Woodhouse Michael: Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Woodhouse Michael: Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:18078] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairman; it is an inspired decision. I am delighted to take a call on the title of and the commencement date for the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill but before I do I wonder whether members will indulge me while I elaborate on the interjection on Mr Davis before the dinner break. I do not want him to think that I was being insensitive to the story he was telling in asking the question. I think that as he is not a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee he may not have known what “BAC” was. He looked a bit blank. But sad though his uncle’s death was—and I say the same with regard to Mr Faafoi’s story—the point and the question I was asking was what the blood-alcohol content in his system was when he passed away. The fact of the matter is— 
Kelvin Davis 
: 0.07. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: Is the member putting that in  
Hansard 
 now as an interjection knowing it to be true? All right it must be true because he has put it in  
Hansard.  
There we have it on record: it was 0.07 grams. That is very interesting. 
Labour members have spoken at length about research—some 300 pieces of research—that they claim demonstrates unequivocally that people are safer at 0.05 grams than at 0.08 grams. In fact those 300 pieces of research do not say anything like that. What they establish is that the greater the level of alcohol content the higher the risk. Well that is hardly a revelation is it? That has been known for a very long period of time. Some studies will go to a risk curve of between 0.05 grams and 0.08 grams but the simple question which is the premise of this bill and the reason for the collection of the research still has not been answered—that is if a person has a blood-alcohol content of 0.05 grams to 0.08 grams how many of the deaths and serious injuries on our roads are caused by people with that blood-alcohol content where those people are at fault? The simple fact is that we do not know. 
Although we have a bill that is named the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill that question could fall into either of those categories because it is a road safety question but it definitely also falls into the “Other Matters” category. It is on the other matters that I will briefly touch. One of the disappointing aspects of the Committee stage of this bill is that there are so many other matters that I expected members like Darien Fenton would have raised because the bill goes to the issue of road truck safety. She made very few references to that—I think she made one brief comment about it—and none of the very excellent changes that this bill brings about has been mentioned by Labour. 
I could come up with a number of titles that Labour members might have suggested although they did not. One could be the “Land Transport (We Are Really Keen on a 0.05 Gram Limit but We Are Prepared to Sacrifice Our 15-year-old Boys) Bill” because that is exactly what those members are prepared to do. The unequivocal research states that those kids are far far less safe on our roads. Just being a driver aged 15 to 19 without having had any alcohol creates a death risk five times greater than that of a 30-year-old driver. But Labour members are prepared to completely avoid any of that evidence in the interests of expediency and the fact that those 15-year-olds will be voters in 3 years’ time. Labour has given away 2011; they want those 15-year-olds to vote for Labour in 3 years’ time. As I said I wish them good luck with that. Those members are prepared to allow those kids to kill and to maim themselves on the roads but they are not prepared to wait for the equivocal evidence that exists right now to be much clearer in 2 years’ time when we will have created the evidence base that we need in order to decide whether to change the limit for blood-alcohol content. 
I appreciate the call taken by the Minister in the chair the Associate Minister of Transport particularly on Ms Moroney’s challenge about the commencement dates. There are very sound reasons why the taking of blood and in particular the new technologies that are available for the safe taking of blood from suspects—which the Committee heard about—will take quite a bit of time to be gazetted and put into practice in our hospitals and primary health care facilities. 
With that I think we are coming towards the end of this Committee stage. It has been a robust debate. I am quite sure that members on the other side have nothing new to say but the Chairperson may wish to challenge that. Thank you.