5. DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) Link to this
to the Minister of Transport
What is the focus of the Government’s road safety initiatives announced yesterday?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) Link to this
Yesterday the Government announced a package of road safety initiatives targeting drink-drivers—in particular, repeat and young offenders. The package will include a zero drink-drive limit for recidivist drink-drivers, a zero drink-drive limit for drivers under 20 years of age, much tougher penalties for serious offences causing death and drink-driving causing death, and the introduction of alcohol interlocks for repeat drink-drivers and serious first-time offenders. These are big changes that will address two of the big issues on the road—the high fatality rate of young drivers, and the menace of repeat drink-drivers.
The Government has noted that there is a gap in the New Zealand statistics about the actual harm caused by adult drivers whose blood-alcohol level is between 0.05 and 0.08. Before making changes of this scale the public will want to know the actual harm at that level, so the Government intends to change the legislation in order to collect that data. People are also naturally concerned about having a couple of drinks and suddenly being over the limit. It is important that the public support these road safety initiatives, because road rules work only if they have a broad level of public acceptance.
Dr Russel NormanI seek leave to table a document published by the Ministry of Transport, obtained under the Official Information Act, that outlines 300 drink-driving studies that demonstrate that driving abilities start to become impaired at 0.05, and by 0.08 a driver is significantly impaired.
Mr SPEAKER
Darien FentonWhen he told a conference in Auckland last year that it was ridiculous that he could drink three-quarters of a bottle of wine in 90 minutes, yet still be under the legal alcohol limit, was he aware that actually lowering the limit would be a little too nanny State for his colleague Murray McCully?
The question is strange in so many ways. Obviously in reference to my slight frame, I am concerned at the thought of my drinking three-quarters of a bottle of wine and then driving. That was the comment I made last year.
The Government is strengthening the penalties for people convicted of drink-driving or drug-driving causing death, dangerous or reckless driving causing death, illegal street racing causing death, and failing to stop after a crash when someone has been killed. The maximum prison term for all these dangerous offences causing death will be doubled, to up to 10 years in prison. As the imprisonment penalties for these offences were last reviewed in 1962, these changes are well overdue. Tougher sanctions will bring these penalties in line with other similar serious offences and with penalties in other jurisdictions.
Hon Jim AndertonHow does the Minister reconcile his comments last year, that the existing drink-driving limit was “ridiculous”, with his decision yesterday to spend 2 more years researching the “ridiculous” limit, so that we can measure just how ridiculous the ridiculous limit is?
I have to say I do struggle with criticism from that side of the House on the drink-driving issue, or in fact on any road safety issues, because Labour’s record on that was so abysmal in the 9 years it was in Government.
A point of order has been called, and I am on my feet. Someone in the back right-hand corner of the House is taking grave risks.
The question asked about how to reconcile two statements. The answer simply attacked the previous Labour Government. It had nothing to do with the question.
Although the questioner did not make the question totally serious in the language used, I think maybe some greater effort at the reconciliation might be appropriate from the Minister.
I noted in my answer to the previous supplementary question that I was referring to my own ability to drink wine, rather than the wider limit at the time. I said that it was ridiculous that I would drink that amount of wine and then drive. But, nevertheless, I still struggle with criticism from members on the other side of the House, because they were so absent for 9 years on this subject.
Why does the Minister need more research to be done on this “ridiculous” limit when 60 international reports favour reduction of the drink-driving limit, and even his own ministry has estimated that reducing the level could save 33 lives, prevent up to 680 injuries, and save up to $238 million every year?
I note that the Government has given itself 2 years to collect that data. The previous Government took 9 years to not do anything, so if we do make a change after 2 years, we will be 7 years ahead of the Opposition.
How can the Minister justify more research when reputable researchers working in this area are not saying that they need more research, but urgent action?
The member may not have been in the House at the time, but the fact of the matter is that the previous Government signalled that it was a lack of research that meant that it could not make a decision to lower the drink-drive limit back in the early 2000s. The only problem is that the previous Government did not move to collect the information. This Government will pass legislation to do exactly that.