In relation to the points listed on the powerpoint slide entitled “Alcohol
and Drug: Omissions” in the presentation from the New Zealand
Automobile Association (and points two and three in particular) the
policy issues behind their non inclusion in the bill, and the practicality
of including these matters in the bill.
In the Automobile Association’s (the AA) oral submission, it was stated that
the AA believes there to be several omissions to the Land Transport (Road
Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. These are addressed below.
Tougher conditions for reinstating licences
Currently if a driver is disqualified for under a year, they have the right to
reapply for their licence at the end of their disqualification. The driver bears
the cost of having their licence reissued.
If a driver is disqualified for more than a year, before having their licence
reinstated they must sit and pass the theory test, and the practical driving test
for the highest class of licence that they hold. For example, if they hold a class
1 full licence they would have to sit the full practical driving test. If they hold a
class 1 restricted licence, they would only have to sit the restricted practical
driving test.
In some circumstances a Court might order a driver to undertake a driving
course or medical assessment before being eligible to have their licence
reinstated. A driver would have to comply with the Court order before licence
reinstatement.
Officials do not consider it necessary to impose tougher conditions on drivers
for licence reinstatement. Through Drivers of Crime 1 , the Ministry of Transport
is working with other government departments on ways to reduce disqualified
driving and unlicensed drivers. Any further barriers that are put in the way of
disqualified drivers having their licences reinstated will potentially increase the
number of people who will not reinstate, and will remain driving outside of the
driver licensing system.
Mandatory alcohol and drug assessments / Agency responsibility for
addressing addiction / Inter-agency co-operation / Hypothecate alcohol driving
fines for assessment, treatment and rehabilitation
Officials agree that the best outcomes for drink/drugged drivers occur when
there is ready access to assessment and treatment services. However, this is
not always possible as there is an issue of capacity in addiction services.
Drivers of Crime has a workstream dedicated to improving access to
addictions services for people in the criminal justice sector. This includes
assessing the viability of nationwide services specifically dedicated to repeat
1
Drivers of Crime is a whole of government project, led by the Ministry of Justice, that aims to
reduce crime and offending and reduce the demand on the criminal justice sector through a
range of interventions, from early intervention (before someone has first had contact with the
criminal justice sector) to helping offenders, their families and communities to break the cycle
of offending.
Page 1 of 4
drink drivers, who show some different characteristics to other people with
alcohol issues/dependency.
Alcohol abuse or dependency is a public health issue. Funding for services for
assessment and treatment should therefore come from the health sector, and
it should not be dependent on fines from the justice sector. If this was to
happen, services would be relying on ongoing offending to fund services,
which is inconsistent with the aim to stop offending.
Zero alcohol and drug limit for all commercial and passenger service drivers
Officials do not recommend a change to legislation to make a zero alcohol
and drug limit for commercial and passenger service drivers. There is no
evidence to suggest that there is a higher rate of alcohol use before driving for
commercial and passenger service drivers. Many of the Police Commercial
Vehicle Investigation Units routinely breath test drivers as part of their safety
check, which would increase the chance of detection if a driver was drink
driving.
New Zealand effectively has a zero limit for drug driving, as a person can be
charged with an offence if they are driving while impaired by drugs (either
illegal drugs or misuse of prescribed drugs). To explicitly legislate for a zero
drug limit for commercial drivers could imply that there is not a zero limit for all
other drivers. It would also be redundant as the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975
already makes it an offence to possess or use many drugs that would impair a
person’s driving.
Many companies and fleet operators have comprehensive health and safety
policies that include a zero tolerance for drinking or taking drugs that will
impair performance while working. Officials encourage companies to manage
their staff through their company policies.
Stepped penalties for increasing BACs to reflect risk, including drink and drug
risk
Officials do not consider it necessary to have gradation in penalties for drink
driving offences. The role of the legislation is to give judges the scope to apply
appropriate sentences for every case, by setting either minimum or maximum
penalties for an offence. Judges have discretion, provided in legislation, to
take into account all mitigating and aggravating factors before sentencing an
individual. Officials believe that the current penalties in legislation give enough
scope to judges to sentence appropriately when there are aggravating factors
in a case.
Any increase in penalties would have to be considered in light of the potential
increased burden on the justice sector and prison population. This is likely to
be inconsistent with the Drivers of Crime project.
Establish specialised impairment Courts
Changes to the operation of the criminal just system are outside the scope of
transport legislation. Until the capacity issues in the addiction services sector
Page 2 of 4
are sorted, there would be no immediate benefit in segregating drink drivers
from the rest of the cases heard through the District Courts.
Many of the states in the USA that have specialised Courts for drink drivers or
for offending related to, or caused by, alcohol consumption have dedicated
services attached to the Court for carrying out alcohol assessments and refer
the offender to for treatment. Without these services, there would be no
reason to set up a drink driving Court.
Ban open alcohol containers in vehicles
‘Open container’ laws operate in a number of states in the USA primarily to
give the Police “good cause to suspect” that a driver has been drinking – to
enable the Police to initiate alcohol testing. The USA does not allow random
testing for alcohol. There is no evidence to show that these laws have an
impact in significantly reducing the incidence of drink driving. Any reductions
in drink driving in states that operate ‘open container’ laws comes about
because the Police in those states can more effectively enforce their drink
drive laws, rather than as a result of the direct impact of the ‘open container’
law discouraging drivers from driving while intoxicated.
As New Zealand already operates a random breath testing regime, an ‘open
container’ law would do little to enhance the enforcement of our drink drive
laws.
Officials do not know of any other jurisdictions that apply ‘open container’
laws, including the countries that are recognised as the best performers in
road safety. Neither are they promoted by road safety experts as a key
intervention to manage drink-driving.
An ‘open container’ law carries some risks that may have perverse outcomes
for road safety:


It may tacitly encourage drivers and their passengers to drink more
alcohol before they start driving.
It potentially undermines the ‘sober driver’ initiative that has been
widely promoted in the community as a valid strategy to avoid drink
driving, as sober drivers may drive people while they are drinking.
There is nothing to suggest that a passenger drinking while in the
vehicle will be any more distracting to a driver than a passenger who is
already intoxicated when getting into the vehicle.
Open container laws would not be easy to enforce. Problems may arise with
the following issues:


Defining exactly what is an ‘open container’ (ie would a lightly-corked
or screw-top bottle meet this definition?)
Defining where in a vehicle the ‘open container’ restriction applies. The
passenger compartments in some vehicles (eg vans, hatchbacks,
SUVs and station wagons) are not physically separated from luggage
Page 3 of 4

Proving the substance in an open container is alcoholic liquor (eg if it
had been transferred from a can to a soft-drink bottle in an attempt to
disguise what it was).
For these reasons officials do not recommend an ‘open container’ law in New
Zealand.
Allow for greater use of roadside drug testing including saliva tests
Officials have been asked to report back to the government in early 2012 on a
number of issues concerning drug driving, including random roadside testing.
This report back will include information on the operation of the drug driving
regime (introduced in November 2009), updated information on international
best practice and research, and information on developments in roadside drug
screening devices. At this time, officials will reconsider the issue of random
roadside testing in light of the information available.
Page 4 of 4