Editorial: Drink-drive bill chance to act decisively

Opinion

All too often, private members' bills peddle a redundant hobby horse and are quickly consigned to Parliament's waste-bin.

Occasionally, however, one can serve a useful purpose in easing the way out of a tangle. Such is the case with Labour MP Darren Hughes' bill that proposes lowering the blood-alcohol limit for drivers from 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood to 60mg. The Government backed itself into a corner last month when it decided not to lower the limit to 50mg. If Mr Hughes' piece of legislation is drawn from the ballot of members' bills, there will be the opportunity for it to remedy that mistake and get in tune with popular sentiment.

The Prime Minister, John Key, has essentially acknowledged as much in saying National MPs would probably be allowed a conscience vote if the bill comes before Parliament. There is an element of policy-making on the hoof about this. Mr Key suggested drink-driving issues were usually dealt with by conscience votes, yet there was no mention of such a process when the Government, as part of its latest road-safety package, announced there would be a zero blood-alcohol limit for recidivists and under-20 drivers. Either way, a conscience vote represents an elegant solution to the present stand-off. More than likely, there would be enough support from National MPs to ensure Mr Hughes' bill passed into law.

When the Government decided not to lower the blood-alcohol limit, it said New Zealand-specific research on the level of risk posed by drivers with a limit between 50mg and 80mg was needed, and this would be done over the next two years. The justification was weak, given a mountain of overseas research and the virtually unanimous backing of health experts for the change. It appeared the Government was guided more by opinion polls, which had suggested there was something like a 50:50 split over a lower limit.

In this instance, the Government has been left behind as the advice of experts finds a receptive public audience. Increasingly, people are worried about alcohol's role in a stubbornly high road toll. That concern has deepened with revelations about just how much liquor can be consumed under the law before the blood-alcohol limit is breached. Most tellingly, a Weekend Herald experiment showed a male photographer was able to drink nine bottles of lager in just under four hours and be able to drive home legally, despite feeling drunk.

The level of public concern was indicated in a Colmar Brunton poll this week, which showed almost two-thirds of New Zealanders supported lowering the limit. This followed a Ministry of Transport survey that suggested as many as 85 per cent wanted people restricted to one or two drinks before driving.

Notably, Mr Hughes' bill proposes lowering the blood-alcohol limit to 60mg, not the 50mg proposed by the Government and in force for many years in Australia. The 50mg limit allows men two standard drinks in the first hour and one an hour thereafter; the limit for women is one standard drink an hour. This is a reasonable level of social drinking. Mr Hughes' bill would give even more leeway.

The Labour MP drafted his legislation only after the Government decided not to lower the limit. But, commendably, he has been careful not to make it an exercise in points-scoring. Mr Hughes says he wants politicians to "put aside their party differences and work together on issues of road safety".

National, having got itself in a jam for no good reason, has every reason to do just that. If drawn from the ballot, this bill is its opportunity to address an ill-conceived piece of inaction.