” and we could just not worry about it. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I know the member couldn’t. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: There are many possible titles. Seeing that the member Tau Henare is taking such an interest in the title and in my contribution on the title I ask him to stand up and respond to some of those titles and let me know what he thinks. I think there are much more creative titles than the ones I have suggested that would fit this bill and would be more suitable than the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. 
The “Other Matters” part is really interesting too. I was thinking about it and wondering what fitted into the “Road Safety” bit and what fitted into the “Other Matters” bit. I am not really sure. All of this bill is about road safety so what are the “Other Matters”? Maybe they are all of the repeal revocations and consequential amendments that are in Part 2 and the schedules. Maybe those are the “Other Matters” bit. Some very obscure Acts that I have never heard of are being repealed or amended by Part 2 and the schedules. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) 
: 
 I will also take the opportunity—having been denied a lengthy debate on Part 1 and on Part 2 after rightly challenging the Chair—to accept the call of the Chair. It means we will have a little rave on the title of this Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I would call it the “Land Transport (Partial Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill” because I believe— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: There’s got to be a law against this sort of thing. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: —if Tau Henare could just listen to the evidence—that it is a very sad day when we get an opportunity to have such a massive bill before the Committee that we have wasted the opportunity to do the right thing. 
We have wasted the opportunity to do the right thing here and there will be up to 66 lives lost while the Minister garners evidence when he knows from the ministerial adviser to the Prime Minister that that evidence is already here. We are now facing a very similar type of debate to one that was running in the UK just recently which shows entirely that this Government will not go near anything at all that touches what its members call that nerve of social legislation. 
Members opposite who have a good conscience have said to me that they are not allowed to vote on any social legislation. The Prime Minister has told them that in the first term of Government they are not to introduce any social legislation after Labour’s bold initiatives in the 9 years we were in Government. I say to Tau Henare that it was Labour that brought in the Law Commission report on alcohol which is the guiding document for all other legislation that impacts on alcohol and here is the golden opportunity in this “Land Transport (Partial Road Safety but Not Far Enough and Other Matters) Amendment Bill”. 
We know that the Prime Minister wrote to the Ministry of Transport officials and this is the reply he received. He was told the public would react badly to a cut in the drink-driving limit even though research and polls show that most drivers are keen to see the limit reduced. How sad! This was one crack at land transport legislation that could have been universally accepted by all parties in this Chamber but for the issue of the driver-licensing age and the blood-alcohol limit. I think it is very sad. It mimics what goes on globally. This debate has just happened in the United Kingdom and there Ministers of the Crown were advised by doctors and physicians about their lost opportunity too for reducing alcohol-related deaths and morbidity on the roads. 
Michael Woodhouse is yawning as if the loss of lives and morbidity on the roads does not matter. To us over here it does matter. We know the evidence is already there about reducing the blood-alcohol limit from 0.08 grams to 0.05 grams but the Minister will sit on his hands prevaricate and ignore evidence-based research that has been put by the Chief Science Adviser to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has copped out of giving leadership to this country and leadership to the children of this country by setting an example to young people and saying it is not good enough to go out there and drink and drive. Here was the opportunity. 
The Minister in the chair the Minister of Transport could have shown leadership. I think he wanted to but he got bowled by his own leader the Prime Minister who rode roughshod over him and went directly to the Ministry of Transport advisers. They gave him the advice which we have here that he would get a bad public reaction to this so the Prime Minister decided that we would not go there even though 70 percent of those polled tell the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport that this is what should be done. 
I also acknowledge the legacy of the Hon Darren Hughes in this debate. Darren fought very hard in this debate in the House and he took on the Minister of Transport. I enjoyed the repartee between the two of them. Darren came near to convincing the Minister of Transport that this was a good idea. I think a legacy to Darren Hughes would be to acknowledge that we could have today called this bill the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Bill but we cannot. We are here in the title debate making a half-hearted attempt at road safety. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am very pleased that I have the call to talk about the commencement dates—the various commencement dates actually—of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. The bill is structured quite differently from most bills we have been debating in this Chamber in that it has four different times at which various parts of the legislation will come into being. I invite the Minister in charge of this bill Steven Joyce to give some insight into why we have four different time frames for various sections of this legislation to come into being. 
We have the bill in front of us and I want to let listeners know that a whole series of clauses will come into force 90 days after the date of Royal assent. They seem to be mainly—clause 6 is one of them—a grouping of issues about the way that licensing will happen. That is what they appear to be to me but it would be great to get some clarification from the Minister himself. 
Then there is another group of clauses. They seem clearer to me because they are about taking blood specimens. I expect that this group is about letting our health system prepare for a new way of dealing with blood specimens because clauses 31 to 35 and clause 37 which happen to be about the way in which blood specimens will be dealt with by our health system will come into force 180 days after the date of Royal assent. So one bunch of new rules is coming in 90 days after the date of Royal assent and another bunch is coming in 180 days after the date of Royal assent. 
Then there is a third group which seems to be mainly about the issues that have been mostly debated in this bill— 
Michael Woodhouse 
: All for good reasons Sue. If you’d been in the committee you’d understand why it was like that. 
SUE MORONEY 
: Well I invite the member Michael Woodhouse who was on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee to get up and give clarification because we are debating the commencement clause and it is important for the Committee of the whole House to understand the insights the select committee members had on that clause. I would be really pleased to hear Michael Woodhouse take a call to enlighten me on this issue. 
The clauses in the third group seem to be about the zero blood-alcohol limit which Tau Henare was so confused about. They seem to be about the new interlock system that we can use. But we are not told how many days after Royal assent the clauses will come in. The dates are even more vague—if that is possible. Clause 2(3) states that these particular clauses—and I will not read them all out; there are a number of them—“come into force on a date to be appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council and 1 or more orders may be made appointing different dates for different provisions.” So we could have about a dozen probably up to 18 different dates for each of those clauses to come in; that seems to be a bit of a shambles. Then clause 2(4) states that everything else the rest of the Act “comes into force on the day after the date of Royal assent.” Probably by my estimation there are about 30 different dates then on which all of this legislation could come into being and I think that that will be very very confusing. 
It will be very confusing for the authorities who need to administer this Act including the police. I think the police will have a bit of a nightmare working out which provision comes in when. Most of the provisions of the Act are coming in the day after the date of Royal assent. Then about a dozen clauses will come in 90 days after the date of Royal assent and three clauses which all seem to apply to the health system will come in 180 days after the date of Royal assent. As I said before about 18—I have not stopped to count them—different clauses will come in on a date we do not know about and they might all come in on different dates according to the commencement clause. So it is really important for the Committee of the whole House to understand exactly what is going on with what I think are the approximately 30 or more different dates on which the various provisions of this bill are to be enacted and the reasons behind that. 
Why I ask the question—and I really would like the Minister to respond—[ 
Interruption 
] Tau Henare may not be interested in the shambles the police might be left with over the dates on which they will have to deal with various parts of the Act coming in but I certainly am. I would expect that the Minister of Police Judith Collins might be really keen to hear what the explanation is and exactly how the police will deal with different parts of the Act coming in at different times. They will need to understand that in order to do their planning. Legislation like this makes quite a big difference to the police force in the way it will be administered so it is really important that the police understand which clauses are going to come in after 90 days and whether those clauses are the bits they are to administer. The Ministry of Health needs to understand so that it can get its orders and instructions out to hospitals up and down the country in relation to the provisions that come in after 180 days and that seem to apply to them. The ministry needs to know how it will manage those provisions. 
I will have to look at various clauses because all of the next bunch will actually come into force on a date that as stated in clause 2(3) “may be made appointing different dates for different provisions.” Those clauses are clauses 5 6 16 21 22 24 28 and so on. I will not read through them all but for example clause 5 is about “Drivers to be licensed”. That is the provision that takes away the concept of a limited licence which we are used to in this country and brings in three new licences. There is “an alcohol interlock licence”—so that will obviously be an issue for the licensing authority—“a zero alcohol licence or a limited licence”. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. 
SUE MORONEY 
: I will take full advantage of the 2 minutes I have left to debate the commencement clause because before the dinner break I was seeking clarification. I am hoping that the Minister who is responsible for this bill will be able to cast some light on the matter because it is very confusing. Clause 5 for example is about the new ways in which drivers will be licensed for “an alcohol interlock licence a zero alcohol licence or a limited licence.” Those are all new categories. That provision will come in— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member. It is a longstanding convention in this Chamber that members should not conduct conversations in the Chamber unless it is necessary to do so and then not to disturb the proceedings and the member speaking. 
SUE MORONEY 
: The clause I just referred to will come into force under clause 2(3) “on a date to be appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council and 1 or more orders may be made appointing different dates for different provisions.” That gives us no clue about the sort of time frame when that particular clause will come into force. It is a very important clause because it is about the new licensing regime that will be brought in by this bill. Yet part of the very next clause clause 6(1) will come into force 90 days after the Royal assent. Clause 6 is the clause stating that drivers are not to exceed specified alcohol limits. It is all very confusing. 
I think it will be very confusing for the authorities who will need to operationalise this legislation because they will not have any idea when they will be able to issue those new licences. The commencement clause clause 2 gives no clue whatsoever about when—even roughly when—that new regime will come into being; subclause (3) states that the date will be “appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council” and that it could come into force on “different dates for different provisions.” 
It is my contention that we are no further ahead in terms of this commencement clause about when these provisions will be coming in. I think they are really important provisions because I know that families out there want to know when their 15-year-olds will be able to sit for their licences or whether they will have to wait until they are 16. It is really important for this to be understood. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 This bill really should be called the “Recidivist Drink-driver We Are Going to Ping You Bill”. 
Darien Fenton 
: It’s your Government’s bill. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Well maybe it should be called the “We Are Here the Opposition Is There and We Will Get on with What We Were Elected to Do Bill”. Maybe it should be called the “We Didn’t Have 10 Years When We Sat on Our Backsides Doing Nothing; We Have Had Only 2 Years and Look Where We Are Now Bill”. The folly in what we have been hearing from Opposition members is that the bill does not fit with any one title that they have given us to debate. 
Really there are two issues. There is the issue of the recidivist drink-driver who continues to drink-drive maim hurt and in some cases kill. We are saying that we will target those people and that is what the title is all about. That is what the essence of the bill is all about. 
The bill is not designed for Kelvin Davis’ auntie who has the odd sherry wanders down Karetu Road and gets stopped by Paddy Whiu or whoever. 
Kelvin Davis 
: It’s square gin up there; that’s what they drink. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Well square gin then—I am sorry. In Motatau we do not do anything like that. Our drink is milk out of the cow. 
That is the folly in the argument of members opposite tonight. They say we are not doing anything for safety. 
Sue Moroney 
: You’ve got to listen to New Zealanders. You’re not listening. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Oh we listened. In fact the evidence shows that most of the people who are a danger to society fall into two categories. One— 
Hon Rick Barker 
: That’s an obscene sign. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Sorry. There are two categories. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Are you in the Mongrel Mob? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: No this is the sign of the Headhunters. One category of driver is the young person the new driver. There should be a zero alcohol limit—those people should not be allowed to drink and drive—yeah totally. 
Sue Moroney 
: Really? That’s a bit loony left isn’t it? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: No it is not. Apparently the lady from Melville is saying that proposal is loony left but it is not really. 
The other category is the recidivist drink-driver. He is the one—and it is normally a he so I will use the generic— 
Hon Member 
: Sexist! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Well OK I am sorry. I belong to the National Party and not to the gaggle opposite. I apologise. Those are the two target areas that we are trying to fix up on the community’s behalf. That is what the bill should be called. It should be the “We Will Ping You If You Continue to Do Bad in Our Community Bill”. 
I have to say that I have heard some violent stories from Kelvin Davis and Kris Faafoi. They were heart-wrenching stories but I just cannot understand why those members were trying to blame the Minister of Transport for what happened to the people involved. That was the essence of their decision to use those two stories. I tell members this: maybe the people those members mentioned would be alive if the drivers who caused those accidents had been pinged a lot earlier. That is exactly what this bill does. 
This bill puts out there a safety net for our community—that is all. I have no problem standing in this Chamber tonight and saying that the existing title hits the nail dead smack on the head. Members opposite can get up and talk about what the title could be and what it might be in fantasyland but the reality is this: we won sit down move on and let us do what we were elected to do. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 As always it is a privilege and a pleasure to follow the Hon Tau Henare. What arrogance he just demonstrated in talking about clauses 1 2 and 3 of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. Before the dinner break I asked him why he is always here in the Chamber yelling out when he has so little influence on his Government. His Government is so out of touch. If it was in touch it would be amending the legislation to decrease the legal blood-alcohol concentration limit from 0.08 grams per 100 millilitres to 0.05 grams per 100 millilitres of blood. We have raged on that issue in the debate but I still do not understand why this bill does not amend the principal Act to ensure the legal blood-alcohol limit falls. We all know and we have all heard the arguments all night— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: The country is lucky you are not the Minister of Transport. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: The country is lucky that Tau Henare is not the Minister of anything. Thank goodness for that. May we never see that day—and in fact I think we never will. 
I express my disappointment that the blood-alcohol concentration limit has been kicked into touch by the Minister of Transport. He did not have the fortitude to do something about it when he had the opportunity so the principal Act will be amended without the blood-alcohol concentration limit being amended. 
I did not have the opportunity to speak earlier on so the other issue I want to address in talking about the principal Act being amended— 
Michael Woodhouse 
: In the title? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: —in clause 3 “Principal Act amended”—is the provision in clause 12 that raises the minimum driver-licensing age. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I thought you were going to raise the minimum wage. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: That is a good idea actually. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What’s that got to do with the bill? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Well you brought it up— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
DARIEN FENTON 
: I apologise Mr Chair but I am being sorely provoked from across the Chamber. 
In this bill which amends the principal Act clause 12 raises the minimum driver-licensing age. As we have said in debate tonight and earlier we do not support this clause. We have some difficulties with it. I make it really clear that Labour is extremely sympathetic to some of the comments the Minister made earlier on. No one in this country including the Labour Opposition wants to see young people dying on our roads unnecessarily. No one wants to see that. But our difficulty with this provision which amends the principal Act is that there is not the evidence that the issue is around age. The issue of age versus education versus time on the roads and so on has not been explored. We know from the evidence of course that young drivers actually become more dangerous when they have had some experience not when they start driving. We have a problem with the fact that the overall effect of these changes is that young drivers will have to be 17 before they can obtain a restricted licence. That causes enormous problems in a struggling economy. In a struggling economy not everyone will stay at school. Kids have to stay at school till they are 16 but many of them want to go and study or go out and do jobs. They may even work part-time. The country is in such a parlous state that many kids now have to go out and work part-time just to help their families. 
David Shearer 
: If they can get a job. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: If there are any jobs out there of course. Then of course they will receive the minimum wage which had a miserable 25c-an-hour increase from 1 April. How are those families supposed to cope with the fact that their 15 or 16-year-old will not be able to go to work after school or do any study? They will not be able to take up study. It is fine to talk about study and doing things for our young people to bring them through—I hear Paula Bennett going on about that all the time—but what happens if they cannot actually get there? 
The real difficulty is that in Auckland where I live there are no alternative means for those kids to get from home to work. We have a real issue about public transport in Auckland. Even though Labour did an enormous amount around it we now have a Government that just wants to build roads everywhere and spend a fortune on roads of national significance—roads of national significance that mean nothing to 15 and 16-year-olds who are trying to get from home to work to earn a little bit extra to help their family to support themselves. The reality is that the cost of living is having a dire impact on families. Because wages are not going up—the minimum wage is pathetic—children 15 and 16-year-olds are now contributing to the family’s income. How on earth are they supposed to get to work? 
The other thing I thought was that in amending the principal Act the Government would have been more sympathetic to its rural supporters. Federated Farmers and Rural Women New Zealand are good organisations that made very straightforward submissions to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee about their concerns about how young people in our rural areas were supposed to get around from one place to another. They might be going to school going to college or going to work. This Government has shown it does not care. It has shown it is out of touch with 15 and 16-year-old young people not only in our urban communities but also in rural communities. This Government does not listen; it is not listening. It is completely out of touch. There were discussions during the select committee process about alternatives and I know that exemptions for young people who need to go to work or who are in rural communities were explored but the Government said nothing about that alternative. It is not interested in it. 
I go back to what I started with. Labour is extremely concerned along with everybody else about the crash statistics for our 15 to 19-year-olds. We are very concerned about that. As I said no one wants to see our young people dying unnecessarily on the roads. We have a high teenage crash rate but let us be clear about it: the problem is not when they start driving it is not when they sign up at 15 to get their learner licence; it is later on. I think the ACT member talked about the figure of 100 hours. That is what the statistics and the information tell us. I am really disturbed that we are punishing our young people. It looks like the Government is tackling a problem but it is doing it without evidence—it is doing it without thinking about whether the problem is age driver education or experience. The Government has called for 2 years of research on lowering the blood-alcohol concentration limit—it is prepared to do that. It says it will not make a decision even though the evidence is already overwhelming and even though the public want it. Given that I would have thought with this other issue the Government would take a consistent approach: find the evidence and find out whether age driver experience or driver education makes a difference. 
In this legislation amending the principal Act the Labour Opposition is extremely disappointed with two things. One is the amendment to the minimum driver-licensing age which will have an impact on our young people. The other is the cop-out that this Government has demonstrated by refusing to take up the evidence and the call of the public—the New Zealand public—to reduce the blood-alcohol concentration limit from 0.08 grams to 0.05 grams. As we have said we really support a lot of the amendments in the bill; we think they are good steps forward. I add that those steps build on the work Labour did when it was in Government despite what the National Government has said. I do not know whether it has taken any notice but there was a whole programme called See You There—Safe As around improving road safety. In fact road safety has been improving steadily for a long time. It improved under Labour. With this Government we see no goals for improving it; it has a vague vision about reducing accidents and injuries. Of course everybody will say that is a good thing. “Road Safety” is in the title of the bill but there is no real commitment to looking at some of the things that actually matter like the impact of changing the driver-licensing age and the blood-alcohol concentration limit. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I am delighted to speak to the title of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I think it is a perfectly well-named bill. It is all about road safety which is what this amendment bill is doing. I was talking at the end of the first reading regarding our alcohol culture; I will pick up from there. We have a youth drinking problem. I know that the law reform bill that is currently before the House will go some way towards addressing that problem. Certainly youth have been targeted. 
I really wanted to take the opportunity to talk about FebFast. At the end of February when FebFast finished we did not have a time to acknowledge it because we had the Christchurch earthquake. It just really was not the right time to do it. News came out today that the people who supported FebFast raised over $100000 which goes towards youth drinking programmes and education. That is absolutely wonderful. I acknowledge Iain Lees-Galloway who led the Labour team for FebFast; I led the National team for FebFast. 
As role models as leaders and as MPs we can do a lot to help change the culture of drinking in this country. There are many ways that we need to look at to deal with this problem not just through legislation. In many respects change comes from the ground up and it is often community-driven. I say: “Well done to everyone who supported FebFast.” I certainly look forward to next year’s FebFast. 
New Zealand has not been doing very well in its road safety statistics. The Minister told us earlier in the evening that we have bad statistics. Our fatality rate is 60 percent worse than the rate in Australia. We are lagging behind and that is really not good enough. Our youth are at risk along with drivers who reoffend—drivers who drink alcohol and are over the limit. But youth particularly are of concern. In my speech on Part 1 I said that 15 to 24-year-olds are overrepresented in the statistics. They represent 14 percent of our population and equate to 16 percent of all licensed drivers yet in 2008 they were involved in around 37 percent of all fatal crashes. Those statistics are quite shocking. That age group was also involved in 38 percent of all serious injury crashes. Those statistics are very very sobering and very concerning. 
That is not satisfactory so we have to focus on youth. This bill does exactly that. It calls for a zero alcohol limit but importantly education is a key part of this legislation. It aims to improve all road safety education that is available and to increase access to it. I am very pleased that the bill allows approved defensive driving courses to be undertaken in the learner-licence phase. I think that everyone from time to time not just youth should take a refresher course. It would suit all members and everyone who drives in New Zealand. It is something that everyone should consider doing from time to time. 
But it is important that the bill proposes to increase the licensing age to 16. Members on this side absolutely support that proposal. It is the right way to go. As I said in my speech on the second reading when I was learning to drive there were 1 million vehicles on the road. Now there are 3 million vehicles on the road. Now it is busier the cars are more powerful and drivers need to have their wits about them particularly in big cities. I am sorry but the brain of a 15-year-old and the brain of a 16-year-old I am sure physiologically might be very similar but I think in maturity they are worlds apart. I think that every year that passes before a driver first embarks on driving the better it is because driving uses a lot of sensory information and coordination. Certainly when the consultation phase of Safer Journeys which is the Government’s road safety policy going forward to 2020 was embarked upon it showed there was clear public support for raising the age of driving to 16. Members on this side stand by that policy and there is no question about that. 
Other shocking data has been released recently and it all adds to support for this amendment bill which is all about road safety. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 This is my first opportunity to take part in the debate on the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. One of the other matters to do with road safety that Labour believes is missing from this legislation is the reduction of the adult blood-alcohol limit from 0.08 grams to 0.05 grams. This is a measure that has massive amounts of support out in the public. It is beyond me that National which is normally very poor in showing leadership and fails to advance an issue unless it has been focused-grouped to within an inch of its life cannot look at the public support for a measure to reduce the blood-alcohol limit to a level that will actually capture drivers who are impaired and will bring down that limit to a point where drivers have to be under a level at which they are impaired to be on the road. 
Given the amount of public support out there for that measure I cannot believe that it has not been advanced in this bill. I mean that is what National is all about. It is what conservative politics are all about. They are about waiting until somebody else tells politicians what to do. The public have told the Government what to do. They would love to see this bill focus on reducing accidents caused by drink-drivers by having that level reduced but it is not there in the bill. 
I suppose that one of the other matters—the title refers to “Road Safety and Other Matters”—is the fact that this is one of the few occasions when Steven Joyce has been rolled on an issue. Steven Joyce runs that Cabinet; everybody knows that. This is one of the occasions when he has actually been rolled. Steven Joyce came out and said it was ridiculous that he could drink the amount required in order to get to 0.08 grams and still be able to drive. But what happened? In typical conservative politics the Government got scared. It got scared that there would be some sort of public backlash. I do not know where it thought the public backlash would come from because the support for this measure is overwhelming. But the Government got scared and it backed down even though Steven Joyce the man who always looks after the optics the man who runs that Cabinet was rolled. That is why this particular measure has been removed from the bill. 
I would like to pick up on Jackie Blue’s point about FebFast. The news out today is fantastic. FebFast raised $100000 for youth alcohol programmes but $100000 is unfortunately a drop in the bucket in terms of what is required. I note that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee in reporting back on this bill saw early intervention and greater public health measures to support people with alcohol problems and to support drink-drivers to kick alcohol problems as real positives but that the committee felt that those matters should fall outside the scope of this bill. This bill is about road safety and other matters. One of those other matters could have been more support for drug and alcohol services but the select committee said no that fell outside the purview of this bill. 
But the truth is that the cuts that we are seeing this Government make to the health service in New Zealand mean that those services will not be available and we will not be able to tackle the problem of recidivist drink-driving. There are larger prison sentences and we can put a few more people into prison. But in terms of actually tackling the problem the Government has failed to do that not only in this bill but also in the other activities that it is undertaking by cutting the money provided for the health services. This Government is making sure that there will be— 
Michael Woodhouse 
: No wonder he is worried about Leonie if this is all he has to say. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Who? 
Michael Woodhouse 
: The person whose business you protested outside. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Oh the word has got back to head office. Ha ha! Anyway the member opposite would like to talk about the campaign in Palmerston North. We will have plenty of opportunities to talk about that at some other time. But let us talk about this bill because it is clear that National—[ 
Interruption 
] I tell you what; if the member who is interjecting wants to talk about asset sales we can. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 My and Tau Henare’s esteemed elder from Ngati Hine Sir James Henare once said: “We have come so far not to go further. We have done so much not to do more.” That really should summarise the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill because it does a heck of a lot but it does not quite go far enough. It does a lot but it could have done more. One of the big areas where it could have done more is in reducing the blood-alcohol level from 0.08 grams to 0.05 grams. That change would save lives. It would probably have saved the lives of the three people whom I spoke about earlier tonight— 
Michael Woodhouse 
: How many 15-year-old lives are you prepared to sacrifice? This is politics. 
KELVIN DAVIS 
: There we go—the mouse from the south is squeaking again. He is chirping from his seat but he does not jump up and contribute anything of any substance. As I said that reduction would have saved lives. Instead as Iain Lees-Galloway has said National members were waiting for some polls. They were waiting to get the feel of the nation before they made a decision for themselves. Despite the fact that National is a party that prides itself on individual rights and individual responsibilities those values go out the door when need be. I think National members live by the rule: “These are our values and if you don’t like them we have others.” 
Another area where I think National members have gone too far is that of raising the age from 15 to 16 for new drivers. My daughter for example is 15. She is coming up to 16 in June. She is going for her licence but we as responsible parents have decided that she is not quite ready to sit for her licence. She is allowed to drive when there is an adult in the seat next to her but we have said she cannot go for the next stage until we think she is ready and she will not be ready for another couple of months. That is our choice as responsible parents and I thought that was what National members stood for—individual rights and individual choice. 
But of course in an instance like this National members throw those values right out the window and choose others. They are a bit scared of what the polls would say—sorry I should not have said that. But National is a party that has to wait for the feedback from focus groups which ring around and find out what people will say. They test the waters with their little toe and when things do not—[ 
Interruption 
] I think it was Winston Peters who said: “You don’t test the water with both feet. Only a fool does that.” 
This whole issue of raising the new-driver age to 16 hurts those of us who live in rural areas. In Kaitaia we have a fledgling bus company that runs on biofuel—would you believe it. Kaitaia is the centre and the company services an area that is about an hour and a half north about 45 minutes east and about 40 minutes west. This is a fledgling bus company. It is not as though there is a bus at the bus stop every 5 minutes as we would find in the city centres. 
The people up north cannot rely on a public transport service so we need our kids to be able to drive. We have sports fields. Kaitaia is the centre but there are a lot of sports fields in outlying areas. Kids from Kaitaia need to get out to their sports practices and this bill will make things just a little bit more difficult. 
It was interesting to hear Jackie Blue say there are many more cars on the road these days and many more since she got her licence. That is true and it makes us wonder why this Government is promoting policies that put more cars on the road. Why cannot the Government look at policies that remove cars and trucks from the road such as investing in public transport and investing in a decent rail network across the country? As I said earlier— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. I advise members on both sides of the Chamber that interjections should be directed to the person who has the floor. There should be no private engagement between members who do not have the floor. It is totally out of order and it is discourteous. 
KELVIN DAVIS 
: Thank you Mr Chair but it is all right. We know that the Hon Tau Henare’s best days are behind him and Hillary College was a long time ago. 
I am not sure why this Government keeps perpetuating policies that put more cars on the road instead of looking at ways of taking cars off the road and creating safer roads in that way. Government members talk about the  
Safer Journeys 
 document. Surely removing heavy traffic from Northland’s winding and shockingly upgraded roads would make life safer for us up in the north. 
The booze bus is a regular visitor to Kaitaia because the police keep on catching people who drink and drive. I think we need to send a message to drink-drivers that we are getting harder and we will accept a lesser level of intoxication. I think that message should have been sent home and it is a missed opportunity by this Government. It should have reduced the blood-alcohol level to 0.05 grams. As Sir James Henare said we have come so far but unfortunately we could have gone further. We have done a lot—I will give the Government credit—but we could have done more. Kia ora. 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Associate Minister of Transport) 
: 
 First of all Mr Chairperson I congratulate you on your new role as Assistant Speaker. I look forward to the contributions you will make in this House as you have done previously. This is a great opportunity for me to take a call on clauses 1 to 3 which relate to the title commencement date and the amendment to the principal Act. A good point for me to begin with is a reassurance to Sue Moroney who raised a few questions about commencement dates. I have those at hand and I thought it would be worthwhile for me to comment on them. These were dates that the officials recommended to the Government. The Order in Council dates relate to matters that require—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have already cautioned members about interjecting on each other when they do not have the call. It will desist. 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: The Order in Council dates relate to matters that require the New Zealand Transport Agency to make substantial system and information technology changes to make provision for alcohol interlocks and also zero alcohol level licences. 
There are two trigger points that I think are worth mentioning. The first date is 180 days from receiving the Royal assent. That timeframe is to allow consultation with health professionals. Obviously there will be quite a few forms and new techniques required. The other trigger point of 90 days after receiving the Royal assent will prepare for publicity and allow the police to recalibrate equipment which is really important such as roadside breath-screening testing devices for the youth zero blood-alcohol limit and research into the harm caused by drivers with a blood-alcohol limit of between 0.05 grams and 0.08 grams. Of course the day after the Royal assent is when most matters dealing with the repeal of existing provisions in the Transport Act will come into force. 
The other significant point that I wish to raise is the licensing age increase. Supplementary Order Paper 229 proposes to make that change to the licensing age on 1 August this year not 90 days after the Royal assent. The date of 1 August is a Monday and very much gives some certainty to parents and caregivers of young drivers etc. I hope that that puts Sue Moroney’s mind at rest on the commencement dates. 
There has been quite a bit of discussion this evening about the blood-alcohol limit particularly for youth drivers and we know what is involved there. There has been quite a bit of debate from the other side who are proposing that the blood-alcohol level be reduced to 0.05 grams. I did a little bit of research—[ 
Interruption 
] Members might be interested in this. In 2001 the then Minister of Justice Phil Goff said: “If we are going to change the limits there would need to be hard evidence.” Is not that amazing? So Phil Goff in 2001 as the Minister of Justice said that we need— 
Hon Member 
: That was 10 years ago. 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: That is right. In 2001 Phil Goff said that we need hard evidence. He then sat at the Cabinet table for all of that period when Labour was in Government and he did nothing. He did absolutely nothing. Now we hear Labour members crying out in Opposition after 9 years of doing nothing while in Government whereas this Government is now allowing the police to collect this very important data and research. 
The Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill is a very pragmatic bill and we have seen that by the engagement we have had through the select committee process. I acknowledge members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee who are from all sides of the Chamber. I acknowledge the contributions that they have made on this important bill. 
We all know that we need to do more on road safety and I have heard from members opposite tonight that this bill does not go far enough. Well this Government in just a couple of years under Steven Joyce’s stewardship has done an awful lot on road safety. I think we should be proud of what this Government has done in its first couple of years. 
Darien Fenton 
: Nanny State—cellphones. 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: Now we have an interjection of “nanny State” from the other side of the Chamber. On one hand those members are saying “nanny State” which was the catchphrase for them in the 2000s under Helen Clark and on the other hand we have a pragmatic set of changes that will make a huge difference. We all know that our young drivers are causing a great deal of harm to themselves and to others on our roading networks—14 percent of the population causes 37 percent of fatal crashes. We are making some serious changes to address that issue and I believe that it should have the widespread support of the Committee. I am disappointed that our Opposition wants to play politics on an issue that we are trying to address pragmatically. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Labour) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Chairperson and let me also endorse some of the comments of previous speakers in congratulating you on your appointment as Assistant Speaker. It is good to see you in the Chair once again and I look forward to your reminding us of the Standing Orders one after another for a very long time. 
Previous Opposition speakers have stood and said that Labour supports the bill for a number of reasons but I am actually quite amused by the contribution made by my colleague the Hon Tau Henare who suggested that the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be renamed the “Drink-drivers Are Going to Get Pinged Bill” which is probably what he believes. I would endorse that to a point. I would say that we should rename the bill the “Drink-drivers Are Going to Get Pinged (but They Can Still Have a Couple of Beers More Before They Do Get Pinged) Bill” because what this bill fails to do is to take notice of public opinion. The public opinion is that the blood-alcohol limit should be lowered from 0.08 grams to 0.05 grams and that clearly is something that the Government has ignored. As we know it is very dangerous to ignore strong public opinion particularly when it comes to matters of public safety on our roads so that is something we are quite disappointed to see in terms of this bill. 
However it is logical that we support this bill for a number of reasons such as the zero limit for repeat drink-drivers and the zero limit for drivers under 20—and we have seen much of that happen in recent years; actually over the past decade or so—the alcohol interlocks for repeat offenders and the doubling of the minimum prison term for drink-driving drug-driving or reckless driving that causes death. These are all issues that affect all our communities. These are the issues that many of us as parents fear every time our young people leave home to go out and socialise with their friends and all the time that they are out we sit at home wondering whether they are OK. 
We in this Chamber should do everything possible to ensure that our young people are OK when they go out and socialise and that is why the Labour Opposition says that this bill does not go anywhere near to being enough to satisfy our concerns as we sit at home that our young people our tamariki and our mokopuna are safe out there on the streets and also that they are not endangering the lives of others. It is important that we have a rigorous debate about this particular legislation knowing that at some time or another it may affect any one of us in this Chamber in the most tragic way. 
I heard previous speakers refer to family circumstances. I am fortunate to have four sons. I have a 15-year-old who is coming up on 16 and who is currently about to go for his probationary driver’s licence. I know that his teenaged ambition is to achieve that. He wants to be an automotive mechanic. Unlike my other sons who have achieved to the very highest level in universities he just wants to be a mechanic. He just wants to be a person who can take a motorcar to pieces and put it back together on his own. I come from a trade as do many other people in this Chamber and it is a satisfying achievement to have a trade behind one. 
But having said that I look at the possibility of raising the age limit to 16 in terms of young people acquiring their driver’s licence and I think that my son will be fortunate to acquire his driver’s licence at that age and enter an automotive mechanics course at the Bay of Plenty Polytechnic and from there he can achieve just about anything he wants. If this legislation should come into force though it may be that it will restrict the ability of our young people in the future to achieve what many other young men and women have already achieved. On these courses a probationary driver’s licence is a necessity. One cannot get on to the course without it and that makes a lot of sense. How would someone fix a motorcar—pull it to pieces and put it back together—if he or she does not know how to drive it? It is like many other things. If we do not understand how the particular pieces of machinery work we will never become an expert at working on them. I want the Government to actually think about that. Although it is attempting to promote public safety albeit in a mediocre way it may also be limiting opportunities. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chairperson. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I just seek clarification. Can you give me some clarification and point to where it states in the Standing Orders that when two members from different sides of the Chamber get up a member from the same side as previously gets the call again? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: First of all that is at the discretion of the Chair. Secondly once I have called a member I cannot take the call away from that member. I recognise the concern that the member has expressed and I have noted that. The call has already been given. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Mr Chair tena koe. It is very important that we note that your encyclopaedic knowledge of the arcane rules of Parliament has demonstrated that Tau represents zero waste because in order for waste to occur there has to be a product. For the entirety of this evening there has been no product. There has actually been an enormous amount of fog an enormous amount of confusion where that member prepared to deliver to his own Minister his commitment to vote against the bill. Mr Tau Henare had not chosen to read the bill; he did not realise that members on this side of the Chamber actually applaud some of what the Minister is doing in terms of taking a zero-tolerance approach towards very young and vulnerable drivers. Please can we enable the Minister to provide that message to Mr Tau Henare. 
I will talk about the title of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I suggest that it be called the “Land and Marine Transport (Road and Marine Safety) Bill” as that would enable us to actually address the issue of the day which is the gross danger and absence of safety in the marine environment today. There has been a total absence a total disinterest on the part of the Acting—and I use that term in its fullest meaning—Minister of Energy and Resources. I wish that the title of this bill had been expanded because that would have enabled us to address one of the larger safety issues today. It does relate to transport: it relates to the intrepid yachties who are bobbing around out there defending the rights of the tangata whenua up and down the Tai Rawhiti and who have been long since forgotten about by members on the other side of the Chamber. All that those people are doing is ensuring that their democratic rights are protected as they are transported around by yachts and as they stand against the dangers represented by exploration activity in the absence of environmental safeguards. That level of safety could have been addressed had we changed the title of this bill. 
I also want to talk about the commencement date. I thank the Minister in the chair the Hon Nathan Guy for explaining to the Committee that there is a reason why all these dates and segments have been identified. It provides an opportunity for the police and various other agencies to prepare to enforce these rules. But that causes us to look at the Royal assent. I bring members’ attention to clause 2(4): “The rest of this Act comes into force on the day after the date of Royal assent.” Royal assent has a very proud and rich history. It goes right back to the Royal Council at a time when Parliament was a pawn of the Sovereign. We have come right forward although I feel it is necessary for me to point out to a number of members that in the time of King Henry VIII he sought to avoid using the Royal assent when he sought to execute his fifth wife. The prospect of execution— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: You’ve been watching  
Robin Hood  
again. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
:—and the most voluble member over there is actually— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I’ve seen this movie. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Sir please counsel the member. If he keeps going on like that he will have another heart attack. He is getting too feverish; he runs the risk of having another heart attack. King Henry VIII and I think it was some time in the 1500s as he sought to execute his fifth wife was not interested in personally exercising the Royal assent and at that point he was able to deputise to commissioners so that he could effect the outcome and take his place in history. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Who played Henry? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: The term of execution and that member’s voice—they are inseparable. The execution unfortunately for that member will be delivered by his colleagues. When we use the term “zero” we are actually thinking about that poor man’s prospects. He has zero prospect of finding a seat. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairman; it is an inspired decision. I am delighted to take a call on the title of and the commencement date for the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill but before I do I wonder whether members will indulge me while I elaborate on the interjection on Mr Davis before the dinner break. I do not want him to think that I was being insensitive to the story he was telling in asking the question. I think that as he is not a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee he may not have known what “BAC” was. He looked a bit blank. But sad though his uncle’s death was—and I say the same with regard to Mr Faafoi’s story—the point and the question I was asking was what the blood-alcohol content in his system was when he passed away. The fact of the matter is— 
Kelvin Davis 
: 0.07. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: Is the member putting that in  
Hansard 
 now as an interjection knowing it to be true? All right it must be true because he has put it in  
Hansard.  
There we have it on record: it was 0.07 grams. That is very interesting. 
Labour members have spoken at length about research—some 300 pieces of research—that they claim demonstrates unequivocally that people are safer at 0.05 grams than at 0.08 grams. In fact those 300 pieces of research do not say anything like that. What they establish is that the greater the level of alcohol content the higher the risk. Well that is hardly a revelation is it? That has been known for a very long period of time. Some studies will go to a risk curve of between 0.05 grams and 0.08 grams but the simple question which is the premise of this bill and the reason for the collection of the research still has not been answered—that is if a person has a blood-alcohol content of 0.05 grams to 0.08 grams how many of the deaths and serious injuries on our roads are caused by people with that blood-alcohol content where those people are at fault? The simple fact is that we do not know. 
Although we have a bill that is named the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill that question could fall into either of those categories because it is a road safety question but it definitely also falls into the “Other Matters” category. It is on the other matters that I will briefly touch. One of the disappointing aspects of the Committee stage of this bill is that there are so many other matters that I expected members like Darien Fenton would have raised because the bill goes to the issue of road truck safety. She made very few references to that—I think she made one brief comment about it—and none of the very excellent changes that this bill brings about has been mentioned by Labour. 
I could come up with a number of titles that Labour members might have suggested although they did not. One could be the “Land Transport (We Are Really Keen on a 0.05 Gram Limit but We Are Prepared to Sacrifice Our 15-year-old Boys) Bill” because that is exactly what those members are prepared to do. The unequivocal research states that those kids are far far less safe on our roads. Just being a driver aged 15 to 19 without having had any alcohol creates a death risk five times greater than that of a 30-year-old driver. But Labour members are prepared to completely avoid any of that evidence in the interests of expediency and the fact that those 15-year-olds will be voters in 3 years’ time. Labour has given away 2011; they want those 15-year-olds to vote for Labour in 3 years’ time. As I said I wish them good luck with that. Those members are prepared to allow those kids to kill and to maim themselves on the roads but they are not prepared to wait for the equivocal evidence that exists right now to be much clearer in 2 years’ time when we will have created the evidence base that we need in order to decide whether to change the limit for blood-alcohol content. 
I appreciate the call taken by the Minister in the chair the Associate Minister of Transport particularly on Ms Moroney’s challenge about the commencement dates. There are very sound reasons why the taking of blood and in particular the new technologies that are available for the safe taking of blood from suspects—which the Committee heard about—will take quite a bit of time to be gazetted and put into practice in our hospitals and primary health care facilities. 
With that I think we are coming towards the end of this Committee stage. It has been a robust debate. I am quite sure that members on the other side have nothing new to say but the Chairperson may wish to challenge that. Thank you. 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 I will talk on the title of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I think it should have another couple of words in it: “Selective Evidence”. What we have heard tonight is a lot of selective evidence to try to justify what is in terms of the alcohol question a pretty sad story. 
I will go back to what I was talking about before. What happened with this bill was that the Prime Minister John Key asked the Ministry of Transport to check whether a glass of wine might put people over the blood-alcohol limit. He was so nervous about that and what it might mean to the constituency that they decided not to change the limit. As it turned out Mr Joyce found that he could drink three-quarters of a bottle of wine which he termed “ridiculous” before he was over the limit. But by that stage they had already made up their minds based on thinking that perhaps a change would be too nanny State to keep the limit at 0.08 grams rather than 0.05 grams. Here is where it becomes interesting because there is a historical record that has nothing to do with evidence. Then Darren Hughes put up his member’s bill to bring the level from 0.08 down to 0.05. What happened? Well Mr Key said that National would make it a conscience vote. A lot of people over there on the National side would have voted—I guarantee Jackie Blue being a doctor would have—for the level to go down from 0.08 to 0.05. But Mr Joyce in caucus said “Well actually that makes me look rather stupid—or more stupid.” So what he decided was suddenly it would be a caucus vote. 
By this stage National has dug a hole so deep that it cannot get itself out of it but popular opinion is two to one in favour of bringing the blood-alcohol limit down from 0.08 to 0.05. And so we should. As Michael Woodhouse just said as the amount of alcohol permitted increases the incidence of accidents increases. If we compare 0.05 with 0.08 there is a pretty good chance that the accident rate increases as a result of the extra intake of alcohol. That is what he said and I completely agree with him. Therefore I cannot understand why that party is still saying it is basing its policy on evidence when it knows that it is based on political bungling on the part of Mr Joyce. That is what it is—nothing less than a bit of political bungling. 
If Mr Joyce was really interested in bringing the road toll down by approximately five deaths a year then he would probably do something about the road between Warkworth and Wellsford the “Holiday Highway”. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: We’re banging on that drum again are we? 
DAVID SHEARER 
: Oh yes. Five people a year die on that particular stretch of road. Instead the Minister is improving at great cost—more than a billion dollars—the road between Puhoi and Warkworth. Why is that? Because people turn off at Warkworth to go to their baches at Omaha including the Prime Minister. He has a bach at Omaha. I suspect that Mr Joyce finds himself going to that particular area as well. Over the holiday period he does not want to be tied down by cars stopping him from getting to where he wants to go—that is of course if he is not using the helicopter. Mr Key will now be able to drive up to Omaha in a seat-warmed BMW in the wintertime without any interference because the road will be nice and smooth. 
As a result of that work on the road between Warkworth and Wellsford is being delayed. On that road five people a year die. On the other road from Puhoi to Warkworth one person a year on average dies. We could make some incredibly simple cheap modifications to that road based on solid evidence. That is why I say the title of this bill should include “Selective Evidence”. Political expediency is why the Government is pushing through these clauses. We could make a real difference by improving the Warkworth to Wellsford road. We could make a real improvement in the status of the road. 
The other piece of evidence that has been overlooked in this debate relates to the raising of the driver age. We all know that anywhere in the world not just here in New Zealand drivers between 15 and 25 years old particularly males create the largest amount of traffic accidents and traffic deaths but it is important to note and nobody mentioned it on the other side of the Chamber that that rate is coming down. In 1986 nearly 17 percent of all road deaths were caused by people in the 15 to 19-year-old age group. By 2006 it had dropped down to just over 11 percent. It is important to note that for that particular age group the rate of driving accidents has reduced. There is absolutely no evidence that pushing up the driving age from 15 years to closer to 17—because by the time people get their full licences they will not be 16; they will actually be 17—will bring about a decrease in road deaths. 
Labour members agree with having better driver education. We think it is hugely important. UK driver education is superior to ours and that could be a contributing factor in the road toll there being less. An extended learner period for drivers is also important. It is very interesting to note that when 15 to 16-year-old drivers are in a car with an adult they have a lower accident rate than other adults. So it is not actually an issue of competence; it is simply an issue of experience in driving cars. Most studies will tell us that at least 250 hours of driving experience is necessary before somebody becomes a competent driver. So the experience of the driver not the age is the critical point here. No matter which age someone starts driving at the first 2 years after they get their licence are the most critical not only here in New Zealand but elsewhere internationally. 
I think that as a number of our speakers have pointed out by raising the driving age to 16—in effect 17—we will disadvantage many people particularly in rural areas. Many people aged 16 or 17 have started work and are doing shift work. They will not be able to get to work. We will disadvantage those people whereas today they are certainly not disadvantaged. Labour members are in the unusual situation of supporting Federated Farmers because its submission was actually a very good one. It pointed out exactly what I just said—the evidence as opposed to the rhetoric. I say that the position Labour is taking is possibly not the one that has the most popular support out there in the community but we are taking it because we believe we should put in legislation based on evidence. The Minister of Science and Innovation who is in the Chamber at the moment will agree with me because the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Adviser just released a report that said our policies and our law should be based more strongly on evidence. I totally agree with him. Yet in this critical legislation the Government is willing to throw that evidence out the window. 
The bill is supported by Labour. It has some really excellent provisions in it but it falls short on the issue of alcohol and the issue of the driving age. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 It is 6 minutes past 8. [ 
Interruption 
] I think that is evidence of the nature of that member’s contribution to his caucus but I do not want to go there because the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill is a very important bill. I respect the contributions our colleagues have made on that side of the Chamber because we will agree with this bill. 
There are areas that our colleagues on this side of the Chamber are not all that flash on but none of us is prepared to impede the progress of the bill. As one of the members residing in Dunedin said we are probably getting towards the final stage of the Committee’s consideration of the bill. But although he is a very avid contributor to the debate I should say that his ability to influence the conduct of the Minister in relation to the interests of the people of Dunedin in terms of transport industry development or transport industry production is somewhere near zero. I have no doubt that he has sought to use his many skills some of which come across with a somewhat haughty tone. He has sought to use them on the Minister of Transport. I can understand that because he is dealing with a very tough character. Despite his using every technique of tone stature—diminished of course—and other skills picked up and expertise sourced from his earlier forays on the rugby field unfortunately he has not managed to protect one single transport-related job. He has not improved the safety and other matters of the workforce who are exposed to that part of the transport industry otherwise known as the rolling stock of the railway industry. But this is not about the railways per se; this is about safety. I was unfortunately interrupted by Tau Henare’s contribution of intellect which was like an empty vessel—loud but vacant. 
I will continue with my brief account of why Royal assent is very important. Tau Henare may wish to know that in the land of his ancestors Scotland—I personally have not seen my relation Tau in a tartan skirt; I think I have seen him in a piupiu—Royal assent is not applied to legislation of the nature of this bill until a period of 2 or 3 weeks elapses. That enables an agency with a constitutional authority to refer the bill in order to test its legality and lawfulness to the highest court—I presume the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.  
The concept of Royal assent as I have said earlier is traced back to the concept of Curia Regis the Royal Council which comprised bishops people of nobility and people from the boroughs and shires and was popularised by that person otherwise known as the father of parliamentary democracy Simon de Montfort. Those are things that Tau Henare may or may not find of more than a passing relevance.  
This evening we are coming to the final stages of the bill and we are prepared to usher it forward so it can go to the next stage. We support any initiative that improves the prospects of our young people changing their ways. But of course before they change their ways a number of us have to address our own ways. The less said about that the better. In addition we will support the Minister of Transport. We are disappointed that he did not accept our two or three amendments but we will support the Minister because he is largely carrying forward the seeds of a safety policy that originated from the previous Labour Government. He has picked up the Labour policy. Unfortunately he has distorted some of the better elements to do with the alcohol limit and the point at which our young people should be able to drive legally but deep down the underlying momentum has come from the previous Labour Government. We introduced a safety policy and the Minister gave it a new name. The challenge the Minister has to address now is to extend safety into the appropriation of the National Land Transport Fund so that when it is spent it is spent to improve safety. Kia ora. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 This call will be short but I will respond to Michael Woodhouse who said that the research covers 15 to 19-year-olds. I think a new title for the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill could be the “Come Down Hard on the 15-year-olds but Sacrifice the 16 17 18 and 19-year-olds to the Wolves Bill”. If National members were true to their evidence base and research they would not have cut out the 15-year-olds and said they should be protected because as Michael Woodhouse stated the research covers 15 to 19-year-olds. I wonder what National members have against 16 17 18 and 19-year-olds. Surely those young people deserve the same protections that National members say 15-year-olds will enjoy under the legislation. To me it seems really rich that National members will die in a ditch for 15-year-olds but will sacrifice 16 to 19-year-olds on the roads of New Zealand. 
When Labour comes out with sensible legislation that protects people it is called nanny State but when National does it we hear from the Minister that the Government is being pragmatic. The bill is called pragmatic legislation. I think “pragmatic” and “nanny State” are synonyms; they will be found under the same heading in the thesaurus. If National members want to call this daddy State legislation pragmatic then we will call it what it really is—koro State legislation. 
The issue of the age of 15 is the low-hanging fruit. It was so easy for National members to say: “We did not want to risk a really big public backlash by saying that young people cannot get their licence until they are 19 so instead we will make it look as though we will make a really big difference by targeting just 15-year-olds who cannot vote yet. We will not make them upset. But if we make it harder for 16 17 18 and 19-year-olds to get their licences then oops they may not vote for us.” They will see nanny State in action and they will remember it come 26 November. That is what the National Government has done. It has picked the low-hanging fruit. It has targeted 15-year-olds. National members do not care what happens to 16 17 18 and 19-year-olds who are also targeted in the research. It is really sad that National’s values flip-flop and chop and change depending on which way the polls blow. Kia ora. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Papers 226 and 229 in the name of the Hon Steven Joyce to clause 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
Clause 3 agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted.