Clendon David; Tisch LindsayDAVID CLENDON (Green): In the short time that I have I would just like to reiterate firstly that the Greens are supporting this very modest bill—should I say? We would like to see a great deal more done in the transport space but we see enough in this bill to support it. It does some good and useful things.I would just like to comment on two aspects of the bill one of those being the alcohol interlock devices the other being the issue of fleeing drivers—drivers failing to stop. The bill in part seeks to increase the pick-up the take-up of these devices. They have been available for some time for sentencing and for conditions for people who have been convicted particularly recidivist drunk-drivers or for people who have been caught for the first time with extraordinarily high levels of alcohol. And that is a good thing. They are useful devices. They are a technology that does ensure that people will drive at least responsibly in that sense. The privilege of driving is retained for people who are using these devices to enable them to get to work to function in a normal way in society and use their vehicles accordingly.They are however a short-term technical fix and Mr Lees-Galloway in his very useful contribution sort of started down the track that I would just like to comment briefly on. That is that while we can celebrate and commend the use of these devices they are often not a long-term solution for recidivist drunk-driving. They know that people can use these devices on their vehicle which will prevent them from driving but they will still have a very deep-seated problem with alcohol addiction and abuse and that is something that we can address.This Government I have to say has been remarkably unwilling to recognise success when they see it and I speak of the success of the alcohol and other drug treatment courts very ably led by Judge Lisa Trewmewan and Judge Ema Aitken in Waitakere and Auckland respectively. For 5 years they have been demonstrating how successful those courts and those processes can be in actually changing people's behaviour at a very significant level a very deep and meaningful level. They have had considerable success in turning people away from alcohol abuse and addiction. Those people for the most part will no longer drive. We are told there is a 60 percent reduction in drunk-driving with the alcohol interlocks while they are fitted but there is very little assurance that they will continue with those behaviours after the devices are removed. In a way the alcohol and other drug treatment court process does seem to be much more robust much more reliable in actually changing people's behaviour and attitude. So while we commend the use of these devices I think this Government needs to get real and acknowledge that the alcohol and other drug treatment courts are a wonderful success and to stop frankly fiddling about with this extended 3-year pilot.To return to the issue of the fleeing drivers that is undoubtedly a lose-lose proposition for police. Sadly in instances where police have pursued vehicles this has led to those vehicles crashing causing serious injury or death. The police are then told they got it wrong. Equally if the police decide not to pursue they are told they are getting it wrong they are letting people get away. It is an extraordinarily difficult decision to make—literally in a matter of seconds—and I think it is a very difficult area for them to pursue. So I do not have I am afraid any substantial suggestions for how police make those spur of the moment decisions. What I am sure of is that increasing penalties is often quite a weak deterrent actually. Most of these people who are inclined to flee are actually not thinking rationally as in What is the penalty if I do this?" so I have serious doubts that merely increasing the penalties will have much effect.I think one small way we could influence the likelihood of particularly young people fleeing is investing more in helping young people get their driver licences. We know that driving offences are called a gateway to the justice system for good reason. Many people enter prison for the first time on the back of multiple driving offences. If a young person in particular does not have a licence then they literally have nothing to lose. I think it is a very expensive proposition in this day and age. In my long distant youth it cost a matter of a few dollars to secure a licence. A lot of young people cannot afford the process now and that is more likely to have them driving illegally—therefore they are more likely to flee if a police officer tries to stop them. I think investing through community groups through schools and through local government to enable these young people to get licences is money well spent. Thank you.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Stuart Nash—5 minutes."