Sowry Roger: Land Transport Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Sowry Roger: Land Transport Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14285] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
: 
 At the outset of what will be a fairly short speech I want to say to the House that the National Party will be voting for this bill to go to a select committee. The bill needs a considerable amount of work and the National Party is prepared to work with the Government on some of the important issues of road safety. Like all political parties in this House we view with concern the road toll. It came down considerably during the previous National Government’s time in office largely due to a combination of a very aggressive advertising campaign on television—at times it was almost too aggressive—and the moves that took place around the issuing of the new photographic licences and that whole new regime of removing people from the road. We believe that that was highly successful in driving down the road toll. That is not to say that there are not other things that can be done and I particularly want to commend in the bill the provisions around serious traffic offenders whereby there will be the opportunity for immediate driver’s-licence suspension and an increase in penalties for repeat drink-driving. 
I am not someone who believes we need to race out and lower the blood-alcohol level or do any of that sort of more extreme stuff. But as someone who often reads the little bit in the paper on drink-driving offences which are reported on a weekly basis when I read the convictions I am concerned to see a number of repeat offenders who consistently appear week after week in the newspaper. I think that anything this House can do to stop repeat offending by the removal of drivers’ licences earlier in the process is something that should be supported and I also think the requirement for a wider group of repeat drink-drivers to have to attend drug and alcohol assessment and rehabilitation courses is something we need to have. It is no good just to take their drivers’ licences away—suspend them—and then let those drivers come back at a later date. We do need a more intensive programme and they should have to prove they have been on the programme before they get their licences back. I personally support that part of the bill and I hope the House will support it as well. 
 In terms of the simplification around the driving logbook system I think it does go some way towards meeting the concerns that have been expressed to me regarding logbooks. I am worried about the increase or the ability I guess to have automatic demerit points for a logbook offence because I think the issue is that many people may well be outside their driving time when it is not a planned event. I am thinking of the recent example of the floods in the northern part of the Otaki and through the Rangitikei areas where truck-drivers who were doing really good community work in terms of moving stock and furniture—and they were moving furniture in the Hutt Valley which was also flooded at the same time—were pinged by the quite petty and frankly I think overzealous actions of some traffic police for weight and logbook offences. Common sense prevailed in the end and those offences were waived. But I do worry about the increasing focus on revenue gathering and logbook offences are one way that that whole issue can be used by the traffic police. I do not support that. 
Vehicle impoundment is another issue I want to comment on because it was quite controversial when it was introduced in the House in the late 1990s and I am sure the Minister was aware of the debate at the time. In fact I think it was difficult at the time to keep a certain number of members in the House in order to get that part passed. It was a very close vote and I notice the Hon Harry Duynhoven laughing at that as well because I think he was involved in the negotiations at the time. Suffice it to say that vehicle impoundment has worked really well and I think the Minister is right to ask the committee to look at reducing the time cars are kept. I know that that is a problem; it has been raised with me. Where vehicles have no value or very little value no one comes to pick them up. They then end up being kept for a long period of time and the operators who have those vehicles in their yards end up wearing a loss. So from that angle we need to sort that out. 
As an aside I just hope the committee also takes the chance to look at abandoned vehicles. I notice an increasing number of people around the country who have vehicles of little value and I am not sure whether those things just break down or the owners forget where they are but one way or the other the owners just leave them there on the roadside. Traffic officers drive past those vehicles for a week to two weeks and the vehicles gradually lose bits. If one goes past such a vehicle on a Friday one sees it is all OK. However on Saturday one sees the windows are broken on Sunday the wheels have gone and by Wednesday it is sitting there as a wrecked vehicle on the side of the road. That is not something that does this country proud. The police need to act on that situation a lot quicker than they do and I hope the committee will look at that. I think that it is probably just a product of the value of a vehicle when it is probably not worth the towing fee. I myself have had a car in that category and I have very fond memories of it. 
Darren Hughes 
: Tell us about it. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: It is still on the road actually. I sold it for $300 and it is still being driven by a very proud seventh former. 
I want to finish by saying that the issues around taking blood samples and some of the human rights issues around dealing with blood samples and breath testing are things we will want to look at quite closely. I am sure there will be varying views in our caucus on those issues but I am pleased to say that the National Party will be supporting the referral of the bill to the select committee and will work in a constructive way to get it through the House as soon as possible.