Little Andrew: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLittle Andrew: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 03 July 2014. Volume:700;Page:19238. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ANDREW LITTLE (Labour):I rise to take a call on the Land Transport Amendment Bill and acknowledge the contribution of my parliamentary colleague opposite Chris Auchinvole who talked about the great unanimity on it. Normally of course that would be an opportunity for me to stand up and say what a complete scumbag he is to make such an outrageous claim but it would be wrong because there was a considerable degree of cohesion of thinking around this piece of legislation. We all share the concern about the issue of drink-driving—driving under the influence—and we have known for some time it has been apparent for some time that the thresholds that we have been operating under simply are not enough to deter people from getting behind the wheel when they have had not just a couple of drinks but significantly more than a couple.We have seen the TV programmes showing people who have had significantly more than a couple of drinks and who are testing below the existing threshold so changing the threshold is a sensible move. It has been Labour Party policy for some time and my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway has been promoting that move for some years so it is good to see that it is now happening.This bill enacts that particular aspect of it. It does a few other things too. It slightly complicates the issue because we now have this threshold this 250 milligram and 400 milligram threshold. If you are in breach of the law between 250 milligrams and 400 milligrams a set of consequences follows and a set of rights ensues but not the same number of rights and consequences or the same magnitude of rights and consequences as would ensue if you are found to have over 400 milligrams of alcohol in the blood or the breath-alcohol content.There is one aspect I have to confess—notwithstanding the almost unanimous view of the select committee and notwithstanding the views expressed by New Zealand First today—that still does cause me some concern. That is the fact that a person who has been pulled over and breath-tested by an officer is liable for the cost of a blood test irrespective of whether they are found to be over or under the relevant limit. It is true that the bill says that the officer administering the test has some discretion about whether to impose the testing fee on a person who is found to be under the statutory threshold but that is left up to the officer—no doubt for officers who are dealing with a stroppy individual and there are a fair few of them. I can imagine the odd lawyer who is stopped; in fact there are a few of them because they appear before the lawyers disciplinary committee frequently. They can argue the point and that can be offensive to an officer trying to act in the execution of their duty. But it just seems to me to be an unusual thing to leave it to the discretion of the police officer on the beat.I also am concerned that somebody who is innocent who is confident that they are not over the threshold may still be liable for a cost. In a sense they are being asked to pay for the cost of proving their innocence and that offends against a pretty basic principle—the right to be treated as innocent until proven guilty. Of course there will be others—and experienced officers will know when they are dealing with people who are over the limit—who attempt to resist blood tests and other evidential breath tests and who are trying it on. The officers must be free to exercise their professional skills to ensure that they persuade such people to undergo the relevant test. I just draw attention to that part. No doubt we will consider it and see through the Committee stage whether or not it is something that might lend itself to some improvement.Notwithstanding that the bill otherwise achieves the policy objective that we all want which is to reduce the thresholds of breath and blood alcohol when it comes to testing people behind the wheel. The reality is that we do have an unfortunate and somewhat shameful track record of traffic accidents—some fatal and many causing serious injury—where the root cause is people driving under the influence of alcohol. We do have to get on top of that problem. We know that when we went through the alcohol law reform legislation this issue was adverted to at length. The Government did not see it necessary to do anything about it at that point but we now have this bill here.We do have to get on top of the shameful record that we have of alcohol abuse by those who then put themselves in control of a motor vehicle. We have to send the signal that the thresholds are lower and that actually the tolerance for drinking and then driving straight afterwards is very low. There will be those who say it is one or two drinks and they are fine to hit the road and there will be some for whom even one or two drinks may be a step too far. I think that with this bill lowering the thresholds and with the regime that it sets up notwithstanding the issue that I have raised it is a responsible step forward to ensuring that we have safer roads and safer drivers behind the wheel.