Land Transport Amendment Bill

on behalf of the Minister of Transport: I move, That the Land Transport Amendment Bill be now read a second time. I want to thank the members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for their work on this bill. I also want to thank those who took the time to make a submission on it.

The Government is committed to improving road safety in New Zealand and has had the Safer Journeys road safety strategy since 2010. The Safer Journeys’ vision is a safe road system increasingly free of death and serious injury. Drink-driving was identified as an area of high concern. The Government has already taken a number of measures to address drink-driving, including lowering the limits to zero for drivers under the age of 20 years and repeat offenders. The Government also made alcohol interlocks available as a sentencing option for repeat and first-time drink-drivers with a high alcohol level. In March 2013 I released the second Safer Journeys Action Plan, which set out the Government’s intent to make decisions on the drink-driving limits before the end of 2013. After considering the results of the research commissioned by Cabinet in 2010 and other advice, the Government moved quickly to introduce the Land Transport Amendment Bill to reduce the legal drink-driving limits for adults.

The bill as reported back will reduce the breath-alcohol limit from 400 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath to 250 micrograms. The blood-alcohol limit will reduce from 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood to 50 milligrams. The bill will also put in place infringement offences for drivers who fall between the new and old limits. Consequential amendments to regulations will set the penalties at an infringement fee of $200 and 50 demerit points. In the case of a driver failing or refusing to undergo an evidential breath test, they will be required to undergo an evidential blood test. If the blood test result is in the 51 to 80 milligram range, the driver will face a higher infringement fee of $700 and receive 50 demerit points. If the blood test result is above 80 milligrams or the driver fails to complete the required blood test, they will be subject to court-based sanctions.

The bill was referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee in December 2013. The committee considered 106 submissions and heard from 21 submitters. The committee has recommended a number of improvements to the bill. It recommended that all drivers who request or are required to provide a blood specimen pay for the costs of the blood test. The committee also recommended setting out that blood test costs can be waived if test results are under the applicable legal limit and evidence is provided of a medical condition having led to the need for a blood specimen being taken. Some adult drivers who fail or refuse to undergo the evidential breath test will be found to be in the infringement range following a blood test. In these cases, the committee recommended the proposed $500 infringement fee in the bill be increased to $700. This will simplify administration for the police, because no separate fee for the blood test and associated medical expenses would need to be recovered.

As a consequence of the committee’s recommendation to recover blood test costs, changes are needed to the provisions in the bill that set out the information drivers need to be given. The committee recommends that all drivers required to undergo an evidential breath test be told that they may be liable to pay the blood test costs. The consequence of not giving advice concerning liability for the blood test costs would be that the costs are not recoverable. Further to this, the committee recommends an amendment to the bill to require that similar information is given to drivers who have taken an evidential breath test, failed it, and then requested a blood test. This will also apply to those drivers who are required to undergo a blood test. The committee has also recommended a number of minor technical amendments to the bill.

The changes proposed by this bill demonstrate the Government’s determination to improve road safety in New Zealand by reducing drink-driving. I commend the bill to the House.

I am pleased to take a call in the second reading of the Land Transport Amendment Bill as well. I also share the compliments of the Associate Minister of Transport, Michael Woodhouse, for the work of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, which was actually given a very short time to get this work done. As you also heard, there were 106 submissions—a great deal of interest in this bill—so the committee did do its work diligently. I am really pleased that we finally have this measure back in the House and I hope that it will get through before the election.

It has been a long journey for this debate about lowering the legal alcohol limit for adults. It started way back in 2009. We could have had this provision all of those years ago—5 years ago—when the former MP Darren Hughes introduced a member’s bill that would have done exactly what this bill is doing. That had a slightly different penalty regime, but we would have had at that time, if the Government had adopted it, this provision as part of our road safety measures, out on the roads in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and then, of course, well into this year as well. However, I understand that the Government does not like taking good ideas from the Opposition, so I understand why it did not do that.

But in 2010 there was another opportunity to do something about this issue. There was a bill that came to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that followed on from the Cabinet consideration of the issue. That was the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. During the submissions on that bill, the No. 1 issue that was raised by submitters was this issue of the adult blood-alcohol limit. Again and again, submitters came along and said it was missing from the bill and it could be dealt with under that bill. We had submissions from the Drug Foundation, the Cycling Advocates Network, Alcohol Healthwatch, the Drink Driving Interventions Trust, the National Addiction Centre, and even the Herald on Sunday. The Herald on Sunday at that time ran a campaign on this. At the same time, Darren Hughes’ bill was taken over by Iain Lees-Galloway. The Herald on Sunday supported Iain Lees-Galloway’s bill and it got New Zealanders to pledge to drink a maximum of two drinks before they got in the car. It was a very successful campaign. So the Government would have been getting the same feedback as we were at that time that the public wanted it. There was poll after poll saying that the public saw this as one of the No. 1 issues.

During the Committee stage of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, Labour put up an amendment that would have reduced the blood-alcohol limit back in 2010. So there was another chance for the Government to take up the issue. But guess what? Guess what?

💬 Dr Megan Woods: They didn’t.

It voted against it. It has consistently refused to support members’ bills and assistance from this side of the House to try to get this issue addressed from way, way back. Then there were other opportunities. There was, of course, all of the alcohol reform process. There were amendments that went up during that process. There were, as I say, ongoing opportunities for the Government to address it. Iain Lees-Galloway’s bill was drawn from the ballot way back at the beginning of 2013. We could have progressed that, got on with that quickly, picked it up, got it off to select committee, done the work on it, and had it in place by now.

It is disappointing that for some reason—and I have never really understood why—the then Minister of Transport, Steven Joyce, was very resistant to it. Despite the evidence that came before the select committee, the research from around the world, and the evidence from other countries that have adopted these measures of their success in reducing accidents and deaths on the roads, the Minister insisted that we needed to have New Zealand - based evidence and that it would take 2 years to do. So it got sent off to some deep, dark hole and ignored, basically, until now. Maybe it took a new Minister to get it up and kicking. I do not know. I do not know what happened, but I do regret the fact that we have had this opportunity to do something about saving lives with a pretty straightforward measure and we are doing it only now.

I also do not believe that we had to go through the whole thing of convincing the public. I remember way back when Steven Joyce became the transport Minister and he introduced the cellphone restrictions. He said that was a no-brainer. I agreed with him, actually. You know, Labour did not do it and it was a no-brainer, even though people still break the rules. So I never understood why he thought this issue was not a no-brainer, particularly when he went on TV, on Campbell Live, downed a whole lot of drinks, and demonstrated that there was just no way that a man of his size could consume something like nine standard drinks, I think it is, and be able to meet the current alcohol limit and get behind the wheel. He said that there was just no way he could do it. We saw other examples of even larger men getting up to 12 standard drinks—beer after beer being thrown down their throats—and apparently, allegedly, it was safe for them to drive.

💬 Moana Mackey: Put them in a simulator.

Put them in a simulator. That is right. It was terrifying, really.

At the same time, as I said, there was evidence from overseas. Australia did it years ago, in New South Wales. The result of that was an 8 percent reduction in fatal crashes and a 7 percent reduction in crashes causing serious injury. Queensland achieved an 18 percent reduction in fatal crashes and a 14 percent reduction in serious crashes, and on it goes—Belgium, France, and country after country. But I reckon if the Aussies could do it all those years ago, why could we not? You know, if you can persuade beer-swilling Aussies that they should reduce their alcohol intake and you change the law in the way that this bill eventually does, why could we not do it way back then? However, I do not want to sound bitter about it. I am pleased that this is one of the last bills I am likely to be speaking on before I leave Parliament, and I am pleased that it will be something that finally becomes law. It is a sensible piece of legislation.

There were some amendments made during the select committee consideration, and we spent quite a lot of time around the issue of what happens if a driver refuses to take a breath test and then has to have a blood test, or, if they are required to have an evidential blood test, how much they should be charged for it and then whether that money is recoverable. That caused a bit of a glitch for a wee while. The bill sort of disappeared back to the Minister’s office for, I think, 3 or 4 weeks while Gerry Brownlee tried to get his brain into gear and figure out what he could do. The select committee has come up with and recommended a solution, but we will see how that goes.

Labour has supported this bill because, as I said to the media when they asked me about it, we just want to get the damn thing done. But we do have concerns. I do predict there will be litigation around this area, particularly when it comes to the point of trying to recover the costs of unpaid blood tests—setting Baycorp on people. It will be interesting and I do predict that there will be some interesting legal ramifications for this. Having said that, I am very genuinely pleased to support this bill, and may it become law very, very soon. Thank you.

Thank you to a very honourable Assistant Speaker whom we have in the Chair today. I would like to thank that previous member, Darien Fenton, for her very good speech and also her commitment to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee over the years that she has been here. This may be our last chance to do that. [Interruption] No, there is a lot of love there. I think that Darien Fenton is an excellent member of this Parliament and we have always enjoyed her company on the committee. She has done a very good job. She has represented her side of the argument strongly but in a way that everybody can respect and understand, so it has been a pleasure to have you on the committee and it has been a pleasure to see your input on the Land Transport Amendment Bill, and other things. I know that the whips are looking at me, going “What are we doing?”, but that respect is genuinely felt.

The Land Transport Amendment Bill is a good bill and it is being supported by the parties through the House. I think it is a little bit unfair to ask why it has been waited upon and why it has not happened. Previous Governments have had that opportunity. The previous Labour Government had that opportunity. It did not do it. Amendment has been in stages. The first stage was in regard to youth drivers and the zero limit that was brought in in regard to them. You had the cellphone rule changes as well for safer journeys and safer driving. This is the next step. Research was undertaken to make sure it is the right step, and the Minister of Transport has come to that conclusion. We are very, very fortunate that the House has seen to vote for it in this regard.

I think that everybody can sort of grasp what it is going to involve. It is going to be an infringement regime, which is really a fine regime for the lower end of those people who may be caught driving under the influence. Then above that you go into the normal processes of a criminal offence, which are for the more serious offences or the current limit as it is. The question then becomes around testing, and that was a point that exercised the committee members’ minds for a long time. When the public look at this bill they may not understand it, but there are some key principles and I think that if the public understand these key principles, then it will help.

First of all, there does not seem to be a lot of difference between a breath test and a blood test. If anyone thinks “Oh, if you fail one, you’ll pass the other.” and such like, the advice we had was that they are pretty similar and it would be very, very rare to find that there would be a result in one case that would not be substantiated in the other. So thinking that if you fail one, you are going to pass the other one, and therefore you would not have to pay the fees and the fines and things like that, just is not relevant. That is a key principle that underpins this. Another key principle is, because it is an infringement zone, to do that as easily and quickly—and probably as cost-effectively—as possible, to enable most people to, basically, be aware that they have breached the law and suffered that infringement, without going through a more formal process that you often see in the higher offence part of it.

I think those two principles are key when people look at this. People will say, and Darien rightly pointed out, that there will be issues around the recoverability of funds and there may be court cases that eventuate over that over time, but they are very simple rules and when you consider those key principles, it actually means that it is very unlikely that anyone would be successful through that legal mechanism, but you know that people will try that. That is the nature of human beings and the legal process. So just be prepared for that.

But, essentially, the other principle is that the blood test is recoverable. So if you have a blood test, you are going to pay. You are either going to pay through the fine or you are going to pay through that test being recoverable. That is the guts of it. To anyone out there who is thinking that they do not have to pay, well, you are. You are going to pay $700 for an infringement and $200, which is basically for testing, and if you go through the other process and seek a blood test, you are going to pay that money. Whichever way you look at it, the fee will be about $200.

Just in finishing, I would like to thank one of the previous members of the committee who had an important role in other parts of the legislation around this area. That is Mr Scott Simpson, who looked at one of the issues that we had faced in regard to testing. His valuable member’s bill, the Land Transport (Admissibility of Evidential Breath Tests) Amendment Bill, which progressed into this bill, actually was a catalyst for making this very robust piece of legislation. To everybody out there, this is a good piece of legislation. It is something that creates a system that I think all members of this Parliament should endorse and support. We have tried to get it in the best way we can. This is a system where you will pay for that testing. I would just like to thank the Ministers involved, especially the Minister of Police whose staff were very helpful in getting us through this situation, and also the members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, especially Darien. Well done and thank you.

Let me start where the member opposite, the chair of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, David Bennett, left off, and that is, from this side of the House, not only to join the National Government in supporting this Land Transport Amendment Bill but also to acknowledge the work of Darien Fenton on the select committee. Darien has been in the interesting position of dealing with both the industrial relations part and the transport part of the select committee and has obviously been a strong advocate in both of those portfolio areas, particularly in transport safety.

Of course, in regard to the bill that we are speaking about, that is really what we are talking about. This is a safety issue and the purpose of the bill is to address the problem caused by alcohol-impaired driving. Unfortunately, I did not get to spend as much time on this bill as other members of the select committee because I was having to deal with legislation in another select committee. None the less, I know that the select committee did put its mind to a number of issues around blood testing, the payment for blood testing, and all of that side of things. I do take the point that potentially there may well be matters that end up being litigated around this, but the basic concept of lowering the blood-alcohol level is one that Labour has long supported and is one that is well overdue.

💬 Hon Anne Tolley: Nine years in Government.

I certainly recall from the last Parliament that this was well traversed as part of the Law Commission work around alcohol and the impact of alcohol on our lives, as well as in other transport legislation at the time that was dealing with younger drivers. The Minister Anne Tolley may go “Nine long years.”—well, it has been 6 long years that National has been in Government, and it could have done something. There were a number of actual opportunities to do something in the last 6 years but the Government has chosen to not prioritise this important safety measure.

None the less, here we are in the House on the second reading of the Land Transport Amendment Bill and certainly, as I say, we are joining with National in supporting this bill. Obviously, I think, everybody—well, pretty much everybody, anyway—is convinced that the current level is far too high. It is out of line with overseas jurisdictions. There is a mountain of evidence, actually, that shows the difference that lowering the blood-alcohol level will make. One of the things that I recall from the last Parliament when we were talking about this was when we were making the changes for younger drivers.

One of the reasons that was actually given was that we had to do more research—that was one of the reasons given for delaying. I think that it was probably more to do with people being concerned about whether they would have trouble with the public over the issue. But this is one of those issues where the Government needs to show leadership in the same way it did, for example, in the anti-smoking legislation, even if it was not always that popular. Anyway, we had to do more research, and some of it, I recall, was because of the nature of our rural roads. I remember that was a particular reason the Australian research was not going to be that useful to us, because we had different rural roads.

But here we are. We are finally at this point, which is great, of having the second reading. As a select committee we received a number of submissions on the bill—106 submissions—and 21 of those were heard, and the bill has undoubtedly been improved as a result. But, just to note, a number of people have died in recent years whose blood-alcohol limit was within the range that we are now talking about, where we are lowering from 0.08 to 0.05. So we do know that there has been a cost to not passing this legislation earlier.

So to just very quickly outline what the bill does, it addresses the problem of alcohol-impaired driving with a number of amendments, including lowering the adult legal blood-alcohol limits, as I said, from 80 milligrams to 50 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood, creating an infringement regime for adult drivers who return an evidential breath test in the range of 251 to 400 micrograms per litre, and proposing that the penalties be an infringement fee and demerit points. There are then higher infringement fees plus the costs of blood tests for adult drivers who fail or refuse to undergo the breath tests and who then find that their blood test results are within that infringement range. So I do want to say that we are glad to see this legislation is here. People’s lives will be saved as a consequence, and that is something that we can all be proud of. Thank you.

Unfortunately, I did not get the chance to sit in on very much of the select committee proceedings, but I have followed the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee report with some interest. I have got to express some disappointment that the select committee has not, in fact, ended up taking on board the issues that I raised at the first reading, and I do want to come back and speak about those again. The Green Party will be supporting the Land Transport Amendment Bill. We believe that it is a step forward; it is just a shame that it was not a larger step forward. There is no dispute that driving while intoxicated is dangerous. It poses risks to the health, the safety, and the life of the person who is intoxicated and also to others who share no culpability in that person’s behaviour or choices.

That is why we have criminal sanctions for drink-driving. Those sanctions reflect the gravity of transgressing our law in that area. There has been, as Carol Beaumont referred to it, a mountain of evidence about the harm caused by drink-driving both while above the existing legal limit and while in the zone between 0.05 grams and 0.08 grams, which is the particular area that we are looking at. As others have referred to, it has been evident, in fact, for a very long time that harm was being caused by drivers who had blood-alcohol levels within that range.

It is, I think, a source of embarrassment to this House that it has taken so long to actually lower the levels that are permitted by New Zealand law, particularly when so many countries around the world have moved before us. This is not, I would have thought, an area in which New Zealand ought to be proud to be a follower, whether that is a fast follower or, as in this case, an extremely slow follower. We should be embarrassed and ashamed by the slowness of our response in this area.

It would have been sensible, given the fact that drivers with blood-alcohol levels above 0.05 grams but below 0.08 grams are still posing a risk of serious harm to themselves and to others, to respond to the situation by simply lowering the threshold at which criminal penalties take effect. Why not just lower the threshold to 0.05 grams? That is what the Green Party would have supported. Instead, the Government has decided not only to lower the threshold but also to considerably lower the penalties and the gravity with which such offending is seen. We believe that that is a serious mistake. No doubt, the Government’s argument is that the risk of harm from lower levels of intoxication is lower—so lower intoxication leads to a lower risk of harm—and, therefore, there ought to be lower penalties, and I guess that there is an argument that could be made along those lines.

However, the fact is that for some people those lower levels of intoxication will, in fact, still lead to serious harm and serious impairment that creates bigger risk. Therefore, it seems to me to be unacceptable that our law should treat that kind of offending with a lower level of seriousness. A person has infringed our law about what is an acceptable level of intoxication, and we know that that level of intoxication will, for some people, create serious risk and will lead to deaths. It seems to me that that should be the trigger for criminal offending and for the penalties that go with that. It seems unarguable that that should be the case, yet that is not what this bill does. Certainly, if we were to do what I propose—if we were to simply lower the threshold for the criminal offending provisions—then it would still be within the discretion of judges to apply lower penalties and not to enter convictions if that seems to be appropriate in the circumstances of the offence and the offender, yet this Government is choosing not to adopt that approach.

The reason for our dismay that this weaker response has been taken is that, surely, the point of having penalties against drink-driving in the first place is, in part, for society to wreak some kind of response against those who transgress against the law. That is one of the reasons. But the other, and probably more important, reason is to try to change community behaviour. What this Government has chosen to do with its weaker response to intoxication below the level of 0.08 grams is send a weaker signal. It is choosing to take the smallest effect it possibly can on community norms. What we know about changing the kind of behaviour that causes risk of harm to others is that we will best do that not by targeting those with the most extreme behaviour but by trying to change the norm of the whole of society. What we want to do, surely, is achieve a situation where the community norm in New Zealand is that it is unacceptable to have more than a few drinks and then hop behind the wheel of a motor vehicle. It is unacceptable to do that.

That is what Scandinavian countries, for example, have succeeded in doing. In those countries it would be extremely rare for anyone to do that. Their rates of injury and death associated with drink-driving are much lower than ours. We could have taken a giant stride towards those much lower rates by sending a strong signal saying that this lower level, at 0.05 grams, is still unacceptable in our society, that it is still posing a risk of harm, and that that kind of behaviour is not acceptable. Instead, what we have done is we have chosen to have a lower penalty, and that lower penalty and the infringement nature of the offence that is created is to say that this is actually not very serious. That will have probably some effect, but little effect, on those community norms that I spoke of.

This could have been a much better bill. It could have been a bill that made a big amount of progress towards changing community norms and reducing harm associated with drink-driving. It is unfortunate that the Government has instead chosen to send a weak signal that will have little or no effect on those community norms.

Although I do have a good deal of respect for the previous speaker, Kevin Hague, I take exception to the comment that he made about, I guess, the message that is sent through legislation like this, the Land Transport Amendment Bill. I say that because what is very clear, if we look at meaningful deterrents, is that the scale and consequence of the penalty has far less effect than the degree of certainty that there will be a likely outcome or culpability for the given offence. I listened very intently to, and noticed, some of the submissions that were made in particular from some who have probably been on the wrong side of this discussion, the criminal side of this discussion, through their previous life experiences.

It is clear that by shifting the tipping point, I guess, in terms of people’s decision making by saying that anything between 250 micrograms and 400 micrograms will likely bring a consequence, the likelihood of being caught increases. I will come to that point and suggest why that may be. It was interesting to note how people would think, well, all of a sudden, the idea of having a few drinks is not a good one. It is not a good one, because although there may be a lesser consequence in terms of the infringement notice, there is a consequence. Swiftness and certainty are the factors that are at play here and are very important in terms of affecting someone’s decision to ultimately get in a motor vehicle and drive after having consumed alcohol or mind-altering substances.

One thing that is sure is when an individual drinks, the first thing that is impaired is their judgment. What we do know is that their ability to make a good and rational decision at that point is impaired, so we cannot expect someone who has decided to have a couple to know exactly where that line is. It is a false notion to suggest that they can. Of course, the individual will think that they can, but that is quite wrong. But what we need to do is ensure that the message that is given and is well understood is that even a very low level of alcohol is likely to result in a consequence. There is a degree of certainty about that occurring. I believe this strikes that balance.

The important thing to note here is the ability of the police to be able to essentially carry out their road policing, turn round a vehicle stop that results in a 250 to 400 microgram infringement notice, and be back out on the street, maintaining that enforcement presence. When a police officer gets involved in a breath-alcohol situation, which may become a blood-alcohol situation, the process in itself can take an hour. It can take a significant period of time in a more rural area. One thing that is important to note about this is the ability of the police officer to quickly apprehend, to engage the appropriate sanction by way of an infringement notice, and to get back out on the street and continue to provide that level of deterrence.

What we are getting, through this, is we are sending a message that even a couple is too many. If you are out there on the road, the likelihood is there will be a far greater deterrence impact because enforcement officers are far more able to carry out their duties and not be bogged down with paperwork, sitting in a police station or behind a breathalyser machine in the booze bus. In that sense, it is a pragmatic piece of legislation, which I do think will send a message. The reality is that I think we are getting to a point as a country and as a society where we have to accept that if you are drinking, you find another way to get home. Do not get behind the wheel of a car. It is as simple as that. Regardless of this legislation, that is the message people should get. There is no excuse—no excuse whatsoever. This legislation will make sure that for those who choose to do so, there will be a consequence.

New Zealand First at first supported the Land Transport Amendment Bill as far as the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, because we wanted to hear what submitters had to say, but we cannot support the bill any further. Although we in New Zealand First acknowledge that drink-driving in New Zealand is still a very serious problem, and we know that there were 61 deaths between 2009 and 2012 plus over a thousand injuries, this bill represents nothing more than minimal action, and of course it is far too late.

New Zealand First supports tougher measures to curb the worst cases of drink-driving, but this 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 to 250 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath, and would reduce the current blood-alcohol limit from 80 milligrams to 50 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. Disobedience of these new limits is to be addressed only in the form of infringement penalties, on the grounds that they are in the less serious range of offending. That actually is the real issue here because these people are not in the range of those who cause the deaths and injuries, so targeting these people is not likely to have the desired effect of reducing the death and injury rate on our roads as we would all require.

The lower infringement limits as proposed in this bill may in fact have an unintended perverse effect. There will be some people who will convince themselves that drinking to an estimated blood-alcohol range of 50 milligrams to 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood or between 250 to 400 micrograms per litre of breath when driving is OK, because it is only an infringement offence for which a small fine and few demerit points are incurred if caught. It could have an unintended perverse effect in that way.

Although there is some evidence and research that shows driver impairment between the proposed limits and the existing limits, there is very little convincing evidence that people are likely to harm themselves or others if they do so. That is not the range in which the harm really occurs. It is therefore clear to me that New Zealand’s existing alcohol limits in relation to driving are unlikely to be too high and that lowering them would be unlikely to be effective. The main value of a significantly lower blood-alcohol limit is that it could result in drink-drivers making decisions much earlier in their drinking sessions about how much they will drink and whether or not they will go out and drive afterwards. That may in fact be true initially, but the effect is very likely to wear off over time as people get used to the new norm, so nothing much will have been achieved.

We in New Zealand First believe that a better, long-term effect could be achieved by, firstly, significantly increasing the penalties for offending against the existing alcohol limits of 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood and 400 micrograms per litre of breath, and, secondly, by making the possibility of being caught actually a probability, and to that extent I agree with the last speaker, Mike Sabin. Having more police on the road and more random breath tests are what will actually make the difference. When people understand they will be caught, then they will think twice. There is no indication, however, that the Government has any intention of improving the situation with more police on the roads or by having more random breath tests carried out.

The new breath-alcohol limit of between 250 and 400 micrograms per litre of breath will not even be a criminal offence incurring the full force of the law, and instead will provide for only a small infringement fine of $200 and 50 demerit points. The new blood-alcohol limit of between 50 and 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood will incur a fine of only $500 and 50 demerit points. Demerit points will eventually lead to only the loss of a licence, so that does not have much of an immediate effect on people’s thinking, and the fines are nothing more than derisory and will clearly not be an adequate deterrent. These new penalties do not reflect the seriousness of drink-driving offences generally. In fact, they are likely to undermine the seriousness of drink-driving habits.

The Government has yet again shown the same weakness on alcohol issues as it showed recently with the reforms for the sale of alcohol in New Zealand. Clearly, the Government yielded then to the alcohol industry lobby on that legislation, and it seems to me that this bill adopts a similar half-pie approach. The public actually wants stronger action and leadership on drink-driving than what this Government is apparently prepared to take. New Zealand First wants penalties to reflect public opinion, but in the end what we really need is a culture change towards more sensible drinking habits, especially among young people. That change and achieving the road safety objective will not come from penalties perceived, especially by young people, to be soft. They must reinforce and underpin the process for social change and better drinking habits, along, of course, with continued education and promotional efforts.

To summarise, New Zealand First will vote against the bill because we want better detection of drink-driving with more police on the ground, and that means more random breath-testing. When people understand that if they go out and drink and drive, they will be tested and there will be very significant penalties, then that is what is likely to be effective, not these sorts of proposals. We want to target the offenders who do the real harm—the people who drink a lot of alcohol and then drive—where the blood-alcohol content is over 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood, and we want significantly tougher penalties for those people. So, for those reasons, New Zealand First does not see the value of non-criminal infringement offences for 50 to 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood and 250 to 400 micrograms per litre of breath. The public wants tougher action. The public wants more effective action. The public will not be impressed by half-pie actions of this kind. Remember, we are particularly speaking to younger people, who have a very poor drink and driving culture in this country. They will see this almost as an invitation rather than a deterrent, and it is not good enough. New Zealand First will vote against it.

It is a pleasure to stand to support the Land Transport Amendment Bill. This bill has received pretty much all-round support for its intention and I might join the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee chair, David Bennett, in saying how it has been nice to work with all members working in the same direction. Particularly, we would like to pay tribute to Darien Fenton, who has worked very heavily on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. It is her retirement year this year and it is nice that we are going out passing a bill where we expect a fair degree of unanimity.

The basic purpose of the bill is to lower the alcohol limit. Lowering the alcohol limit will make roads safer while still allowing New Zealanders to go out and socialise responsibly, so it is not punitive from that point of view; it is a behaviour changer, an encouragement to behave properly. We are making some significant changes as well as investment to ensure safer roads for all New Zealanders. There is a lot of work going on at the moment with that. National is committed to addressing drink-driving in New Zealand, particularly the repetitive nature of that problem, as part of our drive to deliver better public services. I commend this bill to the House.

I rise to take a call on the Land Transport Amendment Bill and acknowledge the contribution of my parliamentary colleague opposite, Chris Auchinvole, who talked about the great unanimity on it. Normally, of course, that would be an opportunity for me to stand up and say what a complete scumbag he is to make such an outrageous claim, but it would be wrong because there was a considerable degree of cohesion of thinking around this piece of legislation. We all share the concern about the issue of drink-driving—driving under the influence—and we have known for some time, it has been apparent for some time, that the thresholds that we have been operating under simply are not enough to deter people from getting behind the wheel when they have had not just a couple of drinks but significantly more than a couple.

We have seen the TV programmes showing people who have had significantly more than a couple of drinks and who are testing below the existing threshold, so changing the threshold is a sensible move. It has been Labour Party policy for some time and my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway has been promoting that move for some years, so it is good to see that it is now happening.

This bill enacts that particular aspect of it. It does a few other things too. It slightly complicates the issue because we now have this threshold, this 250 milligram and 400 milligram threshold. If you are in breach of the law between 250 milligrams and 400 milligrams, a set of consequences follows and a set of rights ensues, but not the same number of rights and consequences or the same magnitude of rights and consequences as would ensue if you are found to have over 400 milligrams of alcohol in the blood or the breath-alcohol content.

There is one aspect I have to confess—notwithstanding the almost unanimous view of the select committee and notwithstanding the views expressed by New Zealand First today—that still does cause me some concern. That is the fact that a person who has been pulled over and breath-tested by an officer is liable for the cost of a blood test, irrespective of whether they are found to be over or under the relevant limit. It is true that the bill says that the officer administering the test has some discretion about whether to impose the testing fee on a person who is found to be under the statutory threshold, but that is left up to the officer—no doubt for officers who are dealing with a stroppy individual, and there are a fair few of them. I can imagine the odd lawyer who is stopped; in fact, there are a few of them because they appear before the lawyers disciplinary committee frequently. They can argue the point, and that can be offensive to an officer trying to act in the execution of their duty. But it just seems to me to be an unusual thing to leave it to the discretion of the police officer on the beat.

I also am concerned that somebody who is innocent, who is confident that they are not over the threshold, may still be liable for a cost. In a sense they are being asked to pay for the cost of proving their innocence and that offends against a pretty basic principle—the right to be treated as innocent until proven guilty. Of course there will be others—and experienced officers will know, when they are dealing with people who are over the limit—who attempt to resist blood tests and other evidential breath tests, and who are trying it on. The officers must be free to exercise their professional skills to ensure that they persuade such people to undergo the relevant test. I just draw attention to that part. No doubt we will consider it and see, through the Committee stage, whether or not it is something that might lend itself to some improvement.

Notwithstanding that, the bill otherwise achieves the policy objective that we all want, which is to reduce the thresholds of breath and blood alcohol when it comes to testing people behind the wheel. The reality is that we do have an unfortunate and somewhat shameful track record of traffic accidents—some fatal and many causing serious injury—where the root cause is people driving under the influence of alcohol. We do have to get on top of that problem. We know that when we went through the alcohol law reform legislation, this issue was adverted to at length. The Government did not see it necessary to do anything about it at that point, but we now have this bill here.

We do have to get on top of the shameful record that we have of alcohol abuse by those who then put themselves in control of a motor vehicle. We have to send the signal that the thresholds are lower and that, actually, the tolerance for drinking and then driving straight afterwards is very low. There will be those who say it is one or two drinks and they are fine to hit the road, and there will be some for whom even one or two drinks may be a step too far. I think that with this bill lowering the thresholds and with the regime that it sets up, notwithstanding the issue that I have raised, it is a responsible step forward to ensuring that we have safer roads and safer drivers behind the wheel.

As a junior doctor working in accident and emergency, far too much of my time was spent patching up people who had been injured as a result of alcohol-related violence and accidents. One of the most compelling things I remember as a medical student was assisting on one occasion when two young men in the prime of their life had died as a result of road traffic accidents because of consuming excess alcohol. I am very pleased to commend this Land Transport Amendment Bill to the House, a bill that reduces the chances of that happening.

I understand that the next call is a split call. Dr Megan Woods, 5 minutes.

I am happy to take a call on the Land Transport Amendment Bill. After sitting in the House listening to the speeches I do want to commend the members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. It sounds like a lot of work has been done on this bill to bring it to the House. As my colleague who spoke before me, Andrew Little, acknowledged, notwithstanding New Zealand First not voting for it at this stage, it sounds like it has been a genuine example of parties across the political divide working together to find a solution for what I am sure we can all agree is something that we have to find a solution for. We, as legislators, simply cannot have New Zealanders dying on our roads because we are not putting in place the right legislation in order to send the right messages to New Zealand about what is a safe level of alcohol to consume before getting behind the wheel.

Other speakers before me have brought to the attention of members the fact that although we support this bill, we do acknowledge that it has taken us a very long time to get here. This legislation first appeared some time ago. It was kicked to touch by Steven Joyce in 2010—this was when it was introduced as a member’s bill from the Hon Darren Hughes and was subsequently taken up by my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway. This is something that National has not been willing to grasp early enough and do what is needed, so we are pleased that we are here seeing the second reading of this bill and being able to do something.

The fact of the matter is that New Zealand does have, until we pass this legislation, more permissive drink-driving laws than evidence-based research would suggest we should have. The evidence is clearly there, and we do not need complicated logic to get to the point where we understand that when people drink too much alcohol and get behind the wheel of a heavy piece of machinery, such as a motor vehicle, and attempt to drive it, their judgment is impaired and deaths ensue.

Other countries have acknowledged that we simply have to lower the thresholds of what we deem to be a safe amount of alcohol to drink. If you look across the Tasman at what the Australians have said is a safe amount of alcohol to drink, we can see that we actually are allowing people to drink far too much and then get behind the wheel. Other people have talked about some of the work that has been done while this bill has been circulating and while the whole issue has been swirling around. That work includes getting people to actually consume the amount of alcohol that is deemed safe and under the legal limit, and then putting them in driving simulators so we can see what the results are—and that is not something that we should condone at all.

The simple fact remains that there is a huge cost on a personal level in terms of the number of lives that are lost and the families that are touched when people die in car accidents. We know that many motor vehicle accidents are simply avoidable—that if people had not consumed excess alcohol and got behind the wheel of a car, then they would not have occurred. We know that 3.4 lives could be saved annually and 64 injury crashes could be avoided. This would save $200 million in social costs over a decade. The evidence is overwhelming that we as a Parliament need to bring in the requisite changes, and, for this reason, Labour is happy to support this bill at the second reading.

I call Julie Anne Genter—5 minutes.

I rise to speak on the second reading of the Land Transport Amendment Bill, which we are very happy to support, although we do note that it has taken quite a long time for the Government to finally realise that this is an issue that does need to be dealt with. As has been noted by previous speakers, it is unclear why this has taken over 4 years to come before the House. So many lives could have been saved if it had been implemented earlier.

There is no question that simply changing the law is not enough to reduce the harm of drink-driving. The single most effective thing we could do to reduce the risk of harm from drink-driving is to actually reduce the need for people to have to drive to and from their sources of entertainment. It is quite an anomaly because in New Zealand, as in some other countries, we have the very intriguing situation where we require pubs in most towns and cities to provide large off-street car-parks, while at the same time hoping that people will not be driving to and from the pub.

In fact, I am aware of one bar in Christchurch that was required to provide a huge number of off-street car-parks simply to comply with district planning rules. Of course, you would hope that most people would not be driving to and from the pub. The off-street car-parks, which it had to provide a building for, were actually one-third of their overhead. So it is an example of where there are some significant opportunities for New Zealand to move from regulations and transport planning that assume that every single trip will be made by car to giving people better choices. Having better public transport services in our towns and cities and having pubs within walking distance of where people live and work are actually an opportunity to reduce the risk of motor vehicle accidents as well as to reduce the cost of infrastructure.

So we are happy to see that finally the National Government listened to the evidence and the research and has taken action on something that will save a significant number of lives on the road. We do believe that it could have an even more ambitious target for reducing road deaths and road injuries. There are many other comparable jurisdictions that have a vision of a zero road toll. I think it is about time that New Zealand started to adopt that, because when we aim for a zero road toll and zero harm from our transportation, we will start implementing the sorts of policies that will get us there. At the moment the National Government is pursuing a very status quo approach to transport planning and funding, which will not do much to reduce the cost of transport and certainly will not reduce to any significant extent the injuries and deaths that happen on the road, because ultimately we are still building everything around the idea that everyone has to drive everywhere, whether that is to the pub or not.

I did not follow this bill through the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee process, but my colleague Kevin Hague did, and he did mention that there were some aspects of the bill that he was disappointed that the select committee did not take up. I think we still probably have some concerns with the new procedures for dealing with blood specimens and whether or not there is any infringement on the rights of the defendant, someone who is being prosecuted, to have access to the sorts of—it is about how the evidence is presented in court and what evidence is available. Obviously, there was a loophole in the Act regarding drivers who cannot give blood samples, and there have been times when that allowed the prosecution of a driver for refusing to permit a blood specimen to be taken. We still have some concerns about the way that that was introduced and dealt with. But ultimately we do like seeing this small step on the road to progress in reducing the harm from alcohol-related motor vehicle accidents. We would also like to see an even more ambitious target for road safety and reduction of harm. Thank you.

I am very pleased to take what is the final call in the second reading debate on the Land Transport Amendment Bill. A lot of work has gone into this bill. One of the primary catalysts was the Government’s concern with getting New Zealand - based evidence around driving and what would be appropriate. That was done very early on during our term, and the bill has now gone through the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. As those of us who have sat through this whole process up until now in the second reading know, it is has been quite fraught, as we tried to balance the rights of drivers, hospitality, and responsibility, and also safety on our roads. This bill has landed, I think, in a very good space. Colleagues across the House have mentioned most of the details. I will repeat what is really the key one, which is not to drink and drive.