Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:665;Page:13056] 
6. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: Did he consider opinion polls about public views on cutting the blood-alcohol limit for driving and what role if any did it play in the Government’s decision not to lower that limit? 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Associate Minister of Transport) 
: 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Transport 
: We considered a range of factors and public support was one important consideration. But we also need to know the exact level of harm caused by drivers with a blood-alcohol level of between 0.05 and 0.08 milligrams. The Minister of Transport has said all along that road safety measures work only if they have the very broad support of road users. We want to be sure that New Zealanders understand the benefits of any change and accept it before proceeding as we have done with the cellphone rule with drug-driving provisions and illegal street racing laws. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: When the Minister told the House that a broad level of public acceptance would be required before he would move on this matter of lowering the blood-alcohol limit was he aware of the Research New Zealand poll and admittedly an unscientific  
Close Up  
television poll of 17000 viewers both of which regardless of whether they were scientific or unscientific showed support for that measure in the 60-plus percent range showing that there is support in the community for lowering the blood-alcohol limit from 0.08 to 0.05 milligrams? 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: I have seen a broad range of polls with all sorts of different numbers. I think that if one analyses them all one will find that they are all about 50-50 on this issue. What I found interesting was that member’s press release today. He quoted some UK drug and alcohol expert Professor David Nutt who in actual fact has not been able to convince the authorities in the UK to lower the blood-alcohol limit. It is still 0.08 milligrams. That professor should concentrate on his own country. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: What measures is the Government taking to crack down on drink-driving? 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: Last week the Government announced a package of road safety initiatives targeting drink-drivers and in particular repeat offenders and young offenders. The package includes a zero-milligram drink-drive limit for recidivist drink-drivers a zero-milligram drink-drive limit for drivers under 20 years of age much tougher penalties for dangerous reckless driving causing death the introduction of alcohol interlocks for repeat drink-drivers and serious first-time offenders. By targeting high-risk offenders namely those with a history of offending and young people we are confident we will make a significant impact. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Given that Professor Nutt is in the gallery today watching this expert Minister answer these questions in such a non-partisan way maybe he could explain to the country how any research— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was not an appropriate reference first to the gallery and second to the Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think that is a perfectly fair point of order that the Leader of the House has made. There should be no reference to visitors in the gallery. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I apologise for that Sir. I also apologise for referring to the Minister as an expert. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: At least the member did apologise. I ask for a little courtesy while he is asking his question. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Can he explain to the House how research specific to New Zealand can be any different from the over 300 studies already done that compare a blood-alcohol limit of between 0.08 to 0.05 milligrams and what factors in New Zealand are so specific that they make those international studies irrelevant for deciding to move on this issue? 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: Very little data has been collected in New Zealand to do with those who are pulled over with a blood-alcohol limit of between 0.05 and 0.08 milligrams. We want to ensure that the New Zealand Police are able to collect that data because we need hard data to make any decisions in the future. It is also interesting to note that I saw a comment from a member saying “If we are going to change the limits there would need to be hard evidence.” I must say that that quote came from the then Minister of Justice Phil Goff in 2001. So once again we have Labour MPs not agreeing with their leader. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question asked the Minister what factors were unique about New Zealand—what factors. He has given us an answer saying that police do not have enough data. I am interested in what factors are motivating the Government to delay a decision on this matter. It is not a question of what statistics have been collected; it is a question of what factors the Government believes are different about New Zealand so that it cannot rely on the international data that is available. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: In answer the Minister said that the Government believes that it needs more research on the difference between 0.05 percent and 0.08 percent blood alcohol and I presume he is saying that without that research it does not necessarily know the factors involved. It seemed to me a reasonable answer. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Does he accept that the delay in deciding whether to lower the blood-alcohol limit will cost lives on the road in New Zealand? 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: Unfortunately we lose lives in this country almost on a daily basis. The Government has made some very big broad decisions in terms of addressing alcohol concerns that the public has in New Zealand and that drivers have. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: What are they? 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: I alluded to them just before I say to Mr Jones if he was listening. I welcome him back. The important thing is that we are addressing this. We want to collect this data over the next 2 years to ensure that any future decisions made and— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am no clearer as to whether delaying a decision on moving the blood-alcohol limit from 0.08 to 0.05 will cost more lives on the road. That is the only thing I am interested in; I am not interested in the other matters that the Minister is concerned about. It was a very short simple question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The problem is that it is a speculative question. How can the Minister know that? That is why it is extraordinarily difficult for the Minister to answer such a question in precise terms. He has no research so he tells us to indicate whether it will have an effect. That is why it is difficult for me to insist on any particular answer to that question from the Minister. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: If the Government is concerned about the community support for lowering the blood-alcohol limit and is concerned about whether there is support for it to do so will the Minister accept an offer from the Labour Opposition and from many other parties in this House for a non-partisan approach to the topic of the blood-alcohol limit and support the bill that I put into the ballot today in order to lower the blood-alcohol limit to 0.05 so that— 
Hon Members 
: 9 years. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Yes it was 9 years. That is correct. We are here today to try to make sure we can do something about this issue. The Government members can yell and scream during my question as long as they like but the issue remains and it needs to be sorted out. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Members are making it impossible to hear the Hon Darren Hughes’ question but I think the Minister got the purport of the question. 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: It is interesting that we have had 9 years of the previous Government; I alluded to that before. Mr Goff said that it would need hard evidence and then chose to do nothing subsequently for the following 8 years. This member now wants to play party politics with this issue when that party has had a period in Government and done nothing. We have done more in the first 2 years of this Government to address road safety measures than Labour did in its 9 years in Government. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: On this occasion I have to accept that the member asked whether the Minister would support a bill that the member described that he would be introducing to the House. The Minister made no reference to the bill whatsoever. It would be helpful to the House if the Minister were to answer that fundamental question. 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: No.