Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:668;Page:14929] 
5. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: Have the views of 76 percent of the respondents in a scientific poll by the  
Herald on Sunday 
 who say they would not drive after drinking beyond an effective blood-alcohol limit of 50 mg caused him to reconsider his decision not to lower the adult blood-alcohol limit for driving; if not why not? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Firstly I must point out to the member that the survey he referred to did not refer to a blood-alcohol limit as his question suggests but to the number of alcohol drinks people can drink before driving. The distinction is important because public opinion surveys over the years have shown a disconnect between those surveys that discuss the number of drinks someone drinks versus what they think the adult blood-alcohol limit should be lowered to. In fact the Minister of Transport survey published in the  
Safer Journeys 
:  
discussion document 
 in August 2009 showed a similar result to this one. I have consistently stated that we need an enduring consensus for road law changes and we need to know the actual level of harm caused by drivers with a blood-alcohol level between 0.05 and 0.08. The reality is that we do not have that information currently but with the law change that is currently in front of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee as part of the amendment bill for land transport safety we will. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Can he not see that he has misjudged this issue when not a single submitter at the select committee he has referred to has appeared to speak in favour of the current 0.08 limit that over 30000 people have signed up to the Two Drinks Max campaign since Sunday and that a majority of MPs in this House would vote to lower the limit if there were a free vote; and given how many good decisions this Minister has made on road safety why is he being so stubborn on this one? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I am reasonably new to this place but I have to say the select committee process often brings out people who are most interested in some form of change and obviously that is the situation that has occurred in this place. The reality is that this has been an emotional issue in this country for many many years. The previous Government knows that because it made no attempt to change the law during its 9 years in Government and suddenly it is a very urgent matter for it to address today! I think that in order to form an enduring consensus on what would be a significant change in traffic law we should be prepared to change the law so we can collect the actual data before proceeding with such a change. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Why will he not take advantage of the political consensus that he has been offered and the overwhelming public support that is now absolutely clearly there so that he can tell the submitters who come to the select committee and who have sadly lost family members and friends that he is doing everything with the full support of Parliament that is in his power to make our roads comprehensively safer? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I think there are a couple of things there. Firstly I think most of the member’s question was answered by my previous answer but I point out to members that this change being proposed would sadly not solve a lot of the issues that we see in terms of drink-driving on our roads. Unfortunately very many of the issues that we see on our roads are from repeat drink-drivers who are already over the existing legal limit. That is why the Government has made the changes it put in front of the select committee in terms of a nil limit for repeat drink-drivers in terms of doubling the penalties in prison for those subject to the worst offences that cause death in terms of the nil limit for young drivers and in terms of the alcohol interlocks. All those measures will also help—in fact I suspect more aggressively—in reducing the carnage from alcohol on our roads. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: How on earth is it inappropriate for him as Minister of Transport to refuse to endorse the Two Drinks Max campaign as he claimed it would be on Tuesday? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Again I say that I am reasonably new in this place but I would have thought as the Minister whose job is to make these sorts of decisions signing up to public campaigns is probably not a way to show people that Ministers bring an open mind to these decisions when they make them. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: When he said that the television poll that said that two-thirds of people were in support of lowering the alcohol limit was not enough and that he would need to see it at 75 percent does that mean that he will now set a new higher target seeing that his earlier one has now been met by a scientific newspaper poll and do we really need to get to North Korean levels of support before he will finally admit that he has this issue wrong? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I point out to the member that as I said in answer to the first question the Ministry of Transport survey published in the  
Safer Journeys: 
discussion document 
 in August 2009 showed a similar result to this. But again it was about the amount of alcohol people felt they should drink before they drive rather than whether the limit should be lowered. Right throughout recent years when those two questions have been asked in different ways there have been different numbers of people who support a change. The reality is that this a contentious issue and it has been a contentious issue for many many years. It is important to collect the data. The previous Government had an opportunity to do just that way back I think in 2001 but turned it down and refused to make any change.