Bennett David: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBennett David: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 03 July 2014. Volume:700;Page:19232. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East):Thank you to a very honourable Assistant Speaker whom we have in the Chair today. I would like to thank that previous member Darien Fenton for her very good speech and also her commitment to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee over the years that she has been here. This may be our last chance to do that. [Interruption] No there is a lot of love there. I think that Darien Fenton is an excellent member of this Parliament and we have always enjoyed her company on the committee. She has done a very good job. She has represented her side of the argument strongly but in a way that everybody can respect and understand so it has been a pleasure to have you on the committee and it has been a pleasure to see your input on the Land Transport Amendment Bill and other things. I know that the whips are looking at me going “What are we doing?” but that respect is genuinely felt.The Land Transport Amendment Bill is a good bill and it is being supported by the parties through the House. I think it is a little bit unfair to ask why it has been waited upon and why it has not happened. Previous Governments have had that opportunity. The previous Labour Government had that opportunity. It did not do it. Amendment has been in stages. The first stage was in regard to youth drivers and the zero limit that was brought in in regard to them. You had the cellphone rule changes as well for safer journeys and safer driving. This is the next step. Research was undertaken to make sure it is the right step and the Minister of Transport has come to that conclusion. We are very very fortunate that the House has seen to vote for it in this regard.I think that everybody can sort of grasp what it is going to involve. It is going to be an infringement regime which is really a fine regime for the lower end of those people who may be caught driving under the influence. Then above that you go into the normal processes of a criminal offence which are for the more serious offences or the current limit as it is. The question then becomes around testing and that was a point that exercised the committee members’ minds for a long time. When the public look at this bill they may not understand it but there are some key principles and I think that if the public understand these key principles then it will help.First of all there does not seem to be a lot of difference between a breath test and a blood test. If anyone thinks “Oh if you fail one you’ll pass the other.” and such like the advice we had was that they are pretty similar and it would be very very rare to find that there would be a result in one case that would not be substantiated in the other. So thinking that if you fail one you are going to pass the other one and therefore you would not have to pay the fees and the fines and things like that just is not relevant. That is a key principle that underpins this. Another key principle is because it is an infringement zone to do that as easily and quickly—and probably as cost-effectively—as possible to enable most people to basically be aware that they have breached the law and suffered that infringement without going through a more formal process that you often see in the higher offence part of it.I think those two principles are key when people look at this. People will say and Darien rightly pointed out that there will be issues around the recoverability of funds and there may be court cases that eventuate over that over time but they are very simple rules and when you consider those key principles it actually means that it is very unlikely that anyone would be successful through that legal mechanism but you know that people will try that. That is the nature of human beings and the legal process. So just be prepared for that.But essentially the other principle is that the blood test is recoverable. So if you have a blood test you are going to pay. You are either going to pay through the fine or you are going to pay through that test being recoverable. That is the guts of it. To anyone out there who is thinking that they do not have to pay well you are. You are going to pay $700 for an infringement and $200 which is basically for testing and if you go through the other process and seek a blood test you are going to pay that money. Whichever way you look at it the fee will be about $200.Just in finishing I would like to thank one of the previous members of the committee who had an important role in other parts of the legislation around this area. That is Mr Scott Simpson who looked at one of the issues that we had faced in regard to testing. His valuable member’s bill the Land Transport (Admissibility of Evidential Breath Tests) Amendment Bill which progressed into this bill actually was a catalyst for making this very robust piece of legislation. To everybody out there this is a good piece of legislation. It is something that creates a system that I think all members of this Parliament should endorse and support. We have tried to get it in the best way we can. This is a system where you will pay for that testing. I would just like to thank the Ministers involved especially the Minister of Police whose staff were very helpful in getting us through this situation and also the members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee especially Darien. Well done and thank you.