Land Transport (Road Safety) Amendment Bill

This legislation does a number of things that we agree with, which is getting more teeth to help the police with fleeing drivers. The current situation where you just know with absolute certainty if you put your foot down and speed off, you won’t be chased and won’t be caught—well, you’ve got, I think, about a 15 percent chance of getting caught—is not tenable.

But there’s one thing that we don’t particularly agree with, and I want to ask the Minister in the chair, the Hon Damien O’Connor, around this, which is in relation to the point-to-point speed cameras and the new regime that they’ve brought in new section 141A, in clause 27. This is in the context of a Government that is determined to slow us down at every turn with putting these 30kilometreanhour speed limits everywhere. If you look in my neighbourhood in Auckland, where the rubber really hits the road, you think about one of these speed cameras going a kilometre down a road where you’re obliged to drive at 30 kilometres an hour in modern vehicles that have never been safer. They have got all sorts of things going on, and we have to crawl along at 30 kilometres an hour.

I notice that the equation that’s put together here is “(d × 3.6) ÷ t”—with “d” being the distance and “t” being the time—in order to work out whether or not you’ve infringed. But I just have this oldfashioned view—and I wonder whether the Minister in the chair shares that—that one of the purposes of being in Parliament and being in Government is to make peoples’ lives easier, and it seems to me that the purpose that the Government is pursuing with this is to drive people crazy. It is to force them to drive along at 30 kilometres an hour in modern cars at a snail’s pace, with a pointtopoint camera determining that you do the whole kilometre or whatever it is down the road at no more than 30 kilometres an hour. Now, you could go at 50 and stop and have a break and then start again, but I don’t see any public benefit in that process occurring. So why is it that the Government is so determined that we have to do it this way?

Secondly, given natural concerns that people have around safety on the road, why isn’t the Government focused on all the other more important matters? So we asked the officials, in terms of fatalities and serious accidents, what percentage were caused by excessive speed, and it’s not half, it’s not a third, and it’s not 20 percent. I think it was around 10 percent, and yet the Government over the last six years has done half the number of drink-driving tests that it should have. So they don’t focus on the real dangers around drink-driving. They’ve fluffed around and haven’t got around to dealing with an effective drug-driving test, and so that is another major area. They haven’t particularly focused on driver distraction and cellphone use and so forth. They certainly haven’t focused on making sure that people wear seatbelts, which is one of the most important things. So when it comes to safety, all those things that they should be focused on, they’re not really, and haven’t been focused on enough. But the one thing that they do put all their energy and all their efforts in towards is to make us crawl around at 30 kilometres an hour in our modern cities in our safe, new vehicles.

So I want to ask the Minister why on earth he thinks this is a good policy and what on earth he is trying to achieve by it, and if they’re focused on road safety, why don’t they focus on the things that really matter? Secondly, I’m asking whether he’s sure that the equation he’s got there of “(d × 3.6) ÷ t” is correct, and I’d like him to give us a couple of examples—that would be great.

I’d like to have a better understanding about what evidence there is to show that this particular speed camera on a 30-kilometre-an-hour road is going to make our lives better, make our lives easier, and generally help people get around and get on with the things that they need to do. Thank you very much.

Look, thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll do my best. I’ve come into the role relatively recently, but I’ll do my best to answer the questions here. I just want to acknowledge the Justice Committee, which has done a very good job to work through this piece of legislation and make some improvements.

Regarding the point-to-point speed cameras, they are used internationally, and for the most part they’re on open road. While I haven’t had a chance to talk to officials in depth about this, I doubt whether there will be many in 30-kilometre-an-hour areas. The member asked the question: do we have a role to make it easier? Yes, in part, but when it comes to road rules, actually safer is the focus of what we’re trying to do here. If it was a 30-kilometre-an-hour sign, it would most likely be highly populated or there would be roadworks. The chances of those being over 2 kilometres, maybe they would be, but I doubt whether we would have point-to-point cameras in such a situation. For the most part, they will be on open roads.

I have asked officials to ensure that where they are put up, there must be signs—that’s what the legislation says—that it will be in an area and over a distance where you can accurately assess what might be speeding or so. So they are one of many tools in the tool box to make our roads safer. We have too many people who are run over, particularly around roadworks—hit in roadworks or hit in pedestrian areas. So look, we’re trying to do our best here. I think the member’s questions about 30kilometre-an-hour zones and fixed speed cameras or point-to-point is not really relevant in this because for the most part they’ll be on open roads.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I have some exciting remarks to make on the Land Transport (Road Safety) Amendment Bill and as usual it’s traditional to acknowledge the large crowd that gathers for such occasions. But if you will indulge me actually on that note, Madam Chair, I do want to acknowledge those valedictorians who are about to give their final remarks, and they will no doubt have some actually exciting remarks to make.

I’ve enjoyed working with Jan Logie on many occasions in relation to her role as musterer and mine as whip; Eugenie Sage—the Hon Eugenie Sage, no less—particularly on the Regulations Review Committee in which she was a very astute member; and the Hon Poto Williams, who I remember came up to Warkworth within my electorate in her role as police Minister and gave a very good account of the Government’s gratitude to those fine members of our community who do so much for us.

In relation to the bill itself, I just wonder if the Minister can turn his mind to new section 102A, in clause 17A. This is about the “Appeal to Police against impoundment of vehicle” under a particular section, and I think it’s appropriate that the bill allows an appeal mechanism. We’ve got quite a strict power whereby a vehicle can be impounded quite rapidly and we’ve talked before about how that’s a protective measure in order to get engagement in the process from someone who’s likely behaved badly, albeit that they haven’t necessarily received a criminal conviction. And so there’s an appeal right and that seems appropriate, but I wonder if the Minister can offer any thoughts on how that relates to a person’s ability at the same time to complain to the Independent Police Conduct Authority and/or make an application to the courts. I don’t think the bill is trying to stop those things happening as well but they’re sort of parallel processes.

I appreciate that the Minister’s relatively new in maybe turning his mind to the bill, so, respectfully, I’d suggest that if he were able to gain some advice on that that might be helpful, just to ensure that once this bill is passed, as it soon will be, it can be interpreted and applied in a way that reflects the intention of the Government and indeed the Parliament as a whole.

I thank the member for his question and, look, nothing in the bill here prevents the right of appeal through any part of the process. And I’d just like to acknowledge that he too, along with his colleagues, is supporting what we’re trying to do with this piece of legislation here. As I say, it is very unfortunate when some people will choose to run from the police—create very dangerous situations—and so what we’re trying to do here is provide some penalties and some clear messages that if they do that, then they will lose their vehicle. And that sometimes is the most important asset that they have. So we’re making progress here.

Members, the Government has indicated that they wish to conclude urgency. Therefore, I will report progress on this bill.

Progress to be reported.

House resumed.

Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Land Transport (Road Safety) Amendment Bill and reports progress. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Members, following the valedictory statements, the House will adjourn until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 29 August. I call on Jan Logie to make her valedictory statement.