Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

I rise to take a call on the title.

Hon Tau Henare: Which one?

DARIEN FENTON: Well, there is a good question—which one; which title? I will give Tau Henare some suggestions about what it might be. I am happy to take a call on the title clause, clause 1 of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. The title, I believe, is based on the Government’s Safer Journeys road safety strategy to guide improvements in road safety over the period 2010 to 2020. Gosh, 2020 is a long time away, but it will be here before we know it. The Safer Journeys strategy, which is related to the title, has as a long-term goal: “The vision, a safe road system increasingly free of death and serious injury,”. There is no problem with that—no problem with that. It is a motherhood and apple pie kind of vision. The Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill is supposed to implement that goal.

Maybe the title should have been “Land Transport (Missed Opportunities) Amendment Bill”, because the words “Road Safety” in the title are a little misleading. Although the bill goes some way towards addressing issues in relation to improving road safety between 2010 and 2020, it ignores, of course, the elephant in the room, the missed opportunity that the title should reflect. It ignores the overwhelming evidence, including that in the Safer Journeys document, which the title of the bill is based on and which is what this bill is supposed to be about. It ignores the elephant in the room, which is the lowering of the adult drink-drive blood-alcohol limit from 0.08 grams to 0.05. It could have been done in this legislation. If it had been, maybe the title could have been “Land Transport (Road Safety: Labour is Here to Help) Amendment Bill”. If the Minister of Transport had accepted my amendment to Part 1, we could all now be going forward on this bill feeling pretty happy about it. The public would have been feeling pretty happy about it, too, because the missed opportunity to save 15 to 33 lives every year would have been taken up.

Unfortunately, the Minister has kicked the issue into touch. We have a 2-year research period for getting more evidence, when the evidence is already there. More lives will be lost and more money will be wasted, when we did not need to have that. Maybe the title of the bill could be “Land Transport (Road Safety: What a Waste of Money and Time) Bill”.

Hon Steve Chadwick: Cop out!

DARIEN FENTON: Well, there is another good suggestion for the title. It could be the “Land Transport (Road Safety: the Government Copped Out) Amendment Bill”, because the Minister has copped out on this issue. It could be the “Land Transport (Road Safety but Only If We Feel Like It) Amendment Bill”, or it could be the “Land Transport (Road Safety: Let’s Drink Three-quarters of a Bottle of Wine and We Can Still Drive) Amendment Bill”, and we could just not worry about it.

Hon Tau Henare: I know the member couldn’t.

DARIEN FENTON: There are many possible titles. Seeing that the member Tau Henare is taking such an interest in the title and in my contribution on the title, I ask him to stand up and respond to some of those titles and let me know what he thinks. I think there are much more creative titles than the ones I have suggested that would fit this bill and would be more suitable than the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.

The “Other Matters” part is really interesting, too. I was thinking about it, and wondering what fitted into the “Road Safety” bit and what fitted into the “Other Matters” bit. I am not really sure. All of this bill is about road safety, so what are the “Other Matters”? Maybe they are all of the repeal, revocations, and consequential amendments that are in Part 2 and the schedules. Maybe those are the “Other Matters” bit. Some very obscure Acts that I have never heard of are being repealed or amended by Part 2 and the schedules.

I will also take the opportunity—having been denied a lengthy debate on Part 1, and on Part 2 after rightly challenging the Chair—to accept the call of the Chair. It means we will have a little rave on the title of this Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I would call it the “Land Transport (Partial Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill”, because I believe—

Hon Tau Henare: There’s got to be a law against this sort of thing.

Hon STEVE CHADWICK: —if Tau Henare could just listen to the evidence—that it is a very sad day, when we get an opportunity to have such a massive bill before the Committee, that we have wasted the opportunity to do the right thing.

We have wasted the opportunity to do the right thing here, and there will be up to 66 lives lost while the Minister garners evidence, when he knows from the ministerial adviser to the Prime Minister that that evidence is already here. We are now facing a very similar type of debate to one that was running in the UK just recently, which shows, entirely, that this Government will not go near anything at all that touches what its members call that nerve of social legislation.

Members opposite who have a good conscience have said to me that they are not allowed to vote on any social legislation. The Prime Minister has told them that in the first term of Government they are not to introduce any social legislation, after Labour’s bold initiatives in the 9 years we were in Government. I say to Tau Henare that it was Labour that brought in the Law Commission report on alcohol, which is the guiding document for all other legislation that impacts on alcohol, and here is the golden opportunity in this “Land Transport (Partial Road Safety but Not Far Enough and Other Matters) Amendment Bill”.

We know that the Prime Minister wrote to the Ministry of Transport officials and this is the reply he received. He was told the public would react badly to a cut in the drink-driving limit, even though research and polls show that most drivers are keen to see the limit reduced. How sad! This was one crack at land transport legislation that could have been universally accepted by all parties in this Chamber but for the issue of the driver-licensing age and the blood-alcohol limit. I think it is very sad. It mimics what goes on globally. This debate has just happened in the United Kingdom, and there Ministers of the Crown were advised by doctors and physicians about their lost opportunity too for reducing alcohol-related deaths and morbidity on the roads.

Michael Woodhouse is yawning, as if the loss of lives and morbidity on the roads does not matter. To us over here it does matter. We know the evidence is already there about reducing the blood-alcohol limit from 0.08 grams to 0.05 grams, but the Minister will sit on his hands, prevaricate, and ignore evidence-based research that has been put by the Chief Science Adviser to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has copped out of giving leadership to this country and leadership to the children of this country by setting an example to young people and saying it is not good enough to go out there and drink and drive. Here was the opportunity.

The Minister in the chair, the Minister of Transport, could have shown leadership. I think he wanted to, but he got bowled by his own leader, the Prime Minister, who rode roughshod over him, and went directly to the Ministry of Transport advisers. They gave him the advice, which we have here, that he would get a bad public reaction to this, so the Prime Minister decided that we would not go there, even though 70 percent of those polled tell the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport that this is what should be done.

I also acknowledge the legacy of the Hon Darren Hughes in this debate. Darren fought very hard in this debate in the House, and he took on the Minister of Transport. I enjoyed the repartee between the two of them. Darren came near to convincing the Minister of Transport that this was a good idea. I think a legacy to Darren Hughes would be to acknowledge that we could have, today, called this bill the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Bill, but we cannot. We are here, in the title debate, making a half-hearted attempt at road safety.

I move, That the question be now put.

I am very pleased that I have the call to talk about the commencement dates—the various commencement dates, actually—of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. The bill is structured quite differently from most bills we have been debating in this Chamber, in that it has four different times at which various parts of the legislation will come into being. I invite the Minister in charge of this bill, Steven Joyce, to give some insight into why we have four different time frames for various sections of this legislation to come into being.

We have the bill in front of us, and I want to let listeners know that a whole series of clauses will come into force 90 days after the date of Royal assent. They seem to be mainly—clause 6 is one of them—a grouping of issues about the way that licensing will happen. That is what they appear to be to me, but it would be great to get some clarification from the Minister himself.

Then there is another group of clauses. They seem clearer to me, because they are about taking blood specimens. I expect that this group is about letting our health system prepare for a new way of dealing with blood specimens, because clauses 31 to 35 and clause 37, which happen to be about the way in which blood specimens will be dealt with by our health system, will come into force 180 days after the date of Royal assent. So one bunch of new rules is coming in 90 days after the date of Royal assent, and another bunch is coming in 180 days after the date of Royal assent.

Then there is a third group, which seems to be mainly about the issues that have been mostly debated in this bill—

Michael Woodhouse: All for good reasons, Sue. If you’d been in the committee you’d understand why it was like that.

SUE MORONEY: Well, I invite the member Michael Woodhouse, who was on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, to get up and give clarification, because we are debating the commencement clause and it is important for the Committee of the whole House to understand the insights the select committee members had on that clause. I would be really pleased to hear Michael Woodhouse take a call to enlighten me on this issue.

The clauses in the third group seem to be about the zero blood-alcohol limit, which Tau Henare was so confused about. They seem to be about the new interlock system that we can use. But we are not told how many days after Royal assent the clauses will come in. The dates are even more vague—if that is possible. Clause 2(3) states that these particular clauses—and I will not read them all out; there are a number of them—“come into force on a date to be appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council, and 1 or more orders may be made appointing different dates for different provisions.” So we could have about a dozen, probably up to 18, different dates for each of those clauses to come in; that seems to be a bit of a shambles. Then clause 2(4) states that everything else, the rest of the Act, “comes into force on the day after the date of Royal assent.” Probably, by my estimation, there are about 30 different dates, then, on which all of this legislation could come into being, and I think that that will be very, very confusing.

It will be very confusing for the authorities who need to administer this Act, including the police. I think the police will have a bit of a nightmare working out which provision comes in when. Most of the provisions of the Act are coming in the day after the date of Royal assent. Then about a dozen clauses will come in 90 days after the date of Royal assent, and three clauses, which all seem to apply to the health system, will come in 180 days after the date of Royal assent. As I said before, about 18—I have not stopped to count them—different clauses will come in on a date we do not know about, and they might all come in on different dates, according to the commencement clause. So it is really important for the Committee of the whole House to understand exactly what is going on with what I think are the approximately 30 or more different dates on which the various provisions of this bill are to be enacted, and the reasons behind that.

Why I ask the question—and I really would like the Minister to respond—[Interruption] Tau Henare may not be interested in the shambles the police might be left with over the dates on which they will have to deal with various parts of the Act coming in, but I certainly am. I would expect that the Minister of Police, Judith Collins, might be really keen to hear what the explanation is, and exactly how the police will deal with different parts of the Act coming in at different times. They will need to understand that, in order to do their planning. Legislation like this makes quite a big difference to the police force in the way it will be administered, so it is really important that the police understand which clauses are going to come in after 90 days, and whether those clauses are the bits they are to administer. The Ministry of Health needs to understand, so that it can get its orders and instructions out to hospitals up and down the country, in relation to the provisions that come in after 180 days and that seem to apply to them. The ministry needs to know how it will manage those provisions.

I will have to look at various clauses, because all of the next bunch will actually come into force on a date that, as stated in clause 2(3), “may be made appointing different dates for different provisions.” Those clauses are clauses 5, 6, 16, 21, 22, 24, 28, and so on. I will not read through them all, but, for example, clause 5 is about “Drivers to be licensed”. That is the provision that takes away the concept of a limited licence, which we are used to in this country, and brings in three new licences. There is “an alcohol interlock licence”—so that will obviously be an issue for the licensing authority—“a zero alcohol licence, or a limited licence”.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.

SUE MORONEY: I will take full advantage of the 2 minutes I have left to debate the commencement clause, because before the dinner break I was seeking clarification. I am hoping that the Minister who is responsible for this bill will be able to cast some light on the matter, because it is very confusing. Clause 5, for example, is about the new ways in which drivers will be licensed for “an alcohol interlock licence, a zero alcohol licence, or a limited licence.” Those are all new categories. That provision will come in—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry to interrupt the member. It is a longstanding convention in this Chamber that members should not conduct conversations in the Chamber unless it is necessary to do so, and then not to disturb the proceedings and the member speaking.

SUE MORONEY: The clause I just referred to will come into force, under clause 2(3), “on a date to be appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council, and 1 or more orders may be made appointing different dates for different provisions.” That gives us no clue about the sort of time frame when that particular clause will come into force. It is a very important clause, because it is about the new licensing regime that will be brought in by this bill. Yet part of the very next clause, clause 6(1), will come into force 90 days after the Royal assent. Clause 6 is the clause stating that drivers are not to exceed specified alcohol limits. It is all very confusing.

I think it will be very confusing for the authorities who will need to operationalise this legislation, because they will not have any idea when they will be able to issue those new licences. The commencement clause, clause 2, gives no clue whatsoever about when—even roughly when—that new regime will come into being; subclause (3) states that the date will be “appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council,” and that it could come into force on “different dates for different provisions.”

It is my contention that we are no further ahead, in terms of this commencement clause, about when these provisions will be coming in. I think they are really important provisions, because I know that families out there want to know when their 15-year-olds will be able to sit for their licences, or whether they will have to wait until they are 16. It is really important for this to be understood.

This bill really should be called the “Recidivist Drink-driver, We Are Going to Ping You Bill”.

Darien Fenton: It’s your Government’s bill.

Hon TAU HENARE: Well, maybe it should be called the “We Are Here, the Opposition Is There, and We Will Get on with What We Were Elected to Do Bill”. Maybe it should be called the “We Didn’t Have 10 Years When We Sat on Our Backsides Doing Nothing; We Have Had Only 2 Years and Look Where We Are Now Bill”. The folly in what we have been hearing from Opposition members is that the bill does not fit with any one title that they have given us to debate.

Really there are two issues. There is the issue of the recidivist drink-driver who continues to drink-drive, maim, hurt, and, in some cases, kill. We are saying that we will target those people, and that is what the title is all about. That is what the essence of the bill is all about.

The bill is not designed for Kelvin Davis’ auntie, who has the odd sherry, wanders down Kāretu Road, and gets stopped by Paddy Whiu or whoever.

Kelvin Davis: It’s square gin up there; that’s what they drink.

Hon TAU HENARE: Well, square gin then—I am sorry. In Mōtatau we do not do anything like that. Our drink is milk out of the cow.

That is the folly in the argument of members opposite tonight. They say we are not doing anything for safety.

Sue Moroney: You’ve got to listen to New Zealanders. You’re not listening.

Hon TAU HENARE: Oh, we listened. In fact, the evidence shows that most of the people who are a danger to society fall into two categories. One—

Hon Rick Barker: That’s an obscene sign.

Hon TAU HENARE: Sorry. There are two categories.

Hon Rick Barker: Are you in the Mongrel Mob?

Hon TAU HENARE: No, this is the sign of the Headhunters. One category of driver is the young person, the new driver. There should be a zero alcohol limit—those people should not be allowed to drink and drive—yeah, totally.

Sue Moroney: Really? That’s a bit loony left, isn’t it?

Hon TAU HENARE: No, it is not. Apparently the lady from Melville is saying that proposal is loony left, but it is not really.

The other category is the recidivist drink-driver. He is the one—and it is normally a he, so I will use the generic—

Hon Member: Sexist!

Hon TAU HENARE: Well, OK, I am sorry. I belong to the National Party and not to the gaggle opposite. I apologise. Those are the two target areas that we are trying to fix up on the community’s behalf. That is what the bill should be called. It should be the “We Will Ping You If You Continue to Do Bad in Our Community Bill”.

I have to say that I have heard some violent stories from Kelvin Davis and Kris Faafoi. They were heart-wrenching stories, but I just cannot understand why those members were trying to blame the Minister of Transport for what happened to the people involved. That was the essence of their decision to use those two stories. I tell members this: maybe the people those members mentioned would be alive if the drivers who caused those accidents had been pinged a lot earlier. That is exactly what this bill does.

This bill puts out there a safety net for our community—that is all. I have no problem standing in this Chamber tonight and saying that the existing title hits the nail dead smack on the head. Members opposite can get up and talk about what the title could be, and what it might be in fantasyland, but the reality is this: we won, sit down, move on, and let us do what we were elected to do.

As always it is a privilege and a pleasure to follow the Hon Tau Henare. What arrogance he just demonstrated in talking about clauses 1, 2, and 3 of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. Before the dinner break I asked him why he is always here in the Chamber yelling out, when he has so little influence on his Government. His Government is so out of touch. If it was in touch it would be amending the legislation to decrease the legal blood-alcohol concentration limit from 0.08 grams per 100 millilitres to 0.05 grams per 100 millilitres of blood. We have raged on that issue in the debate, but I still do not understand why this bill does not amend the principal Act to ensure the legal blood-alcohol limit falls. We all know, and we have all heard the arguments all night—

Hon Tau Henare: The country is lucky you are not the Minister of Transport.

DARIEN FENTON: The country is lucky that Tau Henare is not the Minister of anything. Thank goodness for that. May we never see that day—and, in fact, I think we never will.

I express my disappointment that the blood-alcohol concentration limit has been kicked into touch by the Minister of Transport. He did not have the fortitude to do something about it when he had the opportunity, so the principal Act will be amended without the blood-alcohol concentration limit being amended.

I did not have the opportunity to speak earlier on, so the other issue I want to address in talking about the principal Act being amended—

Michael Woodhouse: In the title?

DARIEN FENTON: —in clause 3, “Principal Act amended”—is the provision in clause 12 that raises the minimum driver-licensing age.

Hon Tau Henare: I thought you were going to raise the minimum wage.

DARIEN FENTON: That is a good idea, actually.

Hon Tau Henare: What’s that got to do with the bill?

DARIEN FENTON: Well, you brought it up—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

DARIEN FENTON: I apologise, Mr Chair, but I am being sorely provoked from across the Chamber.

In this bill, which amends the principal Act, clause 12 raises the minimum driver-licensing age. As we have said in debate tonight and earlier, we do not support this clause. We have some difficulties with it. I make it really clear that Labour is extremely sympathetic to some of the comments the Minister made earlier on. No one in this country, including the Labour Opposition, wants to see young people dying on our roads unnecessarily. No one wants to see that. But our difficulty with this provision, which amends the principal Act, is that there is not the evidence that the issue is around age. The issue of age versus education versus time on the roads and so on has not been explored. We know from the evidence, of course, that young drivers actually become more dangerous when they have had some experience, not when they start driving. We have a problem with the fact that the overall effect of these changes is that young drivers will have to be 17 before they can obtain a restricted licence. That causes enormous problems in a struggling economy. In a struggling economy not everyone will stay at school. Kids have to stay at school till they are 16, but many of them want to go and study or go out and do jobs. They may even work part-time. The country is in such a parlous state that many kids now have to go out and work part-time just to help their families.

David Shearer: If they can get a job.

DARIEN FENTON: If there are any jobs out there, of course. Then, of course, they will receive the minimum wage, which had a miserable 25c-an-hour increase from 1 April. How are those families supposed to cope with the fact that their 15 or 16-year-old will not be able to go to work after school or do any study? They will not be able to take up study. It is fine to talk about study and doing things for our young people to bring them through—I hear Paula Bennett going on about that all the time—but what happens if they cannot actually get there?

The real difficulty is that in Auckland, where I live, there are no alternative means for those kids to get from home to work. We have a real issue about public transport in Auckland. Even though Labour did an enormous amount around it, we now have a Government that just wants to build roads everywhere and spend a fortune on roads of national significance—roads of national significance that mean nothing to 15 and 16-year-olds who are trying to get from home to work to earn a little bit extra to help their family to support themselves. The reality is that the cost of living is having a dire impact on families. Because wages are not going up—the minimum wage is pathetic—children, 15 and 16-year-olds, are now contributing to the family’s income. How on earth are they supposed to get to work?

The other thing I thought was that, in amending the principal Act, the Government would have been more sympathetic to its rural supporters. Federated Farmers and Rural Women New Zealand are good organisations that made very straightforward submissions to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee about their concerns about how young people in our rural areas were supposed to get around from one place to another. They might be going to school, going to college, or going to work. This Government has shown it does not care. It has shown it is out of touch with 15 and 16-year-old young people, not only in our urban communities but also in rural communities. This Government does not listen; it is not listening. It is completely out of touch. There were discussions during the select committee process about alternatives, and I know that exemptions for young people who need to go to work or who are in rural communities were explored, but the Government said nothing about that alternative. It is not interested in it.

I go back to what I started with. Labour is extremely concerned, along with everybody else, about the crash statistics for our 15 to 19-year-olds. We are very concerned about that. As I said, no one wants to see our young people dying unnecessarily on the roads. We have a high teenage crash rate, but let us be clear about it: the problem is not when they start driving, it is not when they sign up at 15 to get their learner licence; it is later on. I think the ACT member talked about the figure of 100 hours. That is what the statistics and the information tell us. I am really disturbed that we are punishing our young people. It looks like the Government is tackling a problem, but it is doing it without evidence—it is doing it without thinking about whether the problem is age, driver education, or experience. The Government has called for 2 years of research on lowering the blood-alcohol concentration limit—it is prepared to do that. It says it will not make a decision even though the evidence is already overwhelming, and even though the public want it. Given that, I would have thought with this other issue the Government would take a consistent approach: find the evidence, and find out whether age, driver experience, or driver education makes a difference.

In this legislation amending the principal Act, the Labour Opposition is extremely disappointed with two things. One is the amendment to the minimum driver-licensing age, which will have an impact on our young people. The other is the cop-out that this Government has demonstrated by refusing to take up the evidence and the call of the public—the New Zealand public—to reduce the blood-alcohol concentration limit from 0.08 grams to 0.05 grams. As we have said, we really support a lot of the amendments in the bill; we think they are good steps forward. I add that those steps build on the work Labour did when it was in Government, despite what the National Government has said. I do not know whether it has taken any notice, but there was a whole programme called See You There—Safe As around improving road safety. In fact, road safety has been improving steadily for a long time. It improved under Labour. With this Government we see no goals for improving it; it has a vague vision about reducing accidents and injuries. Of course, everybody will say that is a good thing. “Road Safety” is in the title of the bill, but there is no real commitment to looking at some of the things that actually matter, like the impact of changing the driver-licensing age and the blood-alcohol concentration limit.

I am delighted to speak to the title of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I think it is a perfectly well-named bill. It is all about road safety, which is what this amendment bill is doing. I was talking at the end of the first reading regarding our alcohol culture; I will pick up from there. We have a youth drinking problem. I know that the law reform bill that is currently before the House will go some way towards addressing that problem. Certainly, youth have been targeted.

I really wanted to take the opportunity to talk about FebFast. At the end of February, when FebFast finished, we did not have a time to acknowledge it, because we had the Christchurch earthquake. It just really was not the right time to do it. News came out today that the people who supported FebFast raised over $100,000, which goes towards youth drinking programmes and education. That is absolutely wonderful. I acknowledge Iain Lees-Galloway, who led the Labour team for FebFast; I led the National team for FebFast.

As role models, as leaders, and as MPs we can do a lot to help change the culture of drinking in this country. There are many ways that we need to look at to deal with this problem, not just through legislation. In many respects, change comes from the ground up, and it is often community-driven. I say: “Well done to everyone who supported FebFast.” I certainly look forward to next year’s FebFast.

New Zealand has not been doing very well in its road safety statistics. The Minister told us, earlier in the evening, that we have bad statistics. Our fatality rate is 60 percent worse than the rate in Australia. We are lagging behind, and that is really not good enough. Our youth are at risk, along with drivers who reoffend—drivers who drink alcohol and are over the limit. But youth particularly are of concern. In my speech on Part 1, I said that 15 to 24-year-olds are overrepresented in the statistics. They represent 14 percent of our population and equate to 16 percent of all licensed drivers, yet in 2008 they were involved in around 37 percent of all fatal crashes. Those statistics are quite shocking. That age group was also involved in 38 percent of all serious injury crashes. Those statistics are very, very sobering and very concerning.

That is not satisfactory, so we have to focus on youth. This bill does exactly that. It calls for a zero alcohol limit, but, importantly, education is a key part of this legislation. It aims to improve all road safety education that is available and to increase access to it. I am very pleased that the bill allows approved defensive driving courses to be undertaken in the learner-licence phase. I think that everyone from time to time, not just youth, should take a refresher course. It would suit all members, and everyone who drives in New Zealand. It is something that everyone should consider doing, from time to time.

But it is important that the bill proposes to increase the licensing age to 16. Members on this side absolutely support that proposal. It is the right way to go. As I said in my speech on the second reading, when I was learning to drive there were 1 million vehicles on the road. Now there are 3 million vehicles on the road. Now it is busier, the cars are more powerful, and drivers need to have their wits about them, particularly in big cities. I am sorry, but the brain of a 15-year-old and the brain of a 16-year-old, I am sure, physiologically might be very similar, but I think in maturity they are worlds apart. I think that every year that passes before a driver first embarks on driving, the better it is, because driving uses a lot of sensory information and coordination. Certainly, when the consultation phase of Safer Journeys, which is the Government’s road safety policy going forward to 2020, was embarked upon, it showed there was clear public support for raising the age of driving to 16. Members on this side stand by that policy, and there is no question about that.

Other shocking data has been released recently and it all adds to support for this amendment bill, which is all about road safety.

This is my first opportunity to take part in the debate on the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. One of the other matters to do with road safety that Labour believes is missing from this legislation is the reduction of the adult blood-alcohol limit from 0.08 grams to 0.05 grams. This is a measure that has massive amounts of support out in the public. It is beyond me that National, which is normally very poor in showing leadership and fails to advance an issue unless it has been focused-grouped to within an inch of its life, cannot look at the public support for a measure to reduce the blood-alcohol limit to a level that will actually capture drivers who are impaired, and will bring down that limit to a point where drivers have to be under a level at which they are impaired, to be on the road.

Given the amount of public support out there for that measure, I cannot believe that it has not been advanced in this bill. I mean, that is what National is all about. It is what conservative politics are all about. They are about waiting until somebody else tells politicians what to do. The public have told the Government what to do. They would love to see this bill focus on reducing accidents caused by drink-drivers, by having that level reduced, but it is not there in the bill.

I suppose that one of the other matters—the title refers to “Road Safety and Other Matters”—is the fact that this is one of the few occasions when Steven Joyce has been rolled on an issue. Steven Joyce runs that Cabinet; everybody knows that. This is one of the occasions when he has actually been rolled. Steven Joyce came out and said it was ridiculous that he could drink the amount required in order to get to 0.08 grams and still be able to drive. But what happened? In typical conservative politics, the Government got scared. It got scared that there would be some sort of public backlash. I do not know where it thought the public backlash would come from, because the support for this measure is overwhelming. But the Government got scared and it backed down, even though Steven Joyce, the man who always looks after the optics, the man who runs that Cabinet, was rolled. That is why this particular measure has been removed from the bill.

I would like to pick up on Jackie Blue’s point about FebFast. The news out today is fantastic. FebFast raised $100,000 for youth alcohol programmes, but $100,000 is, unfortunately, a drop in the bucket in terms of what is required. I note that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, in reporting back on this bill, saw early intervention and greater public health measures to support people with alcohol problems, and to support drink-drivers to kick alcohol problems, as real positives, but that the committee felt that those matters should fall outside the scope of this bill. This bill is about road safety and other matters. One of those other matters could have been more support for drug and alcohol services, but the select committee said no, that fell outside the purview of this bill.

But the truth is that the cuts that we are seeing this Government make to the health service in New Zealand mean that those services will not be available, and we will not be able to tackle the problem of recidivist drink-driving. There are larger prison sentences, and we can put a few more people into prison. But in terms of actually tackling the problem, the Government has failed to do that not only in this bill but also in the other activities that it is undertaking by cutting the money provided for the health services. This Government is making sure that there will be—

Michael Woodhouse: No wonder he is worried about Leonie, if this is all he has to say.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Who?

Michael Woodhouse: The person whose business you protested outside.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Oh, the word has got back to head office. Ha, ha! Anyway, the member opposite would like to talk about the campaign in Palmerston North. We will have plenty of opportunities to talk about that at some other time. But let us talk about this bill, because it is clear that National—[Interruption] I tell you what; if the member who is interjecting wants to talk about asset sales, we can.

My, and Tau Henare’s, esteemed elder from Ngāti Hine, Sir James Hēnare once said: “We have come so far not to go further. We have done so much not to do more.” That, really, should summarise the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, because it does a heck of a lot, but it does not quite go far enough. It does a lot, but it could have done more. One of the big areas where it could have done more is in reducing the blood-alcohol level from 0.08 grams to 0.05 grams. That change would save lives. It would probably have saved the lives of the three people whom I spoke about earlier tonight—

Michael Woodhouse: How many 15-year-old lives are you prepared to sacrifice? This is politics.

KELVIN DAVIS: There we go—the mouse from the south is squeaking again. He is chirping from his seat, but he does not jump up and contribute anything of any substance. As I said, that reduction would have saved lives. Instead, as Iain Lees-Galloway has said, National members were waiting for some polls. They were waiting to get the feel of the nation before they made a decision for themselves. Despite the fact that National is a party that prides itself on individual rights and individual responsibilities, those values go out the door when need be. I think National members live by the rule: “These are our values, and if you don’t like them we have others.”

Another area where I think National members have gone too far is that of raising the age from 15 to 16 for new drivers. My daughter, for example, is 15. She is coming up to 16 in June. She is going for her licence, but we, as responsible parents, have decided that she is not quite ready to sit for her licence. She is allowed to drive when there is an adult in the seat next to her, but we have said she cannot go for the next stage until we think she is ready, and she will not be ready for another couple of months. That is our choice, as responsible parents, and I thought that was what National members stood for—individual rights and individual choice.

But, of course, in an instance like this National members throw those values right out the window and choose others. They are a bit scared of what the polls would say—sorry, I should not have said that. But National is a party that has to wait for the feedback from focus groups, which ring around and find out what people will say. They test the waters with their little toe, and when things do not—[Interruption] I think it was Winston Peters who said: “You don’t test the water with both feet. Only a fool does that.”

This whole issue of raising the new-driver age to 16 hurts those of us who live in rural areas. In Kaitāia we have a fledgling bus company that runs on biofuel—would you believe it. Kaitāia is the centre, and the company services an area that is about an hour and a half north, about 45 minutes east, and about 40 minutes west. This is a fledgling bus company. It is not as though there is a bus at the bus stop every 5 minutes, as we would find in the city centres.

The people up north cannot rely on a public transport service, so we need our kids to be able to drive. We have sports fields. Kaitāia is the centre, but there are a lot of sports fields in outlying areas. Kids from Kaitāia need to get out to their sports practices, and this bill will make things just a little bit more difficult.

It was interesting to hear Jackie Blue say there are many more cars on the road these days, and many more since she got her licence. That is true, and it makes us wonder why this Government is promoting policies that put more cars on the road. Why cannot the Government look at policies that remove cars and trucks from the road, such as investing in public transport and investing in a decent rail network across the country? As I said earlier—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. I advise members on both sides of the Chamber that interjections should be directed to the person who has the floor. There should be no private engagement between members who do not have the floor. It is totally out of order, and it is discourteous.

KELVIN DAVIS: Thank you Mr Chair, but it is all right. We know that the Hon Tau Henare’s best days are behind him, and Hillary College was a long time ago.

I am not sure why this Government keeps perpetuating policies that put more cars on the road, instead of looking at ways of taking cars off the road and creating safer roads in that way. Government members talk about the Safer Journeys document. Surely removing heavy traffic from Northland’s winding and shockingly upgraded roads would make life safer for us up in the north.

The booze bus is a regular visitor to Kaitāia, because the police keep on catching people who drink and drive. I think we need to send a message to drink-drivers that we are getting harder and we will accept a lesser level of intoxication. I think that message should have been sent home, and it is a missed opportunity by this Government. It should have reduced the blood-alcohol level to 0.05 grams. As Sir James Hēnare said, we have come so far, but unfortunately we could have gone further. We have done a lot—I will give the Government credit—but we could have done more. Kia ora.

First of all, Mr Chairperson, I congratulate you on your new role as Assistant Speaker. I look forward to the contributions you will make in this House, as you have done previously. This is a great opportunity for me to take a call on clauses 1 to 3, which relate to the title, commencement date, and the amendment to the principal Act. A good point for me to begin with is a reassurance to Sue Moroney, who raised a few questions about commencement dates. I have those at hand, and I thought it would be worthwhile for me to comment on them. These were dates that the officials recommended to the Government. The Order in Council dates relate to matters that require—[Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I have already cautioned members about interjecting on each other when they do not have the call. It will desist.

Hon NATHAN GUY: The Order in Council dates relate to matters that require the New Zealand Transport Agency to make substantial system and information technology changes to make provision for alcohol interlocks and also zero alcohol level licences.

There are two trigger points that I think are worth mentioning. The first date is 180 days from receiving the Royal assent. That timeframe is to allow consultation with health professionals. Obviously there will be quite a few forms and new techniques required. The other trigger point of 90 days after receiving the Royal assent will prepare for publicity and allow the police to recalibrate equipment, which is really important, such as roadside breath-screening testing devices for the youth zero blood-alcohol limit, and research into the harm caused by drivers with a blood-alcohol limit of between 0.05 grams and 0.08 grams. Of course, the day after the Royal assent is when most matters dealing with the repeal of existing provisions in the Transport Act will come into force.

The other significant point that I wish to raise is the licensing age increase. Supplementary Order Paper 229 proposes to make that change to the licensing age on 1 August this year, not 90 days after the Royal assent. The date of 1 August is a Monday and very much gives some certainty to parents and caregivers of young drivers, etc. I hope that that puts Sue Moroney’s mind at rest on the commencement dates.

There has been quite a bit of discussion this evening about the blood-alcohol limit, particularly for youth drivers, and we know what is involved there. There has been quite a bit of debate from the other side, who are proposing that the blood-alcohol level be reduced to 0.05 grams. I did a little bit of research—[Interruption] Members might be interested in this. In 2001 the then Minister of Justice, Phil Goff, said: “If we are going to change the limits, there would need to be hard evidence.” Is not that amazing? So Phil Goff in 2001, as the Minister of Justice, said that we need—

Hon Member: That was 10 years ago.

Hon NATHAN GUY: That is right. In 2001 Phil Goff said that we need hard evidence. He then sat at the Cabinet table for all of that period when Labour was in Government, and he did nothing. He did absolutely nothing. Now we hear Labour members crying out in Opposition, after 9 years of doing nothing while in Government, whereas this Government is now allowing the police to collect this very important data and research.

The Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill is a very pragmatic bill, and we have seen that by the engagement we have had through the select committee process. I acknowledge members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, who are from all sides of the Chamber. I acknowledge the contributions that they have made on this important bill.

We all know that we need to do more on road safety, and I have heard from members opposite tonight that this bill does not go far enough. Well, this Government, in just a couple of years under Steven Joyce’s stewardship, has done an awful lot on road safety. I think we should be proud of what this Government has done in its first couple of years.

Darien Fenton: Nanny State—cellphones.

Hon NATHAN GUY: Now we have an interjection of “nanny State” from the other side of the Chamber. On one hand those members are saying “nanny State”, which was the catchphrase for them in the 2000s under Helen Clark, and on the other hand we have a pragmatic set of changes that will make a huge difference. We all know that our young drivers are causing a great deal of harm to themselves and to others on our roading networks—14 percent of the population causes 37 percent of fatal crashes. We are making some serious changes to address that issue, and I believe that it should have the widespread support of the Committee. I am disappointed that our Opposition wants to play politics on an issue that we are trying to address pragmatically.

Kia ora, Mr Chairperson, and let me also endorse some of the comments of previous speakers in congratulating you on your appointment as Assistant Speaker. It is good to see you in the Chair once again, and I look forward to your reminding us of the Standing Orders, one after another, for a very long time.

Previous Opposition speakers have stood and said that Labour supports the bill for a number of reasons, but I am actually quite amused by the contribution made by my colleague the Hon Tau Henare, who suggested that the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be renamed the “Drink-drivers Are Going to Get Pinged Bill”, which is probably what he believes. I would endorse that to a point. I would say that we should rename the bill the “Drink-drivers Are Going to Get Pinged (but They Can Still Have a Couple of Beers More Before They Do Get Pinged) Bill”, because what this bill fails to do is to take notice of public opinion. The public opinion is that the blood-alcohol limit should be lowered from 0.08 grams to 0.05 grams, and that clearly is something that the Government has ignored. As we know, it is very dangerous to ignore strong public opinion, particularly when it comes to matters of public safety on our roads, so that is something we are quite disappointed to see in terms of this bill.

However, it is logical that we support this bill for a number of reasons, such as the zero limit for repeat drink-drivers and the zero limit for drivers under 20—and we have seen much of that happen in recent years; actually, over the past decade or so—the alcohol interlocks for repeat offenders, and the doubling of the minimum prison term for drink-driving, drug-driving, or reckless driving that causes death. These are all issues that affect all our communities. These are the issues that many of us, as parents, fear every time our young people leave home to go out and socialise with their friends, and all the time that they are out we sit at home wondering whether they are OK.

We in this Chamber should do everything possible to ensure that our young people are OK when they go out and socialise, and that is why the Labour Opposition says that this bill does not go anywhere near to being enough to satisfy our concerns as we sit at home that our young people, our tamariki and our mokopuna, are safe out there on the streets and also that they are not endangering the lives of others. It is important that we have a rigorous debate about this particular legislation, knowing that at some time or another it may affect any one of us in this Chamber in the most tragic way.

I heard previous speakers refer to family circumstances. I am fortunate to have four sons. I have a 15-year-old who is coming up on 16 and who is currently about to go for his probationary driver’s licence. I know that his teenaged ambition is to achieve that. He wants to be an automotive mechanic. Unlike my other sons, who have achieved to the very highest level in universities, he just wants to be a mechanic. He just wants to be a person who can take a motorcar to pieces and put it back together on his own. I come from a trade, as do many other people in this Chamber, and it is a satisfying achievement to have a trade behind one.

But having said that, I look at the possibility of raising the age limit to 16 in terms of young people acquiring their driver’s licence, and I think that my son will be fortunate to acquire his driver’s licence at that age and enter an automotive mechanics course at the Bay of Plenty Polytechnic, and from there he can achieve just about anything he wants. If this legislation should come into force, though, it may be that it will restrict the ability of our young people in the future to achieve what many other young men and women have already achieved. On these courses, a probationary driver’s licence is a necessity. One cannot get on to the course without it, and that makes a lot of sense. How would someone fix a motorcar—pull it to pieces and put it back together—if he or she does not know how to drive it? It is like many other things. If we do not understand how the particular pieces of machinery work, we will never become an expert at working on them. I want the Government to actually think about that. Although it is attempting to promote public safety, albeit in a mediocre way, it may also be limiting opportunities.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chairperson.

Hon Tau Henare: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I just seek clarification. Can you give me some clarification and point to where it states in the Standing Orders that when two members from different sides of the Chamber get up, a member from the same side as previously gets the call again?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): First of all, that is at the discretion of the Chair. Secondly, once I have called a member, I cannot take the call away from that member. I recognise the concern that the member has expressed, and I have noted that. The call has already been given.

Hon SHANE JONES: Mr Chair, tēnā koe. It is very important that we note that your encyclopaedic knowledge of the arcane rules of Parliament has demonstrated that Tau represents zero waste, because in order for waste to occur, there has to be a product. For the entirety of this evening there has been no product. There has actually been an enormous amount of fog, an enormous amount of confusion, where that member prepared to deliver to his own Minister his commitment to vote against the bill. Mr Tau Henare had not chosen to read the bill; he did not realise that members on this side of the Chamber actually applaud some of what the Minister is doing in terms of taking a zero-tolerance approach towards very young and vulnerable drivers. Please, can we enable the Minister to provide that message to Mr Tau Henare.

I will talk about the title of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I suggest that it be called the “Land and Marine Transport (Road and Marine Safety) Bill”, as that would enable us to actually address the issue of the day, which is the gross danger and absence of safety in the marine environment today. There has been a total absence, a total disinterest, on the part of the Acting—and I use that term in its fullest meaning—Minister of Energy and Resources. I wish that the title of this bill had been expanded, because that would have enabled us to address one of the larger safety issues today. It does relate to transport: it relates to the intrepid yachties who are bobbing around out there, defending the rights of the tangata whenua up and down the Tai Rāwhiti, and who have been long since forgotten about by members on the other side of the Chamber. All that those people are doing is ensuring that their democratic rights are protected, as they are transported around by yachts and as they stand against the dangers represented by exploration activity in the absence of environmental safeguards. That level of safety could have been addressed had we changed the title of this bill.

I also want to talk about the commencement date. I thank the Minister in the chair, the Hon Nathan Guy, for explaining to the Committee that there is a reason why all these dates and segments have been identified. It provides an opportunity for the police and various other agencies to prepare to enforce these rules. But that causes us to look at the Royal assent. I bring members’ attention to clause 2(4): “The rest of this Act comes into force on the day after the date of Royal assent.” Royal assent has a very proud and rich history. It goes right back to the Royal Council, at a time when Parliament was a pawn of the Sovereign. We have come right forward, although I feel it is necessary for me to point out to a number of members that in the time of King Henry VIII he sought to avoid using the Royal assent when he sought to execute his fifth wife. The prospect of execution—

Hon Tau Henare: You’ve been watching Robin Hood again.

Hon SHANE JONES:—and the most voluble member over there is actually—

Hon Tau Henare: I’ve seen this movie.

Hon SHANE JONES: Sir, please counsel the member. If he keeps going on like that, he will have another heart attack. He is getting too feverish; he runs the risk of having another heart attack. King Henry VIII, and I think it was some time in the 1500s, as he sought to execute his fifth wife, was not interested in personally exercising the Royal assent, and at that point he was able to deputise to commissioners so that he could effect the outcome and take his place in history.

Hon Tau Henare: Who played Henry?

Hon SHANE JONES: The term of execution and that member’s voice—they are inseparable. The execution, unfortunately, for that member will be delivered by his colleagues. When we use the term “zero” we are actually thinking about that poor man’s prospects. He has zero prospect of finding a seat.

Thank you, Mr Chairman; it is an inspired decision. I am delighted to take a call on the title of, and the commencement date for, the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, but before I do, I wonder whether members will indulge me while I elaborate on the interjection on Mr Davis before the dinner break. I do not want him to think that I was being insensitive to the story he was telling in asking the question. I think that as he is not a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, he may not have known what “BAC” was. He looked a bit blank. But, sad though his uncle’s death was—and I say the same with regard to Mr Faafoi’s story—the point and the question I was asking was what the blood-alcohol content in his system was when he passed away. The fact of the matter is—

Kelvin Davis: 0.07.

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Is the member putting that in Hansard now as an interjection, knowing it to be true? All right, it must be true, because he has put it in Hansard. There we have it on record: it was 0.07 grams. That is very interesting.

Labour members have spoken at length about research—some 300 pieces of research—that they claim demonstrates unequivocally that people are safer at 0.05 grams than at 0.08 grams. In fact, those 300 pieces of research do not say anything like that. What they establish is that the greater the level of alcohol content, the higher the risk. Well, that is hardly a revelation, is it? That has been known for a very long period of time. Some studies will go to a risk curve of between 0.05 grams and 0.08 grams, but the simple question, which is the premise of this bill and the reason for the collection of the research, still has not been answered—that is, if a person has a blood-alcohol content of 0.05 grams to 0.08 grams, how many of the deaths and serious injuries on our roads are caused by people with that blood-alcohol content where those people are at fault? The simple fact is that we do not know.

Although we have a bill that is named the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, that question could fall into either of those categories, because it is a road safety question, but it definitely also falls into the “Other Matters” category. It is on the other matters that I will briefly touch. One of the disappointing aspects of the Committee stage of this bill is that there are so many other matters that I expected members like Darien Fenton would have raised, because the bill goes to the issue of road truck safety. She made very few references to that—I think she made one brief comment about it—and none of the very excellent changes that this bill brings about has been mentioned by Labour.

I could come up with a number of titles that Labour members might have suggested, although they did not. One could be the “Land Transport (We Are Really Keen on a 0.05 Gram Limit but We Are Prepared to Sacrifice Our 15-year-old Boys) Bill”, because that is exactly what those members are prepared to do. The unequivocal research states that those kids are far, far less safe on our roads. Just being a driver aged 15 to 19 without having had any alcohol creates a death risk five times greater than that of a 30-year-old driver. But Labour members are prepared to completely avoid any of that evidence in the interests of expediency and the fact that those 15-year-olds will be voters in 3 years’ time. Labour has given away 2011; they want those 15-year-olds to vote for Labour in 3 years’ time. As I said, I wish them good luck with that. Those members are prepared to allow those kids to kill and to maim themselves on the roads, but they are not prepared to wait for the equivocal evidence that exists right now to be much clearer in 2 years’ time, when we will have created the evidence base that we need in order to decide whether to change the limit for blood-alcohol content.

I appreciate the call taken by the Minister in the chair, the Associate Minister of Transport, particularly on Ms Moroney’s challenge about the commencement dates. There are very sound reasons why the taking of blood and, in particular, the new technologies that are available for the safe taking of blood from suspects—which the Committee heard about—will take quite a bit of time to be gazetted and put into practice in our hospitals and primary health care facilities.

With that, I think we are coming towards the end of this Committee stage. It has been a robust debate. I am quite sure that members on the other side have nothing new to say, but the Chairperson may wish to challenge that. Thank you.

I will talk on the title of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I think it should have another couple of words in it: “Selective Evidence”. What we have heard tonight is a lot of selective evidence to try to justify what is, in terms of the alcohol question, a pretty sad story.

I will go back to what I was talking about before. What happened with this bill was that the Prime Minister, John Key, asked the Ministry of Transport to check whether a glass of wine might put people over the blood-alcohol limit. He was so nervous about that and what it might mean to the constituency that they decided not to change the limit. As it turned out, Mr Joyce found that he could drink three-quarters of a bottle of wine, which he termed “ridiculous”, before he was over the limit. But by that stage they had already made up their minds, based on thinking that perhaps a change would be too nanny State, to keep the limit at 0.08 grams rather than 0.05 grams. Here is where it becomes interesting, because there is a historical record that has nothing to do with evidence. Then Darren Hughes put up his member’s bill to bring the level from 0.08 down to 0.05. What happened? Well, Mr Key said that National would make it a conscience vote. A lot of people over there on the National side would have voted—I guarantee Jackie Blue, being a doctor, would have—for the level to go down from 0.08 to 0.05. But Mr Joyce in caucus said “Well, actually, that makes me look rather stupid—or more stupid.” So what he decided was suddenly it would be a caucus vote.

By this stage National has dug a hole so deep that it cannot get itself out of it, but popular opinion is two to one in favour of bringing the blood-alcohol limit down from 0.08 to 0.05. And so we should. As Michael Woodhouse just said, as the amount of alcohol permitted increases, the incidence of accidents increases. If we compare 0.05 with 0.08, there is a pretty good chance that the accident rate increases as a result of the extra intake of alcohol. That is what he said and I completely agree with him. Therefore I cannot understand why that party is still saying it is basing its policy on evidence, when it knows that it is based on political bungling on the part of Mr Joyce. That is what it is—nothing less than a bit of political bungling.

If Mr Joyce was really interested in bringing the road toll down by approximately five deaths a year, then he would probably do something about the road between Warkworth and Wellsford, the “Holiday Highway”.

Hon Tau Henare: We’re banging on that drum again, are we?

DAVID SHEARER: Oh yes. Five people a year die on that particular stretch of road. Instead, the Minister is improving at great cost—more than a billion dollars—the road between Pūhoi and Warkworth. Why is that? Because people turn off at Warkworth to go to their baches at Ōmaha, including the Prime Minister. He has a bach at Ōmaha. I suspect that Mr Joyce finds himself going to that particular area, as well. Over the holiday period he does not want to be tied down by cars stopping him from getting to where he wants to go—that is, of course, if he is not using the helicopter. Mr Key will now be able to drive up to Ōmaha in a seat-warmed BMW in the wintertime without any interference, because the road will be nice and smooth.

As a result of that, work on the road between Warkworth and Wellsford is being delayed. On that road five people a year die. On the other road, from Pūhoi to Warkworth, one person a year on average dies. We could make some incredibly simple, cheap modifications to that road, based on solid evidence. That is why I say the title of this bill should include “Selective Evidence”. Political expediency is why the Government is pushing through these clauses. We could make a real difference by improving the Warkworth to Wellsford road. We could make a real improvement in the status of the road.

The other piece of evidence that has been overlooked in this debate relates to the raising of the driver age. We all know that anywhere in the world, not just here in New Zealand, drivers between 15 and 25 years old, particularly males, create the largest amount of traffic accidents and traffic deaths, but it is important to note, and nobody mentioned it on the other side of the Chamber, that that rate is coming down. In 1986 nearly 17 percent of all road deaths were caused by people in the 15 to 19-year-old age group. By 2006 it had dropped down to just over 11 percent. It is important to note that for that particular age group the rate of driving accidents has reduced. There is absolutely no evidence that pushing up the driving age from 15 years to closer to 17—because by the time people get their full licences they will not be 16; they will actually be 17—will bring about a decrease in road deaths.

Labour members agree with having better driver education. We think it is hugely important. UK driver education is superior to ours, and that could be a contributing factor in the road toll there being less. An extended learner period for drivers is also important. It is very interesting to note that when 15 to 16-year-old drivers are in a car with an adult, they have a lower accident rate than other adults. So it is not actually an issue of competence; it is simply an issue of experience in driving cars. Most studies will tell us that at least 250 hours of driving experience is necessary before somebody becomes a competent driver. So the experience of the driver, not the age, is the critical point here. No matter which age someone starts driving at, the first 2 years after they get their licence are the most critical, not only here in New Zealand but elsewhere internationally.

I think that, as a number of our speakers have pointed out, by raising the driving age to 16—in effect, 17—we will disadvantage many people, particularly in rural areas. Many people aged 16 or 17 have started work and are doing shift work. They will not be able to get to work. We will disadvantage those people, whereas today they are certainly not disadvantaged. Labour members are in the unusual situation of supporting Federated Farmers, because its submission was actually a very good one. It pointed out exactly what I just said—the evidence as opposed to the rhetoric. I say that the position Labour is taking is possibly not the one that has the most popular support out there in the community, but we are taking it because we believe we should put in legislation based on evidence. The Minister of Science and Innovation, who is in the Chamber at the moment, will agree with me, because the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Adviser just released a report that said our policies and our law should be based more strongly on evidence. I totally agree with him. Yet in this critical legislation the Government is willing to throw that evidence out the window.

The bill is supported by Labour. It has some really excellent provisions in it, but it falls short on the issue of alcohol and the issue of the driving age.

It is 6 minutes past 8. [Interruption] I think that is evidence of the nature of that member’s contribution to his caucus, but I do not want to go there, because the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill is a very important bill. I respect the contributions our colleagues have made on that side of the Chamber, because we will agree with this bill.

There are areas that our colleagues on this side of the Chamber are not all that flash on, but none of us is prepared to impede the progress of the bill. As one of the members residing in Dunedin said, we are probably getting towards the final stage of the Committee’s consideration of the bill. But although he is a very avid contributor to the debate, I should say that his ability to influence the conduct of the Minister in relation to the interests of the people of Dunedin in terms of transport industry development or transport industry production is somewhere near zero. I have no doubt that he has sought to use his many skills, some of which come across with a somewhat haughty tone. He has sought to use them on the Minister of Transport. I can understand that, because he is dealing with a very tough character. Despite his using every technique of tone, stature—diminished, of course—and other skills picked up, and expertise sourced from his earlier forays on the rugby field, unfortunately he has not managed to protect one single transport-related job. He has not improved the safety and other matters of the workforce who are exposed to that part of the transport industry otherwise known as the rolling stock of the railway industry. But this is not about the railways, per se; this is about safety. I was unfortunately interrupted by Tau Henare’s contribution of intellect, which was like an empty vessel—loud but vacant.

I will continue with my brief account of why Royal assent is very important. Tau Henare may wish to know that in the land of his ancestors, Scotland—I personally have not seen my relation Tau in a tartan skirt; I think I have seen him in a piupiu—Royal assent is not applied to legislation of the nature of this bill until a period of 2 or 3 weeks elapses. That enables an agency with a constitutional authority to refer the bill, in order to test its legality and lawfulness, to the highest court—I presume the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.

The concept of Royal assent, as I have said earlier, is traced back to the concept of Curia Regis, the Royal Council, which comprised bishops, people of nobility, and people from the boroughs and shires, and was popularised by that person otherwise known as the father of parliamentary democracy, Simon de Montfort. Those are things that Tau Henare may or may not find of more than a passing relevance.

This evening we are coming to the final stages of the bill, and we are prepared to usher it forward so it can go to the next stage. We support any initiative that improves the prospects of our young people changing their ways. But of course before they change their ways, a number of us have to address our own ways. The less said about that, the better. In addition, we will support the Minister of Transport. We are disappointed that he did not accept our two or three amendments, but we will support the Minister, because he is largely carrying forward the seeds of a safety policy that originated from the previous Labour Government. He has picked up the Labour policy. Unfortunately, he has distorted some of the better elements to do with the alcohol limit and the point at which our young people should be able to drive legally, but deep down the underlying momentum has come from the previous Labour Government. We introduced a safety policy, and the Minister gave it a new name. The challenge the Minister has to address now is to extend safety into the appropriation of the National Land Transport Fund so that when it is spent, it is spent to improve safety. Kia ora.

This call will be short, but I will respond to Michael Woodhouse, who said that the research covers 15 to 19-year-olds. I think a new title for the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill could be the “Come Down Hard on the 15-year-olds but Sacrifice the 16, 17, 18, and 19-year-olds to the Wolves Bill”. If National members were true to their evidence base and research, they would not have cut out the 15-year-olds and said they should be protected, because, as Michael Woodhouse stated, the research covers 15 to 19-year-olds. I wonder what National members have against 16, 17, 18, and 19-year-olds. Surely those young people deserve the same protections that National members say 15-year-olds will enjoy under the legislation. To me it seems really rich that National members will die in a ditch for 15-year-olds but will sacrifice 16 to 19-year-olds on the roads of New Zealand.

When Labour comes out with sensible legislation that protects people, it is called nanny State, but when National does it we hear from the Minister that the Government is being pragmatic. The bill is called pragmatic legislation. I think “pragmatic” and “nanny State” are synonyms; they will be found under the same heading in the thesaurus. If National members want to call this daddy State legislation pragmatic, then we will call it what it really is—koro State legislation.

The issue of the age of 15 is the low-hanging fruit. It was so easy for National members to say: “We did not want to risk a really big public backlash by saying that young people cannot get their licence until they are 19, so instead we will make it look as though we will make a really big difference by targeting just 15-year-olds, who cannot vote yet. We will not make them upset. But if we make it harder for 16, 17, 18, and 19-year-olds to get their licences, then, oops, they may not vote for us.” They will see nanny State in action and they will remember it come 26 November. That is what the National Government has done. It has picked the low-hanging fruit. It has targeted 15-year-olds. National members do not care what happens to 16, 17, 18, and 19-year-olds, who are also targeted in the research. It is really sad that National’s values flip-flop and chop and change depending on which way the polls blow. Kia ora.

Clause 1 agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Papers 226 and 229 in the name of the Hon Steven Joyce to clause 2 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Bill reported with amendment.

Report adopted.