Nash StuartPart 1 Amendments to Land Transport Act 1998STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): It is a pleasure to stand up and talk about the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 2) in the Committee stage. Talking about Part 1 something that I would like to talk about is the Mandatory alcohol interlock sentence for repeat offences and certain first offences"—this is new section 65AB inserted by clause 19 on page 11. There is no doubt about it that drink-drivers cause death on our roads. People who drive when they are drunk or impaired by alcohol should be—anything to get them off our roads makes a huge difference. In fact I remember talking to a retiring—I think he was an assistant commissioner of police of road transport policing. I cannot remember his name which is terrible but he is heading off to Geneva and he said to me that one of the things—this is good for Mr Iain Lees-Galloway—that will actually save lives is Iain Lees-Galloway's member's bill I think it was that changed drug alcohol limits.But the bottom line is that we want to stop people from driving drunk. Of that there is absolutely no doubt and there is also no doubt that there is too much recidivist drink-driving. I think a New Zealand First—no no I think it was one of the Greens; David Clendon spoke about the fact that he visited a drug and alcohol court and a chap was there for his ninth offence or something ridiculous. That is totally unacceptable someone with nine offences for drink-driving. What we do know is he had been caught nine times. What we do not know obviously is how many times he had driven drunk. But he had a real problem; of that there was no doubt.So there are these things called alcohol interlock devices and what they do is they are fitted to a vehicle and the person has to breathe into this and pass a test before they are allowed to drive their car. I think this is absolutely fantastic and what this bill does is it makes them mandatory for repeat offences and for certain first-time offences. Now what is a first-time offence? Well we all know what a repeat offender is of course. They have been convicted before for drunk-driving within 5 years of the date on which the offence has been dealt with by a court. So if it is outside that time then they are not a repeat offender; if it is within the 5-year time then they are classed as a repeat offender under new section 65AB(1)(a).We talk about what a first-time offender is. Well that is if they have a high blood-alcohol reading that exceeds 800 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath. The proportion of alcohol in a person's blood as ascertained from the analysis exceeds 160 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. It probably means nothing if you do not know exactly what I am talking about but what I would say is that it is a lot OK? This is someone who is drunk who is impaired and not only puts their own life at risk but more importantly puts the lives of everyone else on the road at risk.The thing about these devices—I would actually like to see these mandatory in every vehicle. Why are we doing it only for people who have been convicted of a high blood-alcohol level or a high breath-test analysis? Why are we not doing it for everyone? I know there is an expense here and I do know that—I assume it is the department of Justice that will provide a fund but correct me if I am wrong; and no doubt one of my colleagues will. If you have been convicted of this and one of these has to be fitted to your car then you have got to pay for it. What we do not want to do is penalise a person twice by making them pay for something that they just cannot afford and therefore they do not do it. So there will be a fund set up to do this because the most important thing of course is to stop someone from driving drunk. It cannot be prohibitive in the sense that they just simply cannot afford it. But would it not be great to have these in every single vehicle? I mean what are the rules now Mr Lees-Galloway? If you are under 18 you cannot have any alcohol on your breath?Iain Lees-Galloway: That's right.STUART NASH: No alcohol whatsoever. What is the risk of having this in every single car and just dialling it down? For example if the car is owned or it is driven by someone who is 18 or under then this is automatically installed in the car. In fact I think that is probably the future and maybe this is just a trial. We want to stop people driving drunk. In fact I would pay to have this in any of my children's cars no doubt about that and I think there are many people around the country who should have them installed whether they have got a drink-driving conviction or not. But the bottom line is that it is the right thing to do. It is using technology in a very smart way to save lives. I was not on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee but I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that this was supported by all.One thing I am unsure about and I have been trying to find it in the legislation is actually the cost of this. What the court can do is when it imposes—this is new section 65AH—a fine or a court order or imprisonment or an assessment or anything like that "the court may take into account the cost of an alcohol interlock sentence [when setting] the amount of any fine." So as mentioned what we do not want to do with these things is make them prohibitive or make them unaffordable but the bottom line is that if you are convicted of drink-driving there is a price to pay. What we also know is that when people have been drinking their judgment is impaired—is that not right Mr Seymour? So what we need to ensure is that these things take that element of risk out of the equation when someone has had a few too many drinks and wants to hop in a car. The other thing it can do of course is it means that people who need their vehicle for work—you know it is a vital component of their life—can possibly have one of these installed and know with confidence that they will not be done for drunk-driving again. But the bottom line is that it is the right thing to do.There are exceptions. There is an exception for people who are not given an alcohol interlock sentence and that is set out in new section 65AI. For example and there are 3 of them any disqualification as "appropriate under the provision relating to the qualifying offence;"—oh anyway you can read them yourself if you are very interested there is no doubt about that. It would get a little bit boring if I were to go through it. It is quite technical but it is important. All I would say is that I think these are a fantastic initiative. I actually think they should be in all cars. I would love to hear from someone who was on the select committee to provide a little bit of direction of why in fact we did not suggest this for everyone who has been convicted of a drink-driving offence and why they are not mandatory for anyone under the age of 18 who is driving a vehicle. The records show that those are the ones who are going to kill people on our roads. Thank you very much."