Jones Shane: Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Jones Shane: Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:17798] 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 It is disappointing that the speaker who has just resumed his seat David Bennett did not use the entire complement that democratically he was entitled to enjoy. That is largely because his understanding of these matters is threadbare not unlike his physical appearance. More important—and I want to start with a controversial area—why is David Bennett being so antagonistic to the families of young 15 and 16-year-old drivers in the provinces? Those young people actually need access to a driver’s licence so that they do not run foul of the law. But most important if we continue to increase the steepness of the slope that our young drivers have to legitimise themselves through it will impose a disproportionately large penalty on our Maori men and women—youngsters. 
We already know according to the Automobile Association statistics that there is a different approach in relation to some of the skills and the orientations shown in the way young Maori view road rules and acquire a licence. It will make life more difficult for garden-variety families in rural New Zealand. This is evidence that the current Minister of Transport and the colleagues of the Minister are taking the heartland for granted. It is important that we show some trust and introduce a suitable system where people in the heartland are not abandoned or neglected as they will be as a consequence of the bill. 
It is a very simple change we are suggesting. It is relatively harmless because the statistics show that there are not an inordinately large number of rural young men and women seeking to drive to rugby or netball and to move around with their families. But they are being penalised and we fear that they will be 17 or 18 before they actually get a licence. They have been shown that the current Government does not really care what happens in that part of provincial New Zealand. We have had the extraordinary situation in which Minister Joyce has said he is capable of drinking three or four glasses of wine— 
Darien Fenton 
: Three-quarters of a bottle. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Well I am not entirely sure how much deli plonk that represents—possibly two or three. I have had a bout of it once or thrice myself. The notion was that because he can do it—the “Minister of Dead Ends”—that is evidence that the rules should not be changed. We recently heard from an Australian expert who came over. I met that person whilst the Automobile Association staged its conference down in Te Wai Pounamu in Queenstown. That expert was very very judicious unlike the behaviour of the National contributors to this debate. That expert said that if we change the legal threshold it improves behaviour. It has a successful impact at the other end of the spectrum. 
The Minister of Transport I have to say from time to time does have some very useful suggestions; they are just generally not about transport. They are about a host of other things more to do with improving the prospects he presumably enjoys as the “shadow Prime Minister”. 
However I come back to why we think the threshold ought to be changed. I want to be fair. When the threshold changes it is going to be irritating and it is going to be disruptive to the lifestyles of people who enjoy popping down to the golf club or to the rugby league club having one or three drinks and driving home without the fear they will be stopped by the cops and then suffer the ignominy of being processed through the courts. Quite frankly I know that many of my own relations and many of my own rugby-playing mates probably suffer that misapprehension. But this is a pitch for the long term. 
Hon Member 
: Rugby-playing mates? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: I used the word “mate” there and as Mr Quinn would know that was not an inclusive term in the event that he thought he was being included. But I have to acknowledge we have a great man capable of great things on the rugby field in our midst: Paul Quinn. We can never ever take that away from him. Unfortunately he continues to take it away from himself so I will not add anything in that regard. As I said earlier today I am not sure whether a rapid departure from his caucus represents transport policy but it will be one-way traffic; there will be no more Mr Quinn. 
However let me come back to say yes a change of the threshold will be disruptive. A change in the threshold will mean that our lifestyle choices will have to go through a process of adaptation. Is that level of irritation or dislocation so severe that we ought not to change it? What we are actually dealing with here is that the “Minister of Dead Ends” knows there will be a change but he does not want the change under his watch. That is a political decision he is making and that is why we want to contest this point. It is more than credible that we should want to do that. It is a genuine point of difference between two political parties over a significant public policy issue. 
Who has lobbied them? Who has brought this immovable force upon them that they have remained deaf and ignorant against the large overwhelming majority of the public? All the public want to see is a proactive step taken to improve the prospect of people driving under the influence of alcohol being caught and changing that behaviour. Would it have been the corporate alcohol interests and is it possible that over the last 3 to 5 years they have contributed to this great journey? Is that why the Government is showing no interest in taking on those vested interests? 
That might be the case and if there are lobbyists paid to represent the corporate alcohol interests there is one area where I hope those lobbyists listen to the public. We have had a gutsful of these alcohol-lollipop drinks. They are creating a great deal of hazard and damage to the young—in many cases vulnerable and in many cases coming from blighted areas. If we are going to continue as a consequence of not changing this threshold the option for those interests to ply that foul brew into our young people then we should not be surprised if our young people continue to suffer and worsen the tone in our community because they cannot handle it. 
Who else might it have been? At the drop of a hat I would recognise that the Automobile Association is a very proud organisation capable of exerting a considerable level of influence and its members are very open with their lobby so I do not think there is anything nefarious from them. They more than likely welcome the opportunity to debate such a public policy issue in a transparent fashion. That takes me back to the small clusters of communities that make up the broad support base for the current Government and the current Minister. These are people who are unwilling to change and these changes as I have said may represent some awkwardness but in the long term they send a better message to the average Kiwi and his or her family that we have to improve and moderate our behaviour when we use our roads and we have been under the influence of alcohol. This is a group of politicians on that side of the House and a Minister who have to find the courage— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: —have to find the leadership and the vision to reflect something that will put the best interests of our young people at heart and convince them that it is not acceptable to continue to exercise drinking options and imagine that they can drive. One way to make that improvement is to change the threshold. As a consequence of their not doing that—naturally we all support the bill—we are disappointed. Kia ora tatou.