Faafoi Kris: Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Faafoi Kris: Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:672;Page:18440] 
KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 Thank you very much Mr Deputy Speaker for the opportunity to speak on the third reading of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. As many speakers before me have said—and I refer to the comments of the previous speaker Michael Woodhouse—Labour supports this bill but we do so with reservations about two specific areas. But as we do support this bill I will start by accentuating the positives. 
Labour supports the zero limit for repeat drink-drivers. As Tau Henare mentioned earlier in the debate—and he has a habit of being in the House when I mention him—that issue is a real problem. Labour supports that particular aspect of this bill. Labour also supports the zero limit for drivers under 20. That sends a very clear message—as we thought that lowering the adult blood-alcohol content to 0.05 would have done—to those under 20 that drinking and driving will absolutely and utterly not be accepted by New Zealand as a whole. 
Labour also supports the use of alcohol interlocks for repeat offenders. We think it is a great use of modern technology to ensure that those repeat drink-drivers whom I have already spoken about cannot get behind the wheel again. That technology should be utilised whenever possible. As the member for Palmerston North Iain Lees-Galloway suggested earlier a very popular move in this bill is the one that doubles the minimum prison time for drink-driving drug-driving or reckless driving causing death. 
They are positive aspects of this bill. I think I have been very generous in the time I have taken to focus on those aspects and I will now take some time probably against the wishes of Mr Woodhouse to focus on the areas that Labour does not support. We do not support the blood-alcohol level and the increase in the driving age. 
As the Minister said the bill will have a good outcome—those were the words of the Minister—but it should have an excellent outcome. The Minister said he commended the bill to the House because he believes it will have a good outcome for the safety of drivers on our roads and for the general New Zealand public. But this bill was an opportunity to have an excellent outcome—and we do not have that. 
This bill leaves us with a whole lot of question marks. Why did the Minister not lower the blood-alcohol content from 80 to 50 when there is great public support and a weight of research that says it will have an effect? There is a weight of public sentiment out there which we saw in submissions to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that would support lowering the blood-alcohol level back down to 50. 
Why did the Government not do anything in this bill to address the real problems that drink-driving causes on the roads? In 2009 I believe 33 percent of the fatal crashes on our roads were caused by drug-influenced or alcohol-influenced drivers. In 2009 21 percent of accidents with serious injury were caused by drivers who were drunk or alcohol-influenced. What was the human cost? It was 137 lives lost and more than 560 injuries. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: How many with 0.08? 
KRIS FAAFOI 
: My message to Mr Woodhouse is that the Government had a real opportunity to send a clear message to the New Zealand public that drinking and driving would not be tolerated but that opportunity was not taken. 
During the process of this bill why did the Government not take the opportunity to listen to the weight of evidence that came through from the select committee? A submission from Rev. Graham Lamont and 77 others suggested we could make a serious difference in terms of reducing the harm on our roads if we decreased the blood-alcohol limit available to New Zealanders. Why did the Government not listen to a senior official who sent this email to someone in the Prime Minister’s office: “Drivers with a blood-alcohol content of 80 milligrams who are legally entitled to drive right now are significantly affected by the influence of alcohol.”? 
Why did the Minister of Transport who has just returned to the House not listen to his own gut instinct? He has said it is just ridiculous that he could drink three-quarters of a bottle of wine—he is smiling because he knows that I am right—and still legally be entitled to drive on the roads when he knows he would not be able to control a vehicle on the road. Why did he not listen to his own gut instinct? For that matter why did his colleagues not back him? 
Why did the Minister who as we all know is a very keen watcher of the polls not listen to the huge weight of evidence that was floating around at the time? Late last year a UMR Research poll showed that 70 percent of respondents supported lowering the blood-alcohol limit from 80 down to 50. A Research New Zealand poll of 500 people which was published in the  
Otago Daily Times  
in April last year showed that 63 percent supported lowering the adult blood-alcohol limit from 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood to 50 milligrams. The interesting thing about that survey was that a previous survey by the same outfit showed there was a fifty-fifty split. So there is a significant change in mood as to what New Zealanders want to see from the Government in respect of sending a message to drink-drivers. 
The  
Waikato Times  
published a poll of 418 people last year. It showed that 68 percent wanted the blood-alcohol level lowered from 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres to 50 milligrams. Why is the Government ignoring that popular weight of support? Why is the Government also ignoring the sentiment that came through at the select committee? 
Mr Woodhouse mentioned Professor Sellman in his speech so let me refer to a letter dated 23 October 2010 that Professor Sellman sent to the select committee that considered this bill. He said that the decision not to lower the rate was “an appalling decision by Government to deliberately delay the lowering of the adult level for drink driving from 0.08 to at least 0.05.” He said these words: “Decisions like this make me feel ashamed to be a New Zealander. It makes me feel part of an increasingly backward little nation of plodders and plonkers having previously been a world leader in progressive social change towards a safer and healthier human society.” 
He went on to say: “Lives are going to be unnecessarily lost and severe maiming injuries suffered to innocent New Zealanders that could be prevented over the next two years while research that even researchers are not calling for is undertaken. The cost to the country has been predicted to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars.” Professor Sellman is right. I believe that the social cost to the country from drink-driving fatalities and injuries in 2009 was $875 million. That is huge and we have an opportunity to reduce that real human hurt and of course to reduce the financial cost caused by drink-driving on our roads. 
Why did the Government not also take the opportunity to work with Labour when we put forward a bill to do exactly what we are calling for—to lower the rate from 0.08 grams to 0.05 grams? Why did it not take the opportunity? We have heard members opposite say that Labour did not do anything about it in 9 years in Government but what happened to the “brighter future” that National talked about? They have an opportunity to supply a brighter future to Kiwis who may go out on the roads and be hit by drink-drivers. 
So what happened to that brighter future? Why did those MPs not back the gut feeling of their Minister who put forward this bill? They could have made sure that they took serious action and sent a real message to New Zealanders about drink-driving. Why did they not take the opportunity? This bill although achieving some positives leaves too many unanswered questions around why Government members did not take any action on drink-driving and why they are lifting the driving age from 15 to 16 years. It is a real lost opportunity. At worst it is gutless and at best it is sad. Although Labour members support this bill we support it with reservations.