Fenton Darien: Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Fenton Darien: Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:17794] 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 Thank you so much Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson for pronouncing my name correctly. It is very nice. I will take the opportunity to congratulate you on your new role. We know that you will be fantastic. You have done it before and we have great faith in your ability to be fair to all of the members in this House. 
Paul Quinn 
: Can I join with you Darien? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: The member can. I will come to the matter at hand. I am very pleased to take a call in the second reading of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill 2010. Labour supports the majority of the bill’s provisions because there is much that is good in the bill. We support a zero limit for repeat drink-drivers the alcohol interlocks for repeat offenders the tightening of work-time requirements for truck drivers and the doubling of the minimum prison time for drunk drugged or reckless driving causing death. 
Although we will vote for the bill at its second reading we will be putting forward a couple of amendments at the Committee stage because we have some concerns about two aspects of the bill. Firstly the Government has missed the opportunity to lower the blood-alcohol content limit from 0.08 to 0.05 grams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. The public have been calling for the limit to be lowered every poll supports it and there is readily available research confirming that it would make a difference to our road safety. Secondly Labour members have also thought very long and hard about the increase in the driver-licensing age from 15 to 16 and we have consulted widely on the matter. We remain unconvinced about the need for change although we do support extending the learner-licensing period. 
I will address the last matter first. Raising the minimum age for holding a driver’s licence to 16 effectively means that young people must be 16 before they can apply for a licence. After they apply for and pass the written and practical tests there is still the learner-licensing period. The bill provides for an extension from 6 months to 12 months for that learner-licensing period before a driver can obtain a restricted licence. We support the extension and we do so because research shows that the period of supervised driving under a learner’s licence is when young drivers—and in fact all drivers—are at their safest. However the overall effect of the proposed changes is that young drivers will be 17 before they can obtain a restricted licence. 
We have some difficulties with that situation because we have seen no evidence that raising the age for holding a driver’s licence will reduce accidents for 15-year-olds. Let me make it very clear and let me put on the record that Labour along with most New Zealanders is concerned about our high teenage crash rate. New Zealand’s road death rate for 15-year-olds to 17-year-olds is the highest in the OECD and our road death rate for 18-year-olds to 20-year-olds is fourth highest. No one—no one—wants to see our young people dying unnecessarily in horrific road crashes but we have found no research that attributes the high rate to the age at which young drivers are able to begin their driver-licensing and education process. 
There is no clarity about whether it is age lack of experience or lack of supervised driver training that is causing the problems but we do know that the greatest risk for young drivers comes during their first 6 months of driving independently. That indicates to me that a lack of experience rather than the driver-licensing age is the problem. Could it be that an inexperienced 16-year-old or 17-year-old is just as likely to crash as an inexperienced 15-year-old? 
Of course we support young drivers learning to drive well through proper supervision and driver education but the approach the bill takes is the low-hanging fruit approach that the Government is very very fond of. The danger we see with the bill and with this provision for raising the driver-licensing age is that we are simply shifting the problem from one age band to another. Driving problems among the young are shown to occur when they shift from the restricted period to the time of being unsupervised. 
There is a popular perception—there is no doubt about it—that everybody thinks that if we pick on the young and go after them with a driving-age increase it will fix all the problems. The Government wants to be seen to be taking action. Sadly young drivers and communities will pay with the provision for raising the driver-licensing age. Raising the driver-licensing age will have impacts on rural communities— 
Paul Quinn 
: Is that the same for alcohol? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: —and on young workers and students who need to drive to work or study. Perhaps Mr Paul Quinn should have sat in on some of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee hearings where rural New Zealand Federated Farmers and young workers came along and expressed their real concerns about the impracticalities of raising the driver-licensing age. Let me emphasise that it is about the driver-licensing age; it is not about the age at which young people can drive. They cannot drive at 15 but they can apply to become licensed drivers. 
The second issue I will address is the blood-alcohol content limit. We are deeply disappointed that the bill fails to deal with lowering the adult blood-alcohol content limit from 0.08 to 0.05. We all know that alcohol is involved in a significant number of vehicle crashes that result in death and injury. Loss of life personal suffering and costs are an enormous and preventable burden on our society. The Minister of Transport Steven Joyce had the opportunity to do something about the blood-alcohol content limit in the bill but he has kicked it into touch. 
Select committee members were aware of the concerns because we heard—and I was on the select committee—from submitter after submitter that the bill was an opportunity to address something that we say and that the Minister’s own advice says would save 17 to 35 lives every year. The regulatory impact statement from the Ministry of Transport on the Safer Journeys strategy gives very clear advice to the Government on this matter. It states: “Currently alcohol impaired driving is one of the main causes of serious road crashes. In 2009 alcohol contributed to 33 percent of fatal crashes and 21 percent of serious injury crashes. Crashes involving alcohol resulted in 137 deaths 565 serious injuries and 1725 minor injuries at an estimated social cost of $875 million. Road crashes”—with or without alcohol—“place a substantial burden on the economy and the health sector and lower the quality of life of many New Zealanders. The annual social cost of road crashes in New Zealand is approximately $3.8 billion … Drink driving is a significant contributor to this social cost and one of the main causes of serious road crashes.” 
The advice to the Government from the Safer Journeys strategy which is from the Minister’s own ministry was that if the Government lowered the adult blood-alcohol content limit from 0.08 to 0.05 and if it also lowered the youth limit from 0.03 to zero and introduced infringement penalties for the proposed excess blood-alcohol content offences then these actions could save between 17 and 35 lives and prevent between 363 and 729 serious injuries each year—let alone the millions of dollars it would save our communities. 
There is an extensive body of research on the issue. I know that the Minister is saying we need New Zealand research but actually the research is there. It concludes that impairment starts at a very low blood-alcohol content and that the vast majority of drivers are affected or impaired at a level of 0.05 with significant impairment at 0.08. In fact the Minister tested it out did he not? He clearly agreed when he said that legal alcohol limits for drivers are just ridiculous after he drank three-quarters of a bottle of wine and was surprised to find he could still legally get behind the wheel. 
Labour offered an out to the Government. We put forward a member’s bill that would deal with this issue. It was a face-saving offer for the Government. We are prepared to work with the Government on this issue but it has chosen not to. The Government has chosen not to work with us. 
This issue is about public safety on our roads. This issue is about saving lives and preventing deaths on our roads. It is not a game; we are talking here about real people whose families and others will be affected. The Government has chosen to do nothing about the issue.