Land Transport (Road Safety) Amendment Bill

Members, the House is in committee for further consideration of the Land Transport (Road Safety) Amendment Bill. When we were last debating the bill, the question was that Parts 1 to 3, Schedule 1, and clauses 1 and 2 stand part.

Thank you, Mr Chair. When we left this debate, we were particularly concerned around the average-speed cameras. This bill—just to recap for people who are tuning into this debate—was introduced by Kiri Allan as justice Minister some time ago, and it was mainly around fleeing drivers and giving officers the ability to seize and impound vehicles for 28 days if the driver doesn’t provide information, and disqualification. All of that is of interest, and we broadly supported that, because we all know we’ve got a real issue on that front. But also they took the opportunity, when doing this bill, to sneak through a couple of other things in relation to the Government’s focus on speeding and, in particular, point-to-point speed cameras.

I was making the point, before we ran out of time, of how this operates in conjunction with what we’ve seen as a rapid roll-out of 30-kilometre-an-hour speed limits all around the countryside and our cities, much to the annoyance of people who have got places to go and things to do. They look at the fact that their cars have never been safer, they’ve never had more technology, and yet we have to crawl around at 30 kilometres an hour, and it’s very irritating. So the thought of having a point-to-point camera for a kilometre on a 30-kilometre-an-hour road—and I’d like the Minister to give us the answer to the calculation, which is “d times 3.6 divided by t”, in relation to distance being a kilometre and the speed being 30 kilometres an hour, and just what the answer is. If he could give us that answer, that would be useful.

But the point we’re making is: what advice has he had when it comes to—this is all about safety, ultimately. Why hasn’t the Government focused on all the other many factors involved in serious crashes and injuries and death, such as drink-driving? We know that there has been a huge reduction in the number of drink-driving tests around the country, so why don’t they focus on that? Why don’t they focus on drug-driving, where they still haven’t got round to actually bringing in an effective drug-driving test? Why don’t they focus on seatbelts, which are critical? Why don’t they focus on driver distraction around cellphones and fatigue, and all the many other things—and, of course, the quality of the roads and dealing with the potholes and actually building safer roads? But instead of focusing on all those issues, the only thing they focus on when it comes to safety is speed limit reductions and driving people crazy. So we don’t think that they’ve got the balance right at all. In fact, the suspicion is that, really, the real reason why they focus on speed is that they don’t really like people driving cars full stop and they want to make it as difficult as possible and as frustrating as possible for people to get around, particularly in cities.

So what I’m keen to hear from the Minister is: why the focus is so much on making us crawl around at 30 kilometres an hour, particularly in relation to schools, where they’ve adopted the approach—and it’s filtered through to all the little councils around town—that there should be a 30kilometre speed limit anywhere near a school, 24 hours a day? I don’t know, maybe I’ve missed something. I’ve got 4 kids, who have been to school, and I’ve never dropped them to school at 2 o’clock in the morning. I’ve never dropped them to school at 5 o’clock in the morning. I’ve never picked them up at 8 o’clock at night. There’s actually about a 10-minute—

💬 Simon Court: Maybe if they’d been on a rowing crew, you might have dropped them off at 5 a.m.

Maybe. They’re not focusing on their school work as much as they should—maybe. But maybe they’re just lackadaisical about the whole thing. But, in general, there’s about a 20-minute window at around 8 o’clock in the morning and another 20-minute window at about 3 o’clock in the afternoon where maybe it might make sense to have a 30-kilometre-an-hour speed limit within about 100 metres of a school. But, no, we’ve got about a kilometre, 24 hours a day, and it’s all about, again—and I just want to test this proposition also with the Minister: was it not his purpose, when he came into Government, when he came into Parliament, to try and make life easier for New Zealanders? And, if it was his goal when he came into Parliament to make life easier for New Zealanders, why is he bringing in point-to-point cameras and 30-kilometre-an-hour speed limits everywhere? Because that’s not making people’s lives easier; it’s just making them annoyed and irritated. We don’t support this element of the bill.

The member Paul Goldsmith asked why we’re not focusing on road surface repairs; we are. After a period of about five years—of the last five years of the National Government—when, because they were spending so much on their roads of national significance and froze road funding for maintenance, the number of kilometres of road being repaired for surface or surface replacement halved roughly. You need to do about 9 percent per annum; it dropped to 5 or 6 percent per annum, and we’ve restored that. But we need to do more, and indeed the latest draft Government Policy Statement on land transport proposes a further 50 percent increase in funding on maintenance. So that’s certainly within the bill.

In terms of cellphones, drunk-driving, drug-driving, and more safety measures like safety barriers, I agree with the member that they are all important, but also speed is relevant. Tragically, last year, 377 people were killed on our roads in New Zealand. That’s 7.3 deaths—7.3 people—per 100,000. By comparison, Australia’s average across all states is 4.6 deaths per 100,000, whilst, in Europe, it’s significantly lower, with two deaths per 100,000 people. It’s not all related to—

💬 Simeon Brown: You’re just reading the talking points.

“Reading the talking points”, did the member say? It would help if he read his, rather than just blathering on, as he often does. Some of the—

💬 Simeon Brown: It’s the nasty party.

The nasty party? Speed is a factor. And, in terms of the member’s concern that these cameras are going to be used on 30-kilometre areas, I’m advised that that’s not the intention; they’re going to be deployed on high-risk roads.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Minister, thank you for responding to questions about the problems this bill’s trying to solve.

Minister, it’s true that many New Zealand roads are unsafe. They’re unsafe at any speed, not just the posted speed limit. Minister, the Government Policy Statement—the GPS—for land transport recognises more money needs to be invested in maintenance, potholes, vehicles swerving to avoid a pothole entering oncoming traffic, or drivers being distracted because they’re trying to work out what it is on the road they need to avoid. Clearly that’s a hazard.

Minister, many of New Zealand’s older roads, their speed environment—the speed limit—is based on designs from decades past, last century. You can drive all over New Zealand on rural State highways where they were essentially designed to allow bullock carts and then maybe the Model T Ford to follow the contours of the land on a road hand-cut with picks and shovels. Even though those roads are now tarmacked, they’re marked with paint, they’ve got speed limit warning signs all over them, Minister, many of those roads are completely unsuited for the 21st century and for the needs of people in communities who just need to get places—whether it’s dropping kids off at school or taking them to footy practice on a weekend—

💬 Dr James McDowall: Rowing practice.

—getting to the shops. Rowing practice, as Dr James McDowall points out. Even at 5 a.m. in the morning, there are Kiwis trying to get their kids to sports practices. Dr McDowall, that’s right.

💬 Angela Roberts: Forestry trucks.

Oh, and as Angela Roberts points out, forestry trucks on the road all the time. Assuming that cutting trees is economically viable, even with all of the restrictions and red tape this Government wants to put on them.

So Minister, when it comes to safe speeds, safer roads, a lot of our roads are designed and built essentially for bullock carts and built with picks and shovels. It’s perfectly justified they have lower speed limits. But Minister, many of our new roads are designed to 110-kilometre-an-hour speed environments and some people—including the radio announcer Mike Hosking—suggest that the Pūhoi to Warkworth motorway could be driven at 140 or 150 kilometres an hour.

Now, while that’s not allowed, many roads around New Zealand are designed for 110kilometrean-hour speed limits. The Transmission Gully highway, Minister—27 kilometres of some of the best infrastructure ever built in New Zealand—currently has a speed limit of 100 kilometres an hour, even though it’s designed for 110. So Minister, will this Government commit to increasing the speed limit to the designed speed limit on roads which are designed to run at a safer speed, like Transmission Gully, to at least 110, which is, of course, safe given that modern vehicles have airbags—they have all kinds of detection systems to tell you when you’re leaving your lane or when you’re over-speeding?

Minister, will this Government commit to raising the speed limit on Transmission Gully to 110 kilometres an hour? Or will this Government insist that speed cameras are deployed on Transmission Gully—over 27 kilometres of Transmission Gully from start to finish—to identify if someone’s doing 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109 kilometres an hour, even though the road’s designed for 110? Because a lot of Kiwis are like “All we want to do is get around at a decent clip.” Our motors are designed for it. We’re driving the latest kit, even used cars imported from Japan and Europe—10 years old—have airbags and all kinds of detection systems. Minister, will we be allowed to drive at 110 on Transmission Gully or will these speed cameras be deployed on Transmission Gully first to catch people doing 101?

Just before I call the Minister—OK, I’ve been quite lenient here. We’ve gone a long way and I let you go. We are hearing the bill as all parts. However, now we’ve all had our fun we’re all going to talk about the bill from now on—including you, Minister. So the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I can confirm that the bill doesn’t increase or alter speed limits. All it provides for is the use of point-to-point average speed for traffic cameras. In respect of the Transmission Gully question, funnily enough, I signed out a paper on that this week authorising consultation on raising the limit.

Thank you, Mr Chair, and I appreciate your indulgence as I have my opportunity—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): No, you actually don’t, Mr Brown. We’ve been very even, to date, so we’re going to talk about the bill.

Yes, I was going to talk about the bill too, Mr Chair. So thank you.

One of the questions I’ve got in relation to this bill is—and the Minister, in his response to my colleague the Hon Paul Goldsmith, said that the point-to-point cameras would only apply to high-risk roads—can the Minister of Transport please identify where in the bill it limits the criteria as to which roads average speed check cameras can be applied to? My read of the bill is that it does not include a limitation for these average speed checks to only high-risk roads. I’m happy to be proven incorrect. But I think there is concern from a large number of New Zealanders—who have seen the blanket speed limit reductions being imposed upon New Zealanders and new 30-kilometre-per-hour speed limits being put on vast swathes of suburban roads—that these speed checks will be used on those 30-kilometre-per-hour roads.

The second question I’ve got is in relation to the clause which deals with traffic control devices informing drivers of the system. This clause is in relation to the requirement that there must be an average speed—or, basically, signage to inform people of the average speed system being in operation. This, effectively, changes the requirement to no longer have to be that the signage is—well, basically, it means that there now has to be a certificate to prove that there has been—well, there’s a Supplementary Order Paper—signage at some point in the last year. This is, effectively, my understanding of what that new clause requires it to be, which has, obviously, changed. But there’s no description of what the sign size needs to be.

Now, I was driving into the city, in Auckland, the other day, and I drove off the motorway—the Spaghetti Junction—you get off at Nelson St, and you get to the traffic lights, and in the very corner, on the left, on one of the traffic lights, is a little sign, and it’s probably not much bigger than an A4 piece of paper, and it says “Average speed check ahead”. Now, I’m not sure—

💬 Simon Court: Was there reo Māori or just English?

It was in English, Mr Court. But the question I’ve got in relation to that is: it’s such a small sign, you could barely tell, and so when you’re putting in place signage to warn people of average speed checks, surely that needs to be visible so that motorists who are travelling at potentially 40, 50, 60, if it’s high risk, 80 kilometres per hour, are actually able to notice the signage and be able to see it? I don’t see any particular description of what that sign is. But I’m happy to take the Minister down there at some point and show him this sign. It is very, very small. My point there is: a lot of motorists would be very concerned, if we’re going to have average speed checks put in place with very limited signage, I think that would not be the intent of the clause, which is actually requiring the signage so people have fair warning.

The other point I’d make is—I’m not sure if the Minister’s aware of that average speed check; I think it’s just a trial that Auckland Transport’s doing. It would be interesting to know if that’s just a trial, what they’re using that for. But also I would just note that that is a stretch of road which has just had its speed limit reduced from 50 to 40. So, again, that raises questions back to my first question, around where the limitation is to prove that this must only be used on high-risk roads. That road’s got a speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour. Is that a high-risk road? How is that going to be determined? Who’s determining what a high-risk road is or what’s not? I have those questions; I look forward to those answers.

In respect of where they’re deployed, that’s an operational decision that will be handled by—

💬 Simeon Brown: What about high-risk roads? What’s a high-risk road?

Well, I’m advised that that is their intention, but it is an operational decision that’s not prescribed by the legislation.

In respect of where they are, I’m also advised that, in practice, they have to be used in corridors where there are not—the impracticality of doing it on roads where there are lots of points of entry and exit at a short point, essentially, means that they have to be done on a State highway.

In respect of the signage, that’s not dealt with under this legislation, but other rules enable the prescription and land transport rules of what a sign should be like so that it is of a fair size to warn people.

The policy objective here is that these cameras aren’t designed to gather revenue; they’re actually in place in order to improve driver behaviour, and that’s why you put a warning up, rather than just use them to maximise revenue.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d just like to query the Minister regarding Supplementary Order Paper 421 and the definition in clause 4 of a “moving vehicle offence”, particularly around paragraph (a)(iii): “any offence against regulations made under this Act or the Transport (Vehicle and Driver Registration and Licensing) Act 1986” with regard to these point-to-point average speed cameras. So my question is: can the Minister confirm that these automated systems, for every single car that’s passing through there, are going to be picking up people with expired warrants of fitness (WoFs) and expired registrations, which means, basically, not just an incredible revenue-raising exercise—but will the picking up of this information and pinging these drivers disproportionately affect those on lower incomes?

There are those families that are perhaps a little bit out with their WoFs and their regos, often by accident, but maybe it’s just another cost in this current cost of living crisis that they haven’t got around to it. Will the system sit there all day and night pinging those drivers, many of whom can ill afford it? So if the Minister could just provide clarification on that, that would be helpful.

I’m happy to. No, the automated infringement system will not apply to the lack of a registration sticker or an expired warrant. It only applies to moving vehicle offences. There’s a Supplementary Order Paper dated 29 August which slightly changes the wording of that, and it reads that a “moving vehicle offence” means “(a) an offence detected by approved vehicle surveillance equipment that is—(i) a speeding offence; or (ii) an offence in respect of the failure to comply with the directions given by a traffic signal or a traffic sign that is a variable traffic or land control sign; or (iii) any offence against [certain regulations made under the Transport Act]; or (iv) a toll offence; or (b) a speeding offence detected by a point-to-point average speed system”.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I think the point which the Minister made earlier, which was that this would be the role of an operational decision as to what was a high-risk road, doesn’t leave motorists with much comfort around the operation of these systems. I again use the example of what’s happening in Nelson Street in Auckland, which, as the Minister will know, is not a State highway. It is a local road which has many entrances and exits. Now, I’m not sure whether that’s a trial or whether that is something which is being used by Auckland Transport for other purposes.

But the question I’ve got is why is that being trialled, for what purpose, and if the Minister’s intent and the Government’s intent in this legislation is for these point-to-point cameras to be used on State highways or on roads which don’t have many entrances or exits, why is that not more clearly defined in the legislation to actually give motorists more confidence that this is not just a revenue-raising tool, or a tool to simply try and now force these much slower speed limits, which many people are frustrated about—why is the Minister not actually providing that clarity in the primary legislation, rather than leaving it up to road control authorities? I’ve just given an example of a road controlling authority which is doing average speed checks on a non - State highway with many, many intersections on that particular stretch of road. So surely there needs to be some clarity around that in the legislation.

I’m advised that that is purely a trial to test systems and look at data and that there is no intention to use it on a road like that, which has got multiple entrances and exits; indeed, their intention is to use it in the sorts of corridors that I’ve previously described. The Government disagrees that all of these things need to be specified in the legislation, and is willing to trust the road control authorities to make sensible decisions as to their deployment.

Minister, just coming back to the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 421, in new section (2)(1)(a)(iii), inserted by clause 4, “any offence against regulations … under this Act or the Transport (Vehicle and Driver Registration and Licensing) Act … that is declared by regulations under this Act to be a moving vehicle offence”. Minister, it appears to Dr McDowall and I, and no doubt to anybody else who had the opportunity to scrutinise this legislation which is being pushed through the House under urgency, that this appears to allow speed cameras—average speed cameras; camera detection equipment—to issue offence notices and tickets to people because their registration or their warrant of fitness or some other matter associated with their vehicle condition is out of order.

Minister, would you please confirm to the committee and to those listening or watching at home that the Government proposes tonight, under urgency, in a Supplementary Order Paper amending a bill which has been tabled months ago, to include ticketing Kiwis if they haven’t kept their warrant and registration up to date, whether it’s a car or a trailer, that if they pass a camera that’s going to be authorised by this legislation that they’ll get a ticket if their warrant and registration is out of date. Minister, please confirm that.

No; in fact, I said the opposite. They can’t get a ticket for that. The only change that is made by that Supplementary Order Paper to the definition of a moving vehicle offence is the addition of paragraph (b), which is a speeding offence detected by the point-to-point average speed system.

In new sections 139AAA to 139AAC, inserted by clause 26, there are new powers which the Minister of Transport will have to approve an automated infringement system. Can I ask the Minister, in relation to the system, is that relating to each individual area where these average speed checks will be used, or is that a particular type of technology which may or may not be approved?

If it is in relation to either of those, can the Minister give any assurances to the committee as to whether or not officials have already started the process to, effectively, put together any proposals around these types of systems, and what advice has the Minister received regarding this?

In fact, neither. New section 139AAA is about the ticketing system—the automated infringement system—not about the speed camera system.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Minister Parker, the concept of average speed monitoring across the transport network sounds fantastic in principle. Across the Auckland, Wellington, and other metro networks, average speed monitoring would reveal that, off peak, it’s possible to drive on the State highway network, in particular, at the posted speed limit, whether it’s 80 or 100 or, in very, very special cases, 110 kilometres an hour.

Now, Dr McDowall, I don’t know—have you ever looked at your dashboard, have you looked at—

💬 Dr James McDowall: Oh, all the time.

He looks at it all the time, as part of his safe operation of a motor vehicle. I think my speedo goes up to 280 kilometres an hour. Dr McDowall, what does yours go up to?

💬 Dr James McDowall: More than that.

Even more than that. But 110, Minister, we would accept—we would accept. This is not Germany; we don’t have autobahns. This is not Italy; we don’t have the autostrada or, in France, l’autoroute. But what we do have are motorways designed to 100 in the urban environment or 110—those new motorways designed to 110 which are actually outside the urban environment. Who knew? Building motorways to a much higher standard the further you get from town—it’s almost counterintuitive, Minister.

But let’s assume that average speed monitoring is a good idea. Minister, imagine that not just monitoring average speeds for compliance, or for the purpose of identifying who is infringing against the speed limit, but to determine whether average speeds are acceptable from an efficiency point of view. All of these roads which are currently subject to policing enforcement, of course—what day is it, Dr McDowall, what’s the date?

💬 Dr James McDowall: I believe it’s still Tuesday.

It’s Tuesday, 29 August. I think because it’s getting towards the end of the calendar month, just about every traffic enforcement officer is out there on the network trying to issue tickets in the last few days of the month. So, clearly, the time of the month, the time of day matters. But it matters more to motorists who want to get around the network at a decent clip when roads designed for 100, 110, 80, 60, whatever it is, are congested, Minister.

So will this equipment, Minister, be used to monitor congestion? Will it be used to identify where roads are overloaded with traffic and, potentially, where congestion charging or new capacity is warranted? Where motorists who fully expect to enter the road network and travel at the posted speed limit to get to their destination—whether they’re taking their kids to sport or school, whether they’re a truck driver with a load of aggregate or a load of sand in the back going to a construction job—will these cameras, Minister, help the road corridor operators, the road controlling authorities, identify where congestion is occurring and therefore what measures are necessary to alleviate that congestion so motorists who want to travel at the posted speed limit, who are prepared to pay a congestion charge—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I think we’re drifting a little bit here, Mr Court, if you’ll excuse the pun.

Well, I mean, Mr Chair, to be honest, how this appears to the average punter is that the Minister’s proposing to tax people or fine people driving over the speed limit even though a whole lot of Kiwis would be prepared to pay a congestion charge simply to travel at the posted speed limit. I mean, if someone said, “Oh, you might get ticketed 100 or 200 bucks for travelling over the limit, but you could pay 100 or 200 a month to travel at the speed limit all the time.”, Minister, that sounds like nirvana to a whole lot of Kiwis who might have driven on l’autoroute or the autostrada or “fahren, fahren, fahren down the autobahn”. Minister, tell us: will these cameras help Kiwis get around, or are they simply another revenue-gathering tool?

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you, Mr Chair. My question is in relation to new section 146B, “Weighted average speed limit between two detection points”. It says, “This section applies if more than 1 speed limit applies between 2 detection points on a length of road along which the average speed of a vehicle is to be calculated for the purposes of section 146A … The speed limit for this purpose”—and then there’s a calculation for how that speed limit is going to be checked. Now, the question I’ve got in relation to this clause: the Minister has been adamant in trying to tell the House that this will be used on State highways and not on local roads; it’s basically the argument that the Minister’s been trying to say—that Kiwis shouldn’t have to worry about these being used where there’s 30-kilometre-per-hour speed limits, which have been blanketed through our suburbs.

But now we’ve got to a point where it says here that, effectively, there could be multiple speed limits on a section of road, and now we’re going to have a weighted average speed limit which will apply. Now, most parts of our State highway network generally have the same consistent speed limit along those parts. For instance, if you travel out of Auckland, between Auckland and Hamilton, it’s 110 most of the way. There is, of course, a portion where it is 100, then it goes to 110. So is the purpose of this section to put one at the Bombay Hills and then another one at Cambridge and then, of course, to weight it according to those? Or is it, effectively, to allow for this to be applied in more suburban environments, where, in that example, you only have two speed limits, 100 and 110, but in a more urban environment you may have 50, you might have a 60, then you might have 40—you might then have a 30. What is the intent of this clause? Because it is now appearing to the committee that it is actually more about actually just being able to be used everywhere rather than actually being limited, as the Minister said, to State highways. Now, if it’s to be limited to State highways—if that’s the intent—why doesn’t the Minister just put it in the bill and give New Zealanders that clarity? If the intention is to have it for every single road, well then, be honest with the public that that’s the intention, because the Minister from the chair said, “It’s predominantly for state highways”. The legislation basically gives tools for these average weighted speed limits to basically be able to be used on any type of road.

And the final question I’ve got is to understand how this then interacts with variable speed limits, because of course, some sections of State highway, you drive past a school, and occasionally—under the land transport setting of speed limit rule, it requires all schools to have reduced speed limits; rural schools can obviously have a variable speed limit. Well, if you’re driving past a school, is that going to take into account the variable speed limit by the average speed limit check? Will that take into account the time of day that the person is driving past the school, and how will it know what time of day they actually drove past the school, particularly if the average speed check is over a hundred or 200 kilometre length of distance? These issues matter, and I look forward to the Minister’s response to those questions.

I’ve already addressed the issue as to it being an operational matter for the transport authority, but I have repeated advice from officials that this will be predominantly State highways. In respect of the averaging system, it is set out in clauses 146B, 146C, and 146D, which includes publication of matters relating to the point-to-point average speed system, were an average to be used.

I move, That the question be now put.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Supplementary Order Paper 420, set out on Supplementary Order Paper 422, be agreed to

The question is that the Minister’s amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 420, as amended, and Supplementary Order Paper 421 be agreed to.

Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Land Transport (Road Safety) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Report adopted.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The Land Transport (Road Safety) Amendment Bill is set down for third reading immediately.

Third Reading