Robertson Grant: Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Robertson Grant: Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:18051] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take my first call in this debate on Part 1. To me what we are looking at here particularly in terms of the clauses relating to the blood-alcohol limit is a triangle of intuition evidence and polling. On the first one we know that the Minister in the chair the Minister of Transport had the right intuition. He said it. He said that it was “just ridiculous” and that he was surprised to find that after he drank three-quarters of a bottle of wine legally he could still get behind the wheel. The Minister’s first intuition was right. He is very worried though—and we know this from other issues—about the optics of the situation and that is where we come to the next thing: the evidence. He went looking and he asked what evidence there was. Interestingly in the regulatory impact statement for this bill we have some notion of the evidence from the Ministry of Transport. It went through the things that the Government could do: lower the adult drink-driving limit from a blood-alcohol content of 0.08 to 0.05 grams lower the youth drink-driving limit from a blood-alcohol content of 0.03 to zero and introduce infringement penalties for the proposed excess blood-alcohol offences. Then the ministry expected that these actions are estimated to save between 17 and 35 lives and to prevent between 363 and 729 injuries each year. That is the social cost of not making changes. 
That evidence was provided by the Minister’s own advisers in the Ministry of Transport. But I know that the Minister is a man who has a bit of the accountant in him. He has a bit of the accountant in him so he knows about the cost of everything and the value of nothing. We can talk to him about the costs because the Ministry of Transport’s advice went on to state that “This equates to an annual social cost saving of between $127.5 million and $254.5 million” as at June 2009. 
Not only do we have the evidence of the social cost of not making these changes—of what the Minister has not put forward in front of the Committee—but also we have the economic cost. That is the evidence. The intuition was there the evidence was there but Mr Joyce has not gone ahead with that and we have to ask why that is. Well perhaps we can tell why from a recent newspaper story about what the Prime Minister was worried about. It was about the Prime Minister being concerned about whether one glass of wine could put a person over the limit. In reply he was told that “the public would react badly to a cut in the drink-drive limit—even though research and polls show most drivers are keen to see the limit reduced.” and that is where it all went wrong. That is where it all went wrong for the Minister. 
The intuition was there the evidence was there but his boss started to get nervous about the polling. If we know one thing it is that this Minister worries about the polling. The focus groups were done. I am sure that they were pulled in. Mr Joyce would have been there. He would have been there on the other side of the one-way glass looking in on the focus group and getting nervous that his intuition was not there; he was not going to back it. The evidence was telling him that he had to do it for the good of New Zealand—he had to lower that blood-alcohol limit—but he would not do it because the polling was not going to stand up because his boss started to get nervous. 
This is a situation I say to Mr Joyce when it is time to stand up and do the right thing. It is time to do the right thing that is based on evidence that will save lives that will save money in the economy and that will save money for the health system. That is just plain good for New Zealand. But Mr Joyce still has an opportunity. We have an amendment in Darien Fenton’s name on the Table that will make the change that the Minister’s officials have told him is the right thing to do. They told him that he will achieve the objectives of the Safer Journeys strategy if he goes ahead and makes this change. 
Mr Joyce has stood up in this Chamber and he has played a bit of politics. He asked why Labour has not made this change. Around this Chamber I believe there is a consensus that this is the right thing to do. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Why didn’t you do it the last time that you were in Government? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: That is the point I say to Mr Henare. Now is the time for Mr Joyce to show the leadership. There is a consensus around this Chamber. There is not even really a debate about this change. I ask Mr Henare whether it is the wrong thing to do. The member can tell me whether it is the wrong thing to do. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: 10 years and nothing. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: That is not an answer I tell Mr Henare. I asked whether it is the wrong thing to do. This is the problem with Tau Henare; this is the problem with Steven Joyce. We have the evidence that says this is the right thing to do. The opportunity is there to back Darien Fenton’s amendment and to make sure that the consensus that actually exists in this Committee can be brought into law. This is where the evidence is this is where the Minister’s intuition was and he should go ahead with it.