Hughes Darren: Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second Reading 
Hughes Darren: Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second Reading 
[Volume:655;Page:4332] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
 I rise to indicate the support of the Labour Party for the second reading of the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) and also to signal that Labour members will be pushing through the Committee of the whole House for further changes to the bill before we can settle on a position finally as to whether the bill will proceed to its third reading. 
The bill was originally introduced in October 2007 under the previous Government by the then Minister of Transport the Hon Annette King as the current Minister of Transport Mr Joyce has just said. The bill enjoyed widespread support across Parliament. There was no division on the bill and it was referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for consideration. The purpose of this debate is to consider the deliberation of the committee to see whether the bill should pass into law. 
Generally speaking the bill has only two parts that are of interest although there are a couple of interesting little bits in it towards the end which the Minister has already touched on and which I want to make a brief comment on. Essentially the bill amends the principal Act of 1998 in the name of Mr Williamson and has two main functions. The first function relates to the powers to deal with drug-impaired drivers. The bill creates a new offence in law for when a driver is impaired and there is evidence of drugs in the driver’s blood. This issue was canvassed extensively during the first reading of the bill. I do not propose to rehash all of that discussion other than to say that all members are concerned about impaired drivers particularly as the range and variety of drugs become more widespread and the cost to access those drugs falls. We are concerned that people are in the position of being in charge of a motor vehicle while they are under the influence of drugs. 
This Parliament moved a long time ago on the issue of drink-driving and I think many members will be able to reflect on the enormous cultural and attitudinal changes on the topic that we have seen in our country in the last 25 to 30 years. As someone from a generation who grew up with a very strong anti - drink-driving message from youth it is always interesting to hear our older adults talking about the 1970s and early 1980s when there was no such regard for these matters and people would drive in all sorts of conditions. I think there is widespread acknowledgment now that that is a dangerous thing to do and we now have to move the debate further with regard to drug impairment. As many accidents injuries and deaths can be caused by someone in charge of a motor vehicle while under the influence of drugs as under the influence of alcohol. It is in that area where there is some difference between the Opposition and the Government on how the bill can be made to be as effective as possible. I know we will be coming back to speak about the issue some more. 
We will be putting forward some amendments in the Committee stage of the bill which Mr Mallard will speak on. He has developed some amendments for us that would see the effect of the bill being far more clear and transparent and would provide many more tools for enforcement officers than we believe is the case at the moment. I know there was a discussion on that matter at the select committee. Labour members pushed that point there and were not successful but we are hoping to be able to have discussions with the Government on the matter because we have come to it wanting to achieve the best outcome. We want to make it clear that anyone who is more impaired than is indicated by a breath-test reading can be subject to an impairment test for drugs and then a blood test for drugs. We think we need to have very clear mechanisms around that testing particularly where there is also alcohol involved. 
The second function of the bill makes changes to the registration and licensing of motor vehicles. The bill will create a regime that allows controlled access to registered persons’ names and addresses by other people and organisations. Another societal change is that much more information about people is available than has ever been the case before and that information is able to be easily manipulated for marketing purposes and for invasion of privacy as well if that is the case. We need to make sure that there are proper rules around this bill in order to protect people’s valuable information. Members will no doubt have had representations from constituents that when they purchased a new motor vehicle or when they changed the ownership arrangements of a motor vehicle they received an absolute deluge of information from people seeking to market to them which was of huge concern when it was unwanted. 
The bill was introduced in 2007 and the National Road Safety Committee ran a significant road safety consultation project called See You There—Safe As. That is where we got the initiative to move forward with the public safety issues relating to drug-driving. For a long time the issue was put in the too-hard basket and indeed part of the discussion we are having with the Government is to try to retrieve the issue from the too-hard basket and put it back clearly with the issue of driver safety. 
It is interesting that the Minister spoke about his concern for road safety and it goes without saying that no members in the House and no parties in the House are opposed to road safety. We all want people to be as safe as possible on the roads. But we as an Opposition are very concerned about the fact that the recent Government policy statement takes away $49 million of future funding increases for road policing. That is direct road safety policing on our highways and local roads in New Zealand that will not happen now because of the changes in the Government policy statement that we have considered through Budget 2009. 
The withdrawal of $49 million of road policing funding has real impacts. Already this year members will have been alarmed to see during long weekends holiday weekends the extent of the carnage on the roads. That carnage is not only the deaths that are often referred to but also the horrific injuries that people often have to live with for the rest of their lives. This tougher regime around drug testing is a new area we are introducing. If we are going to have that regime in place and if we are going to be serious about it while at the same time seeing an increase in injuries and the road toll then withdrawing $49 million of funding from road policing which the Government has done is very much an unwise decision that we are opposing very very strongly. 
Just today we saw in the  
New Zealand Herald  
that up to 10 percent of the total police fleet of vehicles is to be axed as a cost-cutting measure. We see that approach being taken with regard to the vehicles and money going into road policing and it can lead us only to the conclusion that the Government is not as serious about road safety issues as I think the community would demand it be. The area of funding is where we get to see the measure of how serious the Government is and I think it has been found wanting in that regard. Indeed the National Party in its pre-election promises stated that it would put an additional 50 police cars on the streets. That is what the National Party campaigned on. Yet we see from the  
New Zealand Herald  
story which has been confirmed by the Government that there will be up to 300 fewer vehicles on the roads to help the police with the difficult issues around road safety and drug safety. That number of 300 fewer police cars on the roads is of enormous concern to us. 
Mr Mallard will be speaking more intensely on the issues around our amendments which is exactly what we want to see. But I think it is worth mentioning just in closing the motor vehicles register because the bill is seeking to make a very important change in that area. Specialist marketing organisations have really taken full advantage of the changes to the availability of information over the years. [ 
Interruption 
] I was going to mention an organisation in a moment. The names of 2.3 million people are registered on the register. The information might be a boon to organisations such as Crosby/Textor which is able to participate in the very direct political marketing that it likes to do in order to put across its messages. But we need to make sure that a regime is in place that can ensure that when the information is supplied it is then used for the purpose for which it was supplied. Direct marketing is bombardment with marketing or in the case of Crosby/Textor with propaganda. But there are also some safety issues for people who may be seen on the road their registration plate taken down by somebody who wishes them ill and their name and address found by virtue of the register being too available. The changes that are being made there are very important. 
The bill changes many other issues by virtue of the work of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee but the change I thought was very interesting was the change to personalised plates. Until now the ability to sell a personalised plate has basically been a monopoly position. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: He hasn’t even got a car. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: I am sure Tau Henare has many stories about cars— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Yes absolutely and not all of them mine. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Let us not pursue that point too far. Let us just say that the bill has a lot of provisions that we agree with and want to pursue further but we do have serious amendments that we want to see in the Committee stage and we will ask the Government to consider them.