Shearer David: Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Shearer David: Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:14087] 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 As has been stated Labour will support the referral of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. I think we can make some real improvements to the bill. As many other members have said this legislation is important. It is important in terms of the number of people who die or who are injured on our roads and it is also important in terms of the costs we incurred from the road toll. I want to speak to three points on which I think the Government is being rather inconsistent. I was not going to mention the blood-alcohol limit because Darren Hughes mentioned it previously but let me highlight a couple of issues. 
In terms of reducing the blood-alcohol level from 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood to 50 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood let me quote one physician Professor Jennie Connor an epidemiologist from Otago University. She said that reducing the level from 80 to 50 will have four times more impact in terms of fatal road crashes. Alcohol is a factor in one in three crashes. 
The Minister of Transport said that if he drank three-quarters of a bottle of wine in an hour or an hour and a half he would not be fit to drive. In fact he said it is ridiculous that he would drive after drinking as much as that. Yet that same Minister is prepared to keep the blood-alcohol limit exactly the same as it is. The Ministry of Transport says that reducing the blood-alcohol limit would save 33 lives 680 injuries and about $200 million a year. I do not understand how that Minister can be different from the rest of us. Is he not able to take as much alcohol as the rest of us? I do not think so; he is a big person. Yet he says it is ridiculous that he should be able to drive after drinking to the level that people are allowed to reach today. 
I ask what is different about New Zealanders. What is so different about New Zealanders that we have to do more studies to try to explain why we should not move the blood-alcohol limit from 80 to 50 immediately? In Australia the limit is 50 in the UK it is 50 and in France it is 50 and they know they have already saved lives as a result of moving the blood-alcohol level down. What is so different about people living in New Zealand that we have to have more studies to see what excess blood alcohol does to us as human beings? It does not make any sense. 
I believe that what we are seeing here is a spin on a public relations exercise that has gone badly wrong. The Minister said in a number of statements that he was surprised that in a poll on this issue about two-thirds of New Zealanders supported a reduction in the blood-alcohol limit. He thought it would be closer to fifty-fifty or even lower. So he took a punt on it was surprised then could not go back. Thirty-three people will lose their lives as a result of the Minister’s decision not to lower the blood-alcohol level any earlier. 
I want to speak on another topic and that is the Puhoi to Wellsford road—the “Holiday Highway”. The Minister of Transport Mr Joyce actually called it the “Holiday Highway” at a recent infrastructure conference. He too believes that it is a holiday highway and is there to benefit people who want to go to the beaches around Omaha quickly in the long weekends as the Prime Minister does. There are two reasons for building that highway: one is the economic benefit and the other is safety. The economic benefits simply do not stack up. The rate of return is 0.8. So for every dollar we spend we get 80c back. In other words we will get less back than we will spend on the highway. When I have spoken to economists about this none of them could understand how we could even get to 0.8. Most of them think the figure is closer to 0.3. I am talking about a $1.6 billion—possibly $2 billion—piece of roading. Just think what you could do with $2 billion—or $1.6 billion if you want to be conservative. You could restore the health cuts lower accident compensation levies or fund the SuperGold card for the next 60 years. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! 
DAVID SHEARER 
: Yet the Minister of Transport has been talking about withdrawing limiting or restricting its applicability. That money—for a highway that will not even produce a return—represents 60 years of the SuperGold card 
The second reason given for building the highway is that it will be safer. The ridiculous thing is that 50 people will die on the roads while this new road is being constructed based on the average road toll over the last 9 or 10 years. There will be 50 more deaths. Let me explain this because there are other alternatives. 
The Campaign for Better Transport and the Auckland Transport Blog did some pretty good studies on some alternatives. For $320 million as opposed to $2 billion we could get the current road upgraded to three lanes get centres strips put through the middle of the highway get a Warkworth bypass and even get a new bypass that takes away the Schedewys Hill bends. It would generate three to four times the cost-benefit that the current scheme will. I am pleased to see that the Minister is back in the Chamber because I would like him to hear this. The $320 million scheme as opposed to the $2 billion one would give you 90 percent of the benefits at about one-seventh of the cost. Then you can use that extra money for the SuperGold card for example. I say to the Minister that the SuperGold card could be funded for the next 60 years with what you— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: On numerous occasions the member has brought me into the debate. Members cannot say “you”; that refers to the presiding officer. That is what I mentioned before—SuperGold card or not it is not me. 
DAVID SHEARER 
: I apologise for that Mr Deputy Speaker and for any reference that the SuperGold card might apply to you. As I said we could have 60 years worth of SuperGold card for the cost of one highway. 
I want to mention one last feature and that is the report which came out today done by the  
Herald 
-DigiPoll about transport in Auckland. It is really really interesting. When Aucklanders were asked what they wanted more than anything else in terms of transport 23 percent or nearly a quarter of Aucklanders saw the No. 1 priority as a rail link to the airport. That was really surprising. It well and truly exceeded any upgrades to Auckland’s roads. 
The other interesting thing that came up in that report is that nearly two-thirds of Aucklanders would like to see rail and road on the new harbour crossing. Again Aucklanders are changing their perspective on the roading outlook to one that is more mixed with public transport. Unfortunately that does not seem to fit with this Minister’s outlook in terms of his dedication to roads. 
Just the other day when the Minister was asked questions in relation to the Auckland mayoral candidates and what they believe is needed he said that roading projects are still to be built and that they should come before any talk of new rail projects. That is what he said in August on Radio New Zealand National. The Minister is not visionary; he is merely “rear-visionary”. He looks behind him to what people wanted before rather than at what people want today. Thank you.