Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill

I move, That the Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill be now read a first time. This bill clarifies the power of local councils and other road-controlling authorities such as the New Zealand Transport Agency to set speed limits through their by-laws. The bill corrects some technical legal issues in the powers available to make some speed limit by-laws and the review process for local government by-laws. This bill ensures that these by-laws and the speed limits made under them remain valid and therefore enforceable. The ability to set speed limits and enforce them is essential to public safety. Crashes on New Zealand roads claim lives, cause injuries, and devastate families and communities. Councils and other road-controlling authorities were always meant to have powers to set speed limit by-laws. This bill makes these requirements clear.

Recent information has suggested that some road-controlling authorities may have made speed limit by-laws under powers that may not have been available to them, or have omitted to comply fully with their bylaw-making powers conferred by local government Acts by not reviewing speed limit by-laws within the required time. In the interests of removing doubt and providing clarity, this bill validates all speed limit by-laws and confirms they were made correctly under appropriate legislation—either local government or land transport legislation. Although this bill addresses a potential problem with some speed limits set as far back as 2004, it is an urgent matter. Simply put, we cannot run the risk that some speed limits might be invalid while others are not. Passing this bill under urgency will prevent anyone from taking advantage of the speed limit validity question.

The bill will make minor amendments to the Land Transport Act 1998, removing any doubt that road-controlling authorities can make speed limit by-laws under land transport legislation. This bill does not impact on speed limit by-laws made by airport authorities or Ministers of the Crown under legislation specific to them. Part 1 of the bill sets out what by-laws are covered by this amendment. Part 2 of the bill validates any by-laws and the speed limits made under them and the enforcement actions taken in relation to them.

The bill also continues existing procedural requirements for certain by-law makers such as airport authorities, which are subject to separate legislation concerning their bylaw-making process. The bill also deems existing by-laws to have been made under the Land Transport Act 1998. This will mean those by-laws originally made under local government legislation cease to be Local Government Act by-laws and will not be subject to the review requirements in the Local Government Act 2002.

The bill, by validating speed limit by-laws, is retrospective. Retrospective legislation is rare, but in this case I believe it is necessary. I have inquired as to what other options exist to correct these matters. I can advise the House that there are no valid options. Although road-controlling authorities could make new speed limit by-laws, this would take some months to complete—a period during which many roads could have no valid speed limits other than 100 kilometres per hour. This creates, clearly, a public safety risk. I would not want police to be unable to enforce anything other than a 100 kilometres per hour speed limit on our local streets. In addition, a road-controlling authority could not validate a previous by-law. This creates uncertainty as to the legality of enforcement actions. Therefore, we must move swiftly to protect public safety and provide certainty in this matter.

This bill makes it clear that local councils will continue to be responsible for local decisions about speed limits, which should reflect consultation and discussions with local communities. Local councils play an important role in road safety and are expected to work closely with other agencies such as Police and the New Zealand Transport Agency. Setting by-laws is therefore a function of local councils.

We need to move swiftly to eliminate confusion. This bill makes it clear that these by-laws were as generally understood and were intended to be valid at all times, and that they remain so. No matter what causes a crash, speed directly affects the force of impact and sometimes, of course, whether there is any impact at all. This means we cannot tolerate any ambiguity or uncertainty in the validity of speed limits. I commend this bill to the House.

Labour is supporting the Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill at this first reading. I think there is nobody in this House who likes the idea of voting for retrospective legislation. It is undesirable, but in this case we believe that this is a necessary bill, and we will talk about some of the reasons why that is the case.

The Minister has given us a bit of a thumbnail sketch of how this situation arose. The basic facts, I think, are these. Under Local Government Act 2002 councils were given the powers to set local speed limits in built-up areas and outside schools and so on, and, along with that power, councils were required to review those by-laws. I think, if my memory serves me correctly, the by-laws must be reviewed after 5 years and then every 10 years thereafter. What has happened in this case is that the Kāpiti Coast District Council discovered in May this year that its speed limit by-law had been inadvertently revoked in 2012. That has obviously led to quite a bit of scurrying around by officials looking at how this happened, and it appears, we are advised, that there is a significant number of other councils who may find themselves in a similar situation. The upshot of all this is that it seems that there are tens of thousands—I do not think it is known exactly how many, but there could be tens of thousands—of speeding infringements that are technically invalid because of the failure of an unknown number of councils to follow the prescribed rules set down in the Local Government Act 2002. So that puts the Government in a very tricky position, and there are a whole lot of consequences that have to be considered as a result of that.

Our view is that although retrospective legislation is undesirable, mistakes do happen, and this is a pretty good example of mistakes happening on a fairly large scale. We believe that for reasons of public safety, for reasons of public confidence in our road safety system, of which speed limits are obviously an essential part, and for fiscal and other practical reasons it is important that these mistakes are put right and that the laws and the speed limits that everybody has assumed have been in place over these years, and all of the infringements that were issued under these laws, are not overturned. That, I believe, would be untenable. It would be untenable for the communities that are protected by our road safety system and by speed limits. It would be untenable, I think, for the thousands of New Zealanders who committed speeding infringements that they and everybody else assumed were valid.

So let us talk a little bit more about some of the detail. The background to this is that there is the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2003, otherwise known as the speed limits rule. It basically sets a default 100-kilometre-an-hour speed limit for all roads, unless this has been reduced by the relevant authority, like a council. Then, under that, local councils all around the country have the power to set local speed limits, and I think that that is as it should be. It is an entirely appropriate thing for local communities to have that power. But the Local Government Act 2002 does require that the by-laws setting those speed limits are reviewed—first, after 5 years, and then every 10 years after that.

What the solution that this bill brings to the House does is it sets out to validate speed limits that have been created since 2004, regardless of whether they were promulgated under potentially invalid by-laws. I repeat: as far as I have been advised, it is unclear about the possible scale of this problem. I think we know with certainty that the Kāpiti Coast District Council has put its hand up and said that that is the case, but there may well be potentially quite a large number of others. It also validates enforcement actions that have been carried out in relation to those by-laws since 2004.

What the bill does is it removes any ambiguity, or it attempts to clarify the powers in the Land Transport Act 1998 for road-controlling authorities like the councils to make a speed limit by-law, and then it clarifies the procedural requirements for those authorities around that power to make by-laws. My understanding of the bill—I have not had a chance to go through the bill in detail yet—is that although it leaves those powers and those responsibilities with the councils, it removes the requirement to review them every 5 years and 10 years, which is the thing that has got councils into this mess in the first place.

What is the case for urgency? Why should this legislation be pushed through all stages this afternoon? Let me just touch on those. There is clearly a risk to road safety, to the safety of communities throughout the country, if there is any kind of confusion or perception that the speed limits that everyone has thought are in place are suddenly thought to not apply or are unenforceable. Where the New Zealand Police has enforced invalid speed limits over the last few years, that obviously sets off a whole chain of consequences: demerit points, fines, other sanctions, licences lost, and so on. If this bill was not passed with urgency, the people who experienced those sanctions could then argue that they have unlawfully suffered the consequences. I think that it would create a situation of real confusion, including significant financial risk to the Government, if all of those infringements and the penalties that followed from them were called into question, not to mention the possibility of individuals seeking compensation for loss of employment, disqualification, or even, in some cases, imprisonment.

The fourth point that I would raise is that it would put our police force, which is out there every day on the roads around New Zealand trying to keep the roads safe, protecting people, and enforcing the speed limits, in a very, very invidious position. It would undermine confidence in the police but also in the entire road safety system.

I want to make the point that although, again, I think none of us feels great about passing retrospective legislation, the Legislation Advisory Committee has noted that retrospective legislation can be justified in some circumstances. It quotes, for example, bills to “validate matters that were generally understood and intended to be lawful, but were in fact unlawful as a result of a technical error;”, or, secondly, to “address a matter that is essential to public safety;”. I think it is fair to say that this bill ticks both the boxes in the guidelines that are set out by the Legislation Advisory Committee.

I am going to leave it there. We are going to have more time to discuss the bill, including during the Committee stage, when we will be able to, hopefully, tease out more detail about this bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, for the opportunity to speak here on the Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill. Yes, it is regretful that we do have to do some retrospective legislation, but, of course, every amendment bill is retrospective legislation in some respects. We are reaching back to repair a glitch in the system that came through since 5 April 2004, so that is in a period of time in the previous Government’s regime. However, it has happened and it is important that we do—for the sake of certainty and the sake of safety when it comes to New Zealanders using our roads—ensure that we have a comprehensive, complete system of regulation around speed limits.

I am very pleased to stand in support of this bill. Thank you.

I notice that there are four reasons given for urgency on this matter. One relates to the risk to road safety. Obviously, people, if they believe that the speed limits posted are not valid, may decide to speed, but it is not just that; it is the fact that people will be uncertain about what, in fact, the speed limits are if they have not been reviewed as required. Secondly, it has been said that there would be risks to people’s individual rights, and that is true too, but the real truth here is that it would compromise the whole demerit system if this defect is not rectified.

The third reason given is the financial risks to the Crown and the fact that it would cost a lot of money to undo what has been done. But then in addition to that, of course, is the fact that there would be a requirement for the refund, I think, of a huge number of fines, and there is a lot of money involved in that as well. Fourthly and lastly, we are told that there would be a reputational risk to the New Zealand Police. But, in fact, there is a much greater reputational risk to the New Zealand Government for not maintaining an adequate piece of legislation under which these by-laws are made in the first place. The legislation suffers completely from uncertainty, and that is the root of the problem.

This Government has been in power for the best part of 7 years, and it has made many changes to the road transport legislation during that time. So how could it be that it has persevered with the provisions in the Land Transport Act that do not contain a clear and unequivocal system for road-controlling authorities to set speed limits? It is amazing to me that it should have taken this long for this Government to see that there is a problem and to move to solve it. We are told it is urgent, and yet it has been years, in fact, since this problem was understood to be there. So the Government has persevered with procedures for road-controlling authorities to make speed limits for by-laws that are so confusing, we are told, that, for example, the Kāpiti Coast District Council has inadvertently got it wrong and told the Government so. That, apparently, has been the ignition point for this particular piece of so-called urgent legislation—urgent, however, for some years. Other councils, of course, might have also used inappropriate procedures. We just do not know how far, really, this problem has gone.

How is it also possible that legislation could have been so badly drafted that if a 5-yearly review of speed limits is not done now, then it results in an automatic default to the 100-kilometre-an-hour speed limit? It could and should have provided for continuation of the by-law at least until the review is completed. It is an absolutely awful situation that the default position is the way it is, instead of allowing for a continuation of the by-law until a review is done. That is what people would expect to happen, and that is what the legislation should have provided for. I am flabbergasted that that has been allowed to last all these years and has not been rectified.

The Government does need to take responsibility for this. It is not the councils’ responsibility and it is not the other road-controlling authorities’ responsibility; it is the Government’s, through its inadequate legislation, and possibly not even just this Government either. I think it looks as though the problem has gone right back to the previous Labour Government as well. So neither Government can be very proud of this situation—very badly drafted legislation that should not have been allowed to go on as long as it has. The primary role of the Government in maintaining appropriate legislation is, in fact, to ensure legal certainty, and that is the one thing that this legislation does not do. Uncertain law is, in fact, virtually no law at all. So the fault for this shameful situation is the Government’s.

If it is the Government’s fault, then it is the fault of the Minister of Transport as well. He is responsible for the maintenance of that legislation, and for the supervision of it, and for its certainty, and for the cause, in this case, of invalid by-laws resulting in speed limits that cannot be enforced. This particular Minister of Transport is too often responsible for a long list of transport cock-ups, including running down KiwiRail’s Cook Strait ferries; the 10 bridges proposal, of which only three are going to be done, apparently; closing railway lines that should not be closed; and so on. This is just one more demonstration of how badly this particular Minister is administering his transport portfolio. He must take direct responsibility for this situation. It is a Government responsibility, and it is that Minister’s responsibility.

The truth behind this is that the new legislation needed for this revision was first signalled as far back as 2007, under the previous Labour Government, when it was decided that there was a need to consolidate and clarify the legislation so that road-controlling authorities could make by-laws to set speed limits with certainty. That was confirmed under this current Government in 2010. So what we can see is this matter should have been acted upon years ago. We are told now that it is urgent, but it has been urgent for all of those years and nothing was done. That is a shameful situation; it is one that the current Government should hang its head in shame for.

New Zealand First will support the bill. It will do so out of sheer necessity and the fact that it is in the public interest to do so, but it does so very reluctantly. We do so very reluctantly because we do not like being put in a position where we have to vote for legislation to clean up muck-ups that should have been cleaned up years ago. That is a sad situation, but we will support it, simply because there is really no alternative to doing so. However, we do deplore the gross delay in rectifying the situation, and we do deplore the very bad lawmaking that has been maintained over all of those years and the knowing maintenance of a system that was faulty and has resulted in goodness knows how many invalid by-laws. So this is a really poor situation that should never have happened. We will vote for the bill, but we deplore the fact that it has had to happen at all.

I rise on behalf of the Green Party to speak to the Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill. This bill is a bill being introduced under urgency, and it has retrospective application. Both of those elements are a cause for some concern for the Green Party, but none the less we will be supporting the legislation because there appears to be no alternative.

This bill retrospectively validates speed limits that have been set incorrectly or, probably, unlawfully, or enforced unlawfully previously. It retrospectively validates enforcement action that had been taken with regard to these speed limits, it clears up the existing legal confusion as to how councils can set speed limits, and it exempts speed limits set under by-laws from the requirement that they must be reviewed every 5 years—that is, they do not have to be reviewed every 5 years once they are set.

Having been involved on various occasions in attempts to have lower speed limits, it has always been quite a struggle. The New Zealand Transport Agency was never very happy about the idea of lowering speed limits, and there have certainly been many struggles to lower speed limits in different areas, but we have managed to do it. In Wellington we have got some lower speed limits. On Waiheke Island, where I used to live, we lowered the speed limit there from 100 to 80 on the main straight—it was incredible that it was ever 100 kilometres an hour on such a small island. In the process, by lowering those speed limits, we have undoubtedly saved many lives and many injuries—the lives of not only motorists, who may have been going fast and if they had an accident then they would have got hurt more severely if they had been going faster, but also of pedestrians and cyclists.

We have also made our urban environments a lot safer and a lot more human-friendly. The 40-kilometre speed limits and 30-kilometre speed limits that have been introduced in Wellington, for example, have meant that our urban environments are a lot more livable than they would be with 50-kilometre speed limits or, in some places, higher speed limits again. So they are a really important tool for local governments in order to be able to control the speed of vehicles in the urban environment. What this legislation does, effectively, is validate the work local governments have been doing to set all of those speed limits, because otherwise—they are meant to be reviewed every 5 years, and clearly some of them have not been—all of those lower speed limits less than 100 would have been unenforceable and the tickets that have been issued under them up until now would almost certainly be challengeable in court. So it is essential that we introduce this legislation.

Of course, there are a lot of things that you could do under urgency in the transport sector. There are a lot of things that we need to do. I mean, if I was to think of some urgent transport projects, one might be the City Rail Link in Auckland. I mean, one does hope that when you hear that the Government is about to introduce urgent transport legislation, it may have finally realised the folly of opposing the City Rail Link in Auckland, the train link that is essential to make the city’s transport system work better. But it is, of course, not one of those things, but, none the less, we are supporting the bill because it is none the less essential.

As a general rule we do not support retrospective legislation, because, clearly, if you are going to live in a society that is governed by the rule of law, you need to know what the law is so that when you go about your daily business, you can say: “Well, this is the law and if I follow the rules I can’t be prosecuted by the State.” So the danger of retrospective legislation is that it changes the rules after you have already been through. But in this case, of course, we all assume that the speed limits were the rules and that they were lawfully enforceable.

So what this retrospective legislation does, effectively, is make sure that the rules that we thought were the rules with regard to speed limits really were legally enforceable rules. So in that respect the bill is different from other kinds of retrospective legislation because it does not change the rules after the fact; it simply makes the rules that we thought were the rules at the time legally enforceable today. It means that all those enforcement actions—speeding tickets that were issued during that period—do not suddenly become challengeable in a court. So although generally we do not support retrospective legislation, on this occasion I think everyone would agree that it is a matter of common sense and public safety that we support it. So for that reason we will be supporting this legislation tonight.

Can I endorse the comments of Dr Russel Norman. I do not think there is much to add to that, really. We are not creating new offences through this retrospective legislation. We should always take care in this House, as a general rule, to not pass retrospective legislation. But there are always exceptions to the general rule and the Labour Party has formed the view that this is a suitable exception to that normal rule that we should not have legislation pass with retrospective effect.

In terms of the issue of urgency, when these sorts of issues do arise, as they seem to every 3 or 4 years—I can remember a prior change to one of the police Acts about 3 years ago where we had to retrospectively validate what had been happening—when there is a need to do it retrospectively, it sometimes goes with the need to do it promptly, which we achieve through urgency. As Russel Norman has said, and I am sure other speakers have said, as a consequence we are willing to say that we will retrospectively validate what these by-laws have already purported to do but in some cases have not done legally.

So the change that Parliament is proposing to endorse, through the Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill, is to validate the speed limits that have been set by councils in a way that they thought was legal but in a way which, we are now being advised by the Government, it is clear that in some situations it has not been legal. And in the process, for the future, we are trying to fix the process to remove the automatic obligation to review these speed limits every 5 years. That is not to say that speed limits cannot be reviewed. Indeed, they could still be reviewed every 5 years by councils if they wanted to, but they do not have to review them every 5 years in order for them to remain valid. So with those brief comments I support the bill.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading