Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

The debate on this part includes schedules 1 to 3.

I will talk about the provisions on zero-alcohol licences that are outlined in this part and the consequential changes that they require. Labour supports most of this bill, the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, including the provisions on having a zero blood-alcohol level for those who are repeat drink-drivers and for those who are under the age of 20. We think that those are positive moves that will make a real difference to alcohol harm and the cost it has in lives, accidents, injuries, and families losing their loved ones.

In that regard we are very supportive of these provisions and the required changes that will bring into place the zero-alcohol licences, as outlined in this part. However, the real concern is that this measure does not go far enough. In providing for zero-alcohol licences in these situations and retaining the 0.08 gram blood-alcohol limit in other situations—that is, the non - zero-alcohol licences—we are well out of step with the research, well out of step with what most of the public want, and well out of step with what we need. My concern is that by failing to address that specific point, the Government does not realise how seriously the public takes this matter.

As somebody who has sat in on submissions on the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill and who is currently involved in the select committee considering the Alcohol Reform Bill, I have heard many, many submitters. On the Alcohol Reform Bill we have had thousands of submissions, and approximately 1,000 of those people have wanted to make oral submissions. Most of them have submitted that they want to see the blood-alcohol level reduced from 0.08 grams to 0.05 grams. What is really concerning is that when dealing with that issue in relation to the Alcohol Reform Bill, the select committee was told that reducing the blood-alcohol limit to 0.05 grams is out of its scope. It is out of scope for the Alcohol Reform Bill, but, in fact, it was clearly within scope for this bill. We were told that it was out of scope for that bill because it was being dealt with as part of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. Consequently, we see that this bill has not made any change, and that the Government has not been willing to do the right thing.

Unlike a number of my colleagues, I do not think this issue is about doing the brave thing. I think that on this issue the public’s mind is fairly clear: people want to see this change. They want to see it probably for the same reasons that my colleague Grant Robertson said: in their guts they know it is right. The public have seen the evidence of what it looks like when people have drunk enough alcohol to go over the limit at 0.08 grams, and they know those people are drunk. Most people are drunk at that limit and should not be driving a vehicle. People know that.

One of the perverse consequences of all the publicity and the media stunts on this issue that has probably shocked us all—I reckon most of the members in this Committee have probably been quite shocked, as was the Minister in the chair, the Minister of Transport—is the fact that one can drink so much and have one’s blood-alcohol level remain at under 0.08 grams. One of the perverse consequences of this, which has shocked people, is that more people now know that they can probably drink more than they thought they could and still drive. I hope that there is not an irresponsible section of the public who now use that information to go out on the road when those people previously would not have done so.

The important thing about setting the blood-alcohol limit is that it sends a very important signal of what we think is acceptable. In setting a zero-alcohol limit for repeat drink-drivers and young drivers—which is provided for in this bill and which we wholeheartedly support—we are sending a very clear message, as would be sent by dropping the blood-alcohol level to 0.05 grams. That specific matter could have been dealt with as part of this bill as well, and that would have made a huge difference. I raised it both in terms of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill and in terms of the alcohol reform process. That opportunity is provided by—

I appreciate your choice, Mr Chairman Roy, and it was a difficult choice because of the talent standing here, waiting to be called.

In referring to Part 2 of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, I would like to go to the consequential amendments, which are in clause 97, and, in particular, to the part of schedule 1 under the first heading, which is about the Land Transport (Driver Licensing) Rule 1999. I come back to some of the comments made earlier in the debate about the age of driver licensing. It may well be that the public out there overall is supportive of putting up the driving age. That is possibly because we have not adequately explained the issues around doing that and the inconvenience it will cause to young people, particularly young people going to sports practice, as Louisa Wall explained in her contribution earlier. She talked of what it meant for her to be able to do that. Also, I do not think we have explained sufficiently the point about the evidence. The gut reaction is to quietly up the age and to expect that upping the age will somehow bring about a lower death toll. Actually, there is no evidence to support that, at all.

Labour finds itself on the same side as Federated Farmers, which is rare. National is on the other side of the fence from Federated Farmers. I completely understand Federated Farmers’ point of view. Overwhelmingly, and the Chair will appreciate this, people in Southland support the age remaining at 15 and not being raised to 16. Here is some of the evidence behind that. In 1986, 15 to 19-year-olds caused 16.9 percent of the deaths on our roads. In 2006, that figure had dropped by 5 percent down to just 11.7 percent. There is no doubt that young drivers on our roads now are better drivers. They are certainly not perfect, by any means. As we heard before, they are still in the higher percentile of those causing accidents.

When I made a contribution earlier, I said that even in countries where the age-limit is higher, and the United States is one of those countries, the death rate of young drivers is much, much higher than it is in New Zealand. So simply raising the age will not be a cure-all that brings down the deal toll. In fact, we know fairly conclusively that no matter what the death toll is, the 2 years after drivers get their licence is the most dangerous time—certainly, for those under the age of 25. Steve Chadwick, in her contribution earlier on, made a couple of very important points about our approach to this particular issue. If we have better driver education, if we extend the learner period, and if we drop the permitted blood-alcohol concentration for the under-20s down to zero, then we have a much better chance of bringing that 11.7 percent down much further.

In this short contribution I just wanted to come back to schedule 1, which outlines the raising of the age-limit from 15 to 16 and 6 months. There are some other details or complications around that, as well. I want to point out that in no way does the evidence support it. In fact, it will seriously disadvantage many youngsters who are very responsible and who are driving cars responsibly in the countryside. Thank you.

I am pleased to take a call on Part 2 of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I want to refer to schedule 4, “Offences against Act”. I do not think there has been any discussion in this debate so far about the provisions in the bill that deal with the issue of logbooks, work-time regulations, and so on, and the issue of providing for search warrants for the police to gather evidence in terms of “chain of responsibility” offences.

Part 1 of schedule 4 sets out the infringement fees for excess weight offences. Part 2 sets out the infringements for distance recorder offences, and there are other things in Part 2 that deal with issues of heavy road transport. I support this measure. I congratulate the Minister in the chair, the Minister of Transport, on putting that measure in. I acknowledge that an awful lot has been done in terms of truck driver safety over the years, but, whether or not we like it, we still have a problem. Although I congratulate the Minister on doing something in this bill, I think the opportunity to do more has been missed.

Last year 57 people were killed in truck-related crashes—that is 15 percent of all road deaths—and 865 people were injured in truck-related crashes. That has cost New Zealand $358 million. Of course, truck drivers are not always at fault. In fact, often they are not. I accept that, but when a car comes up against a truck, the driver and passengers in the car come off second-best. That is why we often end up with very horrific instances of truck-related crashes.

I am pleased that we are dealing with the work-time regulations and the logbooks and so on, but I was quite perturbed to get the information that last year the number of heavy motor vehicle drivers issued with traffic infringement notices for breaching logbook requirements was 1,690 people. Also, there were 137 traffic offence notices issued for the same thing. It is good that we are catching truck drivers who are breaching those rules.

Obviously, the police are doing their job, but the Labour Opposition is concerned about the fact that this is continuing to happen and the number of truck-related deaths is not coming down. I think the Government is failing to address the fundamental, underlying issue of our road transport industry. I am talking about small businesses, so Tau Henare might be interested.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Say it again with some feeling.

I thought that member’s Government was the party for small business, but he is clearly not interested in hearing what it is like for owner-drivers who buy a truck, mortgage the house, spend a fortune on the truck, and then have a contract imposed on them that means they are unable to make a living without breaching logbook rules, without driving long hours, and without scrimping on maintenance and all of the other sorts of things. So there is another solution that needs to be looked at here. I have called on the Minister before, as he knows, and I have called on National to look at this issue of the link between what truckies are paid and safety on the roads.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Make a call on your own party.

That member can keep his head in the sand; that is fine. I know that truckies out there are not very happy with the Government at the moment. At the moment our select committee is considering legislation about road-user charges. Truckies are not very happy; in fact, they are threatening another strike. Last week they told us that they will be better organised than they were when Labour was in power.

I want to tell listeners that Tau Henare is pulling faces to indicate that he does not really care, and I am really interested that he does not care about truck drivers or the road safety of the travelling public. He does not care whether truck drivers are on the road driving unsafely and putting other road users at risk.

I move, That the question be now put.

I will take an opportunity to speak on Part 2 of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill because I particularly want to make sure the member who just resumed his seat, Tau Henare, knows what he is voting for. When he made a contribution to the debate on Part 1, he referred to the loony left. He said the loony left would soon have us voting for zero blood-alcohol limits. I want to inform Mr Henare that he is voting for exactly that. I want to make sure that Mr Henare realises exactly what he is voting for, because he seemed to be a bit confused. He was accusing this side of the Committee of daring to suggest that we might be voting in this Parliament for zero alcohol limits.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Stop your lying.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take exception to the unparliamentary language used by the interjector, Mr Henare. He just accused me of lying.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): My attention was taken by the fact that I am trying to get some Supplementary Order Papers into shape so I understand them. I did not hear the comments. Offence has been taken, so the member will withdraw and apologise.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: I withdraw and apologise.

As I was saying, regulation 7 from Part 2 of schedule 2—

💬 Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Even in the short time that I have been in the House, I know that when people withdraw and apologise it is meant to be the end of the matter. Mr Henare just said—and it was audible to me on this side of the Chamber—“I didn’t mean it.” after he sat down. I ask you to bring him back into line.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: That is not what I said. I said to my colleague on my right: “I meant it.”

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I am not sure that was helpful. If the comment was an aside and was not directed to the House, that is something I cannot determine, because I did not hear it. But I caution the member; he should not make life more difficult for us all than it needs to be.

I hope the member Tau Henare takes your very sound advice on that point, Mr Chairperson. Mr Henare is the member I am addressing in order to draw to his attention the fact that I expect he will vote in favour of regulation 7 from Part 2 of schedule 2, which brings in zero alcohol licences. Zero alcohol licences are the very issue he accused the loony left of trying to drag Parliament towards voting for.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: It is the loony left; everybody knows it.

There he goes again; Tau Henare is suggesting that the loony left will vote for zero alcohol licences, which are an issue that his own Minister of Transport has brought before Parliament. Yes, Labour will vote for the provision, but it will be very interesting to see whether Tau Henare does. He claims he will not vote in favour of zero blood-alcohol licences, but those licences are very much in schedule 2. I think he should read schedule 2 urgently to make sure his vote in favour is cast properly by the National whip. I would not want him to be under any false illusions.

Mr Henare’s Government has missed the opportunity to respond to the call of the majority of fair-minded New Zealanders who want leadership on another issue to do with blood-alcohol. They do not want to keep the same blood-alcohol limit of 0.08 grams per 100 millilitres of blood for those over the age of 20 years. They want that limit to be reduced in line with the limit of other countries, where it has been proven that lives are saved by dropping the blood-alcohol limit from 0.08 grams, which is currently what we have and will continue to have under the National Government, to 0.05 grams, which is the amendment to schedule 2 that Labour will put forward, as it did for Part 1.

Mr Henare has been very, very noisy this afternoon. He seemed to spend most of his time wanting to know where I live. I will put it on the record in this debate. I will not give him my address, because I do not really want him to turn up at strange hours of the night—or at any time, actually. I will not give him the actual address, but to put Mr Henare’s mind at rest I can tell him that I live in Melville, which is a suburb of Hamilton—and very proudly so. In case the member is interested, I first moved there in 1991. I have put that on the record, because it seemed to be what took up most of his speech. He seemed to be consumed with the issue of where I live. I think he said I live in Matamata. It is very flattering, but I have not lived there since I was 16 years old. It is very flattering for Mr Henare to think I may still be 16 years old, but it is an awfully long time since I have lived in Matamata. It was a very flattering comment from him none the less.

Labour will support Part 2 of the bill, because it deals with zero alcohol licences and alcohol interlock licences, which we think will be a big improvement, but we wish the Government had had the courage to address the issue further.

I move, That the question be now put.

I will refer to schedule 2 of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, and the zero alcohol licence provisions. The tack I am about to take may raise the hackles of my colleagues on this side of the Chamber and a lot of the people out there who are watching tonight, but I have to agree with something Tau Henare said in the Committee today.

💬 Hon Member: Oh my goodness!

It has raised hackles. In an earlier contribution during the debate on Part 1 of the bill—funnily enough, in an interjection during Kelvin Davis’ speech—Mr Henare said: “If you don’t want to die, don’t drink and drive.” He is 100 percent right. But, unfortunately—

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Oh, here comes the “but”.

Of course there is a “but”; I am talking about Mr Henare. Unfortunately, he is part of a Government that supports a bill without provisions to take serious action and send a signal to the New Zealand public that they should do what Mr Henare said. The Government and the Minister of Transport have failed to put serious provisions in the bill for lowering the blood-alcohol content limit for drivers.

As I said earlier, Mr Henare made that interjection during what was a personal story for Kelvin Davis. I have heard from Michael Woodhouse as well today; I have come to know him a bit better, and I have respect for his views on the Health Committee. He wants evidence-based arguments. I am not an expert on the exact figures and research, but I have a personal story on this issue, like Kelvin Davis did. My name is Kristopher John Faafoi. Just before I was born, a very close family friend John Sione was taken out by a drunk driver. Mr Bridges might think that is funny, but it is not funny at all. He was a very close family friend, and he was taken out. I never met him, but I bear his name.

Thirty-five years ago, drink-driving was a problem. With this bill, the Committee has an opportunity to take serious action on drink-driving.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: So we didn’t do it 10 years ago.

My argument in response to Mr Henare’s comment, as he interjects again, is that I do not want a history lesson. I am here as one of the newest members of the Committee, and I want to make sure we are in the now and that in the future people like me can make sure—[Interruption] Yes, it is a sad tale. I say with the utmost respect that Mr Henare is 100 percent right, but I am disappointed that the bill does not include provisions to seriously tackle the drink-driving problem in New Zealand.

I have dealt with that cop-out: the bill not dealing with the problem. Let me deal with the minimum driving age, and the cutting of corners on that issue. As I said before, Michael Woodhouse has raised some interesting issues on the minimum driving age argument. He wants to ensure we have an evidence-based approach. I see a contradiction here. With the minimum driving age the evidence is that when someone is young, swift action will be taken against him or her. But with the drink-driving prevention provisions, if someone is intoxicated and does not think he or she can drive, we will wait a couple of years, figure out what is actually going on, and then take action. I do not think that is right.

Earlier, Paul Quinn told members to look at the polls. I will tell the Committee what the polls say: 67 percent of respondents to a Television New Zealand poll said Parliament should take action to lower the blood-alcohol limit; one poll result from Research New Zealand went from 50 percent to 63 percent; and UMR Research had 70 percent of Kiwis wanting to ensure that Parliament lowered the blood-alcohol limit for drivers.

I will go back to the minimum driving age, and the impact it will have on rural communities in particular. In my electorate areas such as Paekākāriki and Pāuatahanui have large rural communities. They are concerned about what this change will mean for their young ones and the opportunities for social, community, and sporting events that are open to them. We should take that concern seriously. It is an argument that has been floating around for a long time. When I was a journalist I did a story on a mother and daughter in Kaiapoi, in Clayton Cosgrove’s electorate of Waimakariri, who were concerned because the daughter potentially would not be able to get a licence to drive the 25 minutes to school. We also heard earlier from David Shearer around the Southland District Council.

I move, That the question be now put.

I will speak on Part 2 and the schedules of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I will pick up where I left off in Part 1, because the same matters that I was discussing at that point are dealt with in the schedules. I was discussing exactly what stopped the Minister of Transport from going with his gut on the bill and from going with his intuition that lowering the blood-alcohol limit was the right thing to do. This issue is dealt with in the schedules in terms of the zero alcohol limit. There was an opportunity to lower the blood-alcohol limit. Not only was the intuition there for the Minister to lower the limit but also the evidence was there.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Read the evidence.

Mr Henare is not very familiar with evidence. It is a difficult concept for him to grasp. It is what happens when people study things, look at the situation in other countries, and then come up with the evidence. The evidence certainly supports lowering the blood-alcohol limit. The question, then, is how we ended up in a situation where the Minister is not following through on what he wanted to do. The answer is that Mr Key clearly got nervous. Mr Key got nervous and decided he could not go ahead with it. He could not go ahead with backing the gut reaction of his Minister. That is incredibly disappointing.

Labour will support Part 2, because there are things in this bill that are good. There is a recognition that we need to do more to protect New Zealanders from those people who drink and drive, and to stop people from drinking and driving. That is important. Very few members of the House have not been affected in some way or other by people who have been drink-driving. We need to do more. The opportunity was on the Table for the Minister. Darien Fenton’s amendments to Part 1 were on the Table to do something about drink-driving, and the Minister bottled. He just could not do it. He could not go ahead with it. We saw in an article in the Herald on Sunday on 2 January of this year that when John Key got involved, he got nervous. That is the problem with what has happened with this bill. There was a lack of courage and commitment to follow through on what the Minister knows is right, what Mr Henare knows is right, and what Mr Bridges knows is right. The right thing to do was here on the Table and it was not picked up.

Over and over again we have seen from the Minister a transition from somebody who had a gut feeling that he was doing the right thing. His own experience told him that it was ridiculous—that was his word—that he could drink as much as he did and still be within the limit. His intuition was right, and the evidence backed his intuition, but he bottled it at the end because John Key got nervous. John Key’s office was writing directly to officials in the Ministry of Transport, bypassing the Minister, to see whether they were concerned about whether someone who had had one glass of wine could go over the limit. It was an issue that John Key was personally concerned about. That is what his adviser was telling the Ministry of Transport. In the end, officials were put in a position, even though the regulatory impact statement stated that lowering the blood-alcohol limit could improve New Zealand, improve social outcomes, and improve economic outcomes, that the recommendation was bottled when the Prime Minister came on the scene. That is incredibly disappointing, because the zero alcohol limits and the things coming in in the schedules will do good things. I tell Mr Henare that we are not the loony left; he is voting for the bill. He might fit one of those words, but he does not fit the other.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: That was funny.

Thank you. The bill is something that everybody in the House can support, but it is an opportunity lost. People right around New Zealand are looking for politicians to take a leadership role on the issue, and this is an opportunity. They are looking for politicians who look at the evidence internationally and in New Zealand and say the evidence is there—and people actually want the limit to be lowered. For reasons that go against the intuition of the Minister, the Government is going against the evidence on the Table. But because the Prime Minister got nervous and got spooked, suddenly we do not have support for it.

The worry that we on this side of the Committee have is that we have missed the opportunity now. I believe that everybody in the Committee wanted to lower the blood-alcohol limit. The opportunity has gone. Although we have a bill that will do some good things, and therefore we can support it, it misses out on the very, very real possibility of making a major change that would improve the lives of all New Zealanders. I am sad that has happened.

Tenā koe, Mr Chair; kia ora tātou katoa. I te rā nei i whakarewahia ko te pūrongo kua puta i te paepae motuhake mō Te Reo Mauriora e kī ana, kia kaha tonu tatou ki te kōrero i te reo Māori, anā, koinā e tū ake mō te wā poto, kaua mō te wā roa, ki te whakatakoto i ētahi whakaaro mō te Pāti Māori. Me kī, kei te tautoko ake te Pāti Māori i te nuinga o ngā kōrero i roto i tēnei pire. E tika ana kia āta titiro ki tēnei kaupapa nā runga i te āhuatanga o ngā kōrero o tēnā, o tēnā mō te āhuatanga ō-mate kua pā mai ki tēnā, ki tēnā o tātou; ko te hunga rangatahi nei e taraiwa haurangi ana. Me āta titiro ki tētahi kaupapa hei karo i tērā uauatanga e ngau nei i a tātou, me kī, te motu. Kaua i te iwi Māori i tōna kotahi, kaua i te iwi Pākehā i tōna kotahi ēngari, ko tātou katoa. Kua rongo tātou ki te āhuatanga ō-mate nā runga i te mahi taraiwa haurangi.

Ko tā mātou tino raru nā te mea i āhua noho taupatupatu nei i waenganui i a mātou o te Pāti Māori, ko te pikinga o te tau taraiwa mai i te 15 tau ki te 16. Arā anō mātou e wānanga āe rānei, ka tino kite i tētahi painga o tērā, arā, ko te pekenga o te tau taraiwa. Ki a mātou, kāore mātou e tino kite i tērā. Ko te mate kē, ko te Hōnore Tariana Tūria e mea nei, kai Whanganui a ia e noho ana i runga i te pāmu, e mahi pāmu ana i te taha o tana hoa rangatira, a Hōri. Ko te mahi nui, ko te taraiwa o te hunga tamariki i a rātou anō ki ngā papa tākaro, ki wāhi kē atu pēnei i tā Steve Chadwick, pēnei i tā Louisa Wall e korero nei mō te taraiwa i a rātou anō ki te papa tākaro. Ahau tonu, tokorima wāku tamariki. Kai tawhiti kē tōku kāinga i Rotorua, ki Ngongotahā, wāhi rongonui o te motu. Ka mutu, tērā pea tekau mā rima, rua tekau meneti te taraiwa atu ki te tāone nui, ā, e tokorima ngā tamariki ia rā pērā tonu te āhuatanga ki ngā mahi hākinakina. Ka tipu ngā tamariki ki te tau e tika ana, ā, ka kī atu ka pai, kai a koe te tikanga. Hoko koe i tōu ake waka, kai a koe te tikanga. Nō reira, tērā tērā kōrero. Kei te āta whakaaro ake mō te hunga e pērā anō te noho, ā, kai tuawhenua, kei ngā pāmu kai tawhiti ngā tāone nui.

Ka mutu, ko te tino take i whakatakotohia e mātou ki waenganui i a mātou anō, mēnā e tika ana kia kī te pakeke ki te tamariki, anei mātou kei te pai te unu waipiro ki tētahi taumata engari koutou, kāo, kāo. He rerekē ngā ture ki a koutou tamariki mā, rangatahi mā, taiohi mā. Ko tā mātou e kī nei ko ngā kōrero e pā ana ki te pakeke, me pērā anō hoki ki te āhuatanga o te tamariki. Mēnā ka kī atu tātou, kāre tatou e whakaae kia paku unu, kia paku unu tētahi pakeke i tētahi paku karāhe waina, pia rānei. Kāore e whakaaetia ki te tamariki, me pērā anō hoki ki te pakeke. He aha te pai mō te kī atu ki te tamariki, ā, me pēnei koutou engari, kua rereke te āhuatanga ki a mātou.

Nō reira, koinei tā mātou e kōrero nei, he paku whakaaro nō mātou. Kei te whakahē i ērā wāhanga engari, ko te whānuitanga o te kōrero, kei te whakaae atu i te mea, me titiro tonu ki tēnei o ngā āhuatanga ā ngā rā kei mua i te aroaro.

[Greetings to you, Mr Chair, and to all of us. It was stated in the independent panel review report, Te Reo Mauriora, that we must make an earnest effort to use the Māori language, and for that reason I rise to take a short call, not a long one, to put forth some thoughts in Māori on behalf of the Māori Party. The Māori Party supports much of what is in this bill. It is right that we consider this proposal very carefully, based on what each of us has said about young people drinking and driving, and any death resulting from that. It has affected each of us in some way or other. We and the nation need to find a way to avoid that difficulty that is gnawing away inside us. Māori and non-Maori people on their own will not solve it, but everyone has to take responsibility. We have all been affected by the tragic circumstances brought about through drink-driving.

What caused us great concern when we, the Māori Party, were debating this issue amongst ourselves, was the raising of the driving age from 15 to 16 years. It was while we were debating away, yes or no, that we found a positive reason for raising the age. There was a problem in the case of the Hon Tariana Tūria, who said she lives on a farm in Whanganui, working alongside her husband, George. The big problem was with the children driving themselves to sports venues or other places. That was similar to what the Hon Steve Chadwick and Louisa Wall had to say about driving to sportsgrounds. I am the same, too, with my five kids. My home is in Ngongotahā, a famous place in the country, and some distance from Rotorua. It is a drive of about 20 to 25 minutes to the city, so there is a daily ritual with five children in pursuit of sporting events. So when the children get to the right age, you say to them: “OK, over to you. Buy your car; it’s over to you.” So that is that statement. But I am thinking about those in a similar situation in rural areas, on farms, and quite far away from larger towns.

In rounding off the debate amongst ourselves, we ended up asking whether it was right for adults to say to children: “We are fine, we can drink to a certain level, but you cannot—absolutely not. The laws are not the same for you kids, teenagers, and young people.” The point we are making here is that what we say to adults must apply to children, as well. If we say that we will not allow children a single drop, we will not allow an adult to have a single glass of wine or beer; do not tell them that we do not allow them to take a single drop, while an adult can take a single glass of wine or beer. Just as for adults, it will not be allowed for children. Where is the justice for children, if we say “You have to do this, but it is different for us adults.”?

So that is what we are on about — just a little thought of ours. We oppose those clauses, but agree to most of the bill, simply because we need to monitor this aspect of the bill in the days before us.]

I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): The question is that the question be now put. Those of that opinion—

💬 Hon Steve Chadwick: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Some of us have not yet debated Part 2. We had the closure of Part 1, which was a significantly long part. Some of us have been trying to use the opportunity to take a call on Part 2. I urge your reconsideration of accepting the closure motion.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I do not put closure motions lightly. The member ought to be aware of that. I have listened to a significant number of speeches that had very little to do with Part 2. I have made the decision that the Committee is ready to move on, and I will test that decision by putting the closure motion. If members are opposed to the closure motion, they should vote against it.