11. Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) Link to this
to the Minister of Transport
Is it still his position that the Government will not lower the blood-alcohol content for adult drivers until the move is regarded as having wide public support and would specifically need “three-quarters support or more” before a change was made?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) Link to this
I have said repeatedly, including to the member many times, that before lowering the adult blood-alcohol limit the Government would want to ensure that the specific impact on the road toll of drivers with a blood-alcohol concentration of between 0.05 grams and 0.08 grams was known, and that the move had very broad support amongst the driving population of this country.
Hon Darren Hughes Link to this
If public opinion is so important to the Minister on this topic, what will he do if his 2-year study comes back recommending that the limit should be lowered, but the polls do not show 75 percent support?
As the member is well aware, there is a very strong lobby in both directions in this country between people who want to see the limit maintained at the current level, and people who want to see it lowered. Those who want to maintain the current level are very focused on the lack of information about specific harm in relation to drivers with a blood-alcohol level between 0.05 grams and 0.08 grams. I am confident that if we collect that data and it shows specific harm, then we will be able to build a consensus for change, provided that data does exist.
Hon Darren Hughes Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a very interesting answer but I was trying to get from the Minister a sense of what his priorities were. He has set out two criteria for changing the blood-alcohol limit for driving: one is popularity; the other is a 2-year study. I am trying to get a sense of which of those two things would be the priority, if they are in conflict in 2 years’ time, that will lead the Minister to act. That is the point of my question.
Mr SPEAKERHon Darren Hughes Link to this
What will the Minister do if his 2-year study comes back and says that the alcohol limit for adults should be lowered, but the polls do not show 75 percent support for such a measure?
I have confidence in my fellow New Zealanders that if the data comes back and suggests that there is a significant benefit to be obtained, then achieving a consensus for change will not be difficult.
Hon Darren Hughes Link to this
Was the Cabinet paper that he signed this year correct, on page 9 at paragraph 46, where he states: “When New Zealanders are asked what the limit should be, 85 percent of people support a blood-alcohol limit of 0.05 or lower, and only 2 percent favour the current 0.08”; if so, does this not mean that his own paper shows there is already the support for this measure to lower the blood-alcohol limit for adult drivers?
I have signed a number of Cabinet papers this year so I cannot recall the details of that one, but I can say that the study relates to the amount of alcohol people think somebody should be able to drink; then, when it is translated into a level, it can be translated to be the numbers that the member describes. The issue is that New Zealanders do not believe that the amount proposed by the officials is the correct number for 0.05 grams to 0.08 grams. We could have had this issue solved a long time ago if the previous Government had done the research that was required, but when the current Leader of the Opposition in 2001 had the opportunity to do so he never did it.
Hon Darren Hughes Link to this
When the Minister said in the media this morning that building public support would be hard if Kiwis thought that one or two drinks would put them over the limit, had he forgotten that his own papers make it clear that such a level of consumption would be lower than the 0.05 grams limit promoted in my member’s bill?
As I said on the radio this morning, there are two things that concern people who oppose change. One is as to what level they would then be able drink before they contravened the new law; and, secondly, whether there was a concern that we would be punishing the majority with a law change when we were trying to impact on a minority. That is the reason for doing the research. Once again, I have to say that it is ironic that members opposite are such lambs in Government and lions in Opposition. It seems that they discovered their courage on the way to the Opposition benches.