O'Rourke Denis: Land Transport Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Rourke Denis: Land Transport Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 22 July 2014. Volume:700;Page:19288. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First):New Zealand First supports tougher measures to curb the worst cases of drink-driving but the Land Transport Amendment Bill is badly targeted and is aimed at the drink-drivers who do the least harm. The bill would lower the allowable breath-alcohol content from 400 micrograms to 250 micrograms and would reduce the current blood-alcohol limit from 80 milligrams to 50 milligrams. Disobeying these new limits is to be addressed only in the form of infringement notices on the grounds that they are in the less serious range of offending. That really is the issue here because the people in this range between the existing threshold and the new one proposed in this bill are not the people who cause most of the deaths and injuries on New Zealand roads. So targeting these people is not likely to have the desired effect of reducing the death and injury rate on our roads to any great extent.The lower infringement limits as proposed in this bill may in fact have an unintended perverse effect because there will be some people who will convince themselves that drinking to between an estimated blood-alcohol range of 50 milligrams to 80 milligrams or between 250 micrograms to 400 micrograms per litre of breath when driving is an acceptable risk because it is only an infringement offence for which a small fine and a few demerit points are incurred if caught.Although there is evidence and research that shows there is driver impairment between the proposed limits and the existing limits there is very little convincing evidence that most people are likely to harm themselves or others if they do so. Therefore it is clear to us in New Zealand First that New Zealand’s existing alcohol limits in relation to driving are unlikely to be too high and lowering them would be unlikely to be effective. That is also the position taken by the UK Government I understand and its drink-driving regime works well probably because its penalties are higher. We in New Zealand First believe that a better long-term effect could be achieved firstly by increasing penalties for offending against the existing alcohol limits of 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood and 400 micrograms per litre of breath. That is why we have adopted this policy.Secondly we want people to clearly understand that the policy of being caught is actually a probability by having more police on the road and more random breath tests. In that respect I would have to completely disagree with the previous speaker Mike Sabin who felt that there were sufficient police on the road and that sufficient was being done as far as breath testing was concerned. We in New Zealand First do not believe that that is the case and therefore people still think that they can get away with it. The new proposed penalties do not reflect the seriousness of the offence. The proposed breath-alcohol limit will not be a criminal offence incurring the full force of the law but would instead provide for only a small fine of $200 and 50 demerit points and between 50 and 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood it is $500 and 50 demerit points. Demerit points may eventually lead to a loss of licence but that is something in the future for most people and does not have much of an immediate effect and the fines at that level are clearly derisory and are definitely not an adequate deterrent.The public actually does want stronger action and leadership on drink-driving than this Government is apparently prepared to take. New Zealand First wants penalties to reflect public opinion. Looking at the Land Transport Act I see that for a first conviction the penalty is up to only 3 months’ imprisonment or a $4500 fine. We think that it should be up to at least 6 months’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $6000 for a first conviction. That is the scale of penalty that we think would actually make a difference. So the public does want to see a tougher set of actions taken but this bill does not fit that prescription.In the end what we really need of course is a change in the drinking culture towards having a more sensible culture in terms of drinking habits especially among young people. To that effect New Zealand First has recently also proposed a policy that says especially to young people that if people are found so drunk in a public place or while trespassing on private property that they are likely to be a danger to themselves or to others then they are committing an offence and would suffer a significant fine or period of imprisonment. That is the sort of provision that we in New Zealand First think will help change the drink culture—and therefore the drink-driving culture—in New Zealand. This bill is not enough. It is wimpy. It is weak. For a Government that says that it is going to get tough on crime this bill goes totally in the other direction and is not what the public would see as being anywhere near adequate as a measure to try to reduce the road toll from drink-driving in New Zealand.The penalties must reinforce and underpin the fact that drink-driving is a serious offence. It must never be seen to be something that you can do and then just get a small fine or a few demerit points for it. That is going to have the wrong effect in people’s minds. So for that reason above all New Zealand First opposes this bill. It is wimpy it is weak it is soft on law and order and it is not where New Zealand First wants to go.To summarise New Zealand First will vote against the bill because we want to see better detection of drink-driving with more police on the road and more breath testing being carried out so that people will know that their chances of getting away with it are too slim to try it. That is what would be effective. And we want to target the offenders who do real harm. Those are the people who drink at a rate of over 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood. We want those people to suffer much tougher penalties so that it will be a genuine deterrent. We will be voting against this bill.