Lees-Galloway Iain: Land Transport (Admissibility of Evidential Breath Tests) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Lees-Galloway Iain: Land Transport (Admissibility of Evidential Breath Tests) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 07 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6428. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 Let me say at the outset that we in the Labour Party seek to be a constructive Opposition and to work with the Government where we can on legislation so we will support this legislation the Land Transport (Admissibility of Evidential Breath Tests) Amendment Bill going to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. Having said that we concur with the view of the Automobile Association that the bill as it is worded currently is too broad and we would also want to see some amendment to those final words in the bill “for any reason”. We would need to see amendment to that and also consideration of the Attorney-General’s report before we could support it any further but we do look forward to the debate and the consideration at the select committee. 
Clearly it does seem inadequate that where an evidential breath test finds or suggests that someone is over the drink-driving limit there appears to be a mechanism by which a small number of people may be able to avoid prosecution. It is important to reinforce I think that we are dealing with probably a very small number of people—in fact I believe that the member in charge of the bill Scott Simpson cannot tell us exactly how many people might be captured by this legislation. Therefore we wonder whether this really is a significant issue that is so desperately in need of attention. In fact the member suggested that there are many ways to avoid prosecution for a charge of drinking in excess of the limit. If that were the case then surely this should be a Government bill that addressed all of those issues. We wonder on this side just how significant the problem is. 
I have to look at some of the language that Mr Simpson has used around this issue. He cited the case of a defendant who was apparently hepatitis C positive. I do not know what that has to do with anything. I do not know why Mr Simpson felt the need to bring that fact into the debate at all. That person was also an intravenous drug user. I read in the newspaper Mr Simpson referring to this as an issue that was pretty much specifically designed to capture people who are intravenous drug users. In fact he has not offered any other reason why it might be difficult to take blood from someone. There are a range of reasons why it may be difficult to take blood from somebody. One is being overweight another is stress. At a time of stress the body actually withdraws the blood from the limbs—the arms the legs—back towards the vital organs and the brain. It is the fight or flight response. It is quite a normal thing to happen and indeed if someone were found to be driving over the limit it is probably fair to say that that would be a stressful situation and that fight or flight mechanism may kick in and it may be difficult to draw blood from these people. But these situations have not come up in Mr Simpson’s discussion at all. He has focused this solely on a group of people whom I suspect he deems to be less worthy of a reasonable hearing before the law. Because they are intravenous drug users he has decided that they are somehow less worthy before the law. 
You have to wonder exactly what it is that is driving Mr Simpson here or why he has used that language. Maybe he is trying to convince the good National voting people out there that this will not affect them somehow because this is directed at a very narrow group of people and not at them. I do not know. Mr Simpson might be able to enlighten us as to why he has used the particular language that he has but that is up to him. Suffice it to say that there are a number of reasons why it might be impossible to draw blood. 
I do want to say though that we must be mindful of the Attorney-General’s report. Mr Simpson referred to it as the Attorney-General’s officials’ report. I think that is unfair on the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General’s signature is on this. I know John Banks has set a new standard for signing documents and whether or not you are supposed to have read them before you sign them but I take the Attorney-General’s signature on there as this being something that he has not only read but something that he supports. So this is the Attorney-General’s report and we do have to be mindful of it. In fact if the Attorney-General were to offer his thoughts in this debate that would be welcome on this side of the House. But we do need to be mindful of what the Attorney-General said. 
I find it ironic that this Land Transport (Admissibility of Evidential Breath Tests) Amendment Bill is being promoted by a National Party member. It is being supported by the National Party and it will get I am sure the support of the governing parties tonight as well as some of the Opposition parties when it will have such a small impact on the road toll and the harm caused by drink driving when in the same breath those parties will refuse to support lowering the drink-drive limit from 0.08 to 0.05. That is a measure we know is evidence-based and will have a significant impact on the harm on the roads caused by alcohol. The Ministry of Transport has provided evidence to the Minister of Transport that it will reduce the number of people killed on our roads every year by up to 30. Up to 30 lives can be saved every year if the Government would just accept the advice of its own officials and would follow public opinion. Eighty-five percent of New Zealanders support lowering the drink-drive limit from 0.08 to 0.05 which international evidence tells us not only has an impact on the people who drive with a blood-alcohol limit of between 0.05 and 0.08 but also significantly reduces the number of people who are heavily intoxicated who get behind the wheel drive their vehicle cause accidents and kill people. 
Hon Member 
: How? 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: I heard the word “How?” from the far side there. The evidence is actually quite clear and quite simple. It is quite simple. A limit of 0.05 requires people to make a decision about whether or not they get behind the wheel much earlier in the process of consuming alcohol because once they get over 0.05 but are below 0.08 they lose the capacity to make a sensible decision about whether or not they should get behind the wheel. It is as simple as that. The evidence supports it. The evidence that the Minister was given supports it. Public opinion supports it. It is what people want. It is the right thing to do. It will save lives and yet this Government will not do it. What it is doing instead is a piecemeal piece of legislation like this which is fine in and of itself but it is meaningless in the grand scheme of trying to reduce the road toll and trying to reduce the harm caused by alcohol and the harm caused by drink-driving. It is in fact from the language used by Mr Simpson being used to isolate some members of our community and further divide our community which we know this National Party is so very very good at doing. 
So although we appreciate that there is probably some positive motivation behind what Mr Simpson is trying to do and although we appreciate that there is an inadequacy in the law which we will work with the Government to tidy up we think there are much larger issues that need to be addressed and could be being addressed by this Government if it was actually prepared to do the right thing and address the harm caused by alcohol on our roads with a piece of legislation that would actually make some difference.