Land Transport Amendment Bill

on behalf of the Minister of Transport: I move, That the Land Transport Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee to consider the bill. It gives me great pleasure to introduce the bill to this House. The bill aims to promote better regulation, improve safety, and promote greater economic growth and productivity. The purpose of this bill is part of the Government’s ongoing efforts to create better and more effective regulation.

The Land Transport Amendment Bill has six components. The bill will enable innovative small passenger services to operate and deliver benefits to consumers while managing safety risks. It will also introduce mandatory alcohol interlock sentences for repeat offenders and first-time drink-driving offenders with high alcohol levels. The bill will also create a more effective deterrent to reduce the numbers of fleeing drivers. It will also strengthen the framework for managing evasion of public transport fares. The bill will also create opportunities to increase productivity of heavy freight and passenger vehicles. Finally, the bill will make a range of minor amendments to make sure that the Land Transport Act is clear and is operating as intended.

Regarding small passenger services, the bill, together with amendments to land transport rules and regulations, will overhaul small passenger services by removing outdated provisions and bringing the sector into the 21st century. That is because new technologies, like smartphone apps, have changed the ways that the sector can operate. Modernising our regulation will make sure it is flexible enough to accommodate new business models, while managing safety risks. Ensuring an effective small passenger services sector has a range of wider benefits for the New Zealand economy, including using the transport system more effectively and helping to reduce congestion. The bill will create a single, simple category of small passenger service. Current rules that impose costs on operators but no longer provide any significant benefits will be removed. The New Zealand Transport Agency will consult on the new rules. The purpose of these changes is to encourage innovation and enable new kinds of services, while managing safety risks to drivers and passengers. Making the regulatory environment more flexible will allow transport operators to compete on a more even footing.

The second component of the bill follows on from recent changes to the Vehicle Dimensions and Mass Rule 2002, which have enabled the introduction of more productive freight and passenger service vehicles. The changes will enable more efficient enforcement of heavy vehicle weight limits, make it easier to redirect vehicles for weighing, increase the maximum penalty for overloading from $10,000 to $15,000, reduce the tolerance before offloading is required, and empower the police to order trucks to be offloaded when they are overloaded by more than 10 percent or more than 2 tonnes, whichever is the lesser. Further changes to the rule are currently under way and will lead to more gains in public transport, road transport, productivity, and safety, with fewer heavy vehicle trips being required on the transport system to transport the same volumes of passengers and freight.

Regarding mandatory alcohol interlocks, the third component of the bill relates to those alcohol interlocks. Alcohol interlocks are a very effective tool for reducing the incidence of recidivist drink-driving. An alcohol interlock device requires a driver to pass a breath test before they can start their car. This has been proven to reduce drink-driving reoffending by an average of 60 percent where the device has been fitted. The bill proposes to make alcohol interlocks mandatory for first-time high-alcohol offenders and repeat offenders. There are limited grounds for exceptions proposed.

To support the new mandatory alcohol interlock sentence, the Government will fund a financial assistance scheme to assist low-income offenders, for whom the cost of alcohol interlocks would be—or could be—prohibitive. Greater use of alcohol interlocks by high-risk offenders will help improve road safety outcomes and supports the Government’s road safety strategy.

The fourth component of the bill will increase the penalties for drivers who fail to stop for police. When drivers attempt to flee police, they endanger the safety of other road users and the police, as well as their own safety and that of their passengers. All too frequently, the actions of fleeing drivers result in crashes involving serious injury or death. Increasing the penalties for fleeing drivers will send a clear message that this behaviour is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. The disqualification penalties for failing to stop will scale up, based on whether it is the driver’s first, second, third, or subsequent offence of this kind. The bill also proposes strengthening the powers of the courts to permanently confiscate vehicles involved in fleeing driver incidents. I would like to acknowledge my colleague Stuart Smith and his strong advocacy for increasing penalties for drivers who fail to stop for police.

The fifth component of the bill strengthens the legislative regime for managing the evasion of public transport fares. The Government wants to prevent a culture of evasion of fares from becoming established. That is because the evasion of fares impacts on security, which can reduce patronage and the efficiency of public transport services. The bill will give enforcement officers new powers to require passengers to provide evidence that they have paid a fare, provide their contact their contact details where a valid ticket is not produced, and/or order a passenger to disembark the public transport service. It will be an offence for a person to fail to comply with an enforcement officer’s directions.

Regarding miscellaneous provisions, the final component of the bill makes a range of minor amendments to clarify interpretations or the intent of the legislation, improve the legislation’s operation, remove inconsistencies, and make minor technical amendments and adjustments. Although minor, these changes are a sign of the Government’s commitment to better regulation. In closing, the changes proposed by this bill demonstrate the Government’s determination to ensure the country has an effective, efficient, and safe land transport system. I now commend the bill to the House.

This bill, in its first reading, is another example of what we saw in Parliament last week, where the Government has a big problem to solve but it takes a small number of measures that actually will not address the elephant in the room. So just like with housing, where it is just tinkering around the edges and not addressing the main problem, here we go again, but this time it is tinkering with an ever-increasing road toll. That is the problem that this bill ought to be trying to address. We are in an environment where, over the course of several decades now, the road toll has been progressively coming down in New Zealand—as it should, because as we get safer roads to drive on, as we get safer technologies into our vehicles, of course that has an impact on bringing the road toll down. But somehow that Government has managed to turn that positive trend around, and what we find is that right now this Government is leading us into the third consecutive year in a row where the road toll is going up—where the road toll is going up.

In 2013 we hit an all-time low for the road toll, and that was great news—there were 253 total road deaths. I should not actually call that great news, because for those families and the friends of those people who perished on our roads, obviously that is a tragedy. But it was a sign that the road toll was coming down. However, since then this Government has managed to turn it around and get it going up—in the wrong direction. In 2014 there were 293 deaths on our roads, and in 2015 we were back up to 319 deaths on our roads. The news this year—so far—is even worse because, as at 15 September this year, 225 people have perished on our roads. That equates to a road toll of 220 at the same time last year. So, again, this Government is about to break its record. It is about to have an ever-increasing road toll.

This bill should be addressing that issue, but it is not; it is simply tinkering around the edges. Although the bill does actually address heavy vehicles and purports to bring in some measures to make it easier to ping the heavy vehicle operators if they are not complying with the rules, unfortunately the rules that that Government brings in keep letting heavier and heavier trucks on our roads. Of course, that drives up our road toll. That alone—that measure that that Government is pursuing—is one of the things that is driving up our road toll. How do we know this? We know this because about 18 percent of the deaths on our roads are caused by a truck or have a truck involved in that accident. It is 18 percent despite the fact that heavy vehicles actually account for only 6 percent of the vehicles on our roads. So they are disproportionately causing harm, and yet our Government thinks that the way to address that is to keep introducing heavier and longer and higher trucks on to our roads. Well, it is no wonder that our road toll keeps going up.

Sadly, this bill is not addressing the measures that it ought to. However, the measures that it does bring in are slight improvements. There is nothing here that we would oppose, so the Labour Party members will be supporting this bill at its first reading, but we will be very interested to listen to the comments from the submitters as they come and submit on these measures.

I cannot speak on this bill without cautioning the Government about the things that it needs to address that it is not addressing in this bill and that will bring down the road toll. For a start, this Government can pass any law it likes, but that law is not worth anything unless it is prepared to enforce it. I want to hear from a Government member about their commitment to enforce this legislation, because at the moment this Government is allowing small passenger services to openly flout the law, to skite about it, to publicly acknowledge that they are flouting the law, and the Government is turning a blind eye. Part of this bill does bring in new regulations to cover the small passenger services. I want that Government to understand that there is no point in changing the law, there is no point in bringing in regulations, unless it has the guts to enforce those measures, and, to date, the Government has not shown that it actually has the ability to do that when it comes to the small passenger vehicle fleet.

While I am talking on that measure, the Government also needs to get some guts when it comes to actually ensuring that all the players in the small passenger services area are paying the tax that they are supposed to be paying as well. I hope that the Government will bring a measure in another bill to ensure that that continues to happen. On the issue of small passenger vehicle services, Labour does agree with the measures that the Government is taking in terms of regulatory changes that it is making, because we believe that we need a safe, accessible, and efficient small passenger service. But we want one that provides decent-paying jobs, and that should be the subject of another piece of legislation. In fact, that could have been the subject of a piece of legislation that that Government voted down only 2 weeks ago in this Parliament. The bill brought forward by my colleague the Hon David Parker to ensure that contractors had to be paid at least the minimum wage actually is an issue that needs addressing when it comes to the small passenger vehicle services that are provided in this country. So, again, the big issues that actually will impact on safety, will impact on regulations, will actually make sure that we have a safe and efficient service in place are being voted down by this Government. They are the ideas being brought forward by the Labour Party that would actually make a difference.

It is also very disappointing to see that there is nothing in this bill that addresses that Government’s shameful record when it comes to driver licensing fraud. We know that there has been—and in fact it was uncovered by the media; not the Government itself but it was uncovered by the media—substantial driver licensing fraud happening on our roads here in New Zealand. That puts every other motorist in danger, and yet in this amendment bill, which does cover a whole range of regulatory issues in the transport sector, not one of these measures is designed to address that problem. So, again, that is another example of the Government trying to look busy in this area, trying to look like it is doing something to bring the road toll down, but ignoring the major features that make our roads unsafe—and they have become more unsafe under that Government.

I want to conclude my contribution by reminding people that this Government has also cut the road policing—the amount of road policing that is happening in this country—and, again, this legislation does nothing to address that. In fact, this legislation brings in a whole range of measures that need to be policed. If you look at the legislation that is being brought in under the six parts of this bill, they all require more resourcing from our police department. But what has that Government done? It has actually sidelined the resourcing from our policing department, and what we know is that it is the road policing that has taken a big hit, and it is no wonder that our road toll keeps climbing under those circumstances.

The Labour Party is supporting the small measures that are being implemented in this bill. There are some areas that, I am sure, we will have some robust discussion about at the select committee, but our great disappointment is that the Government has not taken the opportunity to fix up the very big problems that exist on our roads. It is of concern to me that we do not have transport Ministers who understand what the big drivers are of the deaths on our roads, and I hope that through the select committee process we can convince that Government to take the measures it really needs to take in order to address this issue. I look forward to that discussion at the select committee, and, hopefully, we can make this a meaningful bill.

I am very pleased to stand in support of the Land Transport Amendment Bill 2016. It touches on six major components. Let me just speak very briefly on the area of vehicle dimensions and mass.

I was having a conversation not so long ago—maybe only a couple of weeks—with a transport operator who was running one of these 50MAX trucks, which is the sort of vehicle that the previous speaker, Sue Moroney, was saying is dangerous on our roads. They have an extra axle. They are new-technology trucks. They carry a load that is heavier than what was the standard, 44 tonnes. The transport operator’s comment to me was that instead of having to do four loads—four trips—with this vehicle, they could bring it right down to three. It took out a journey of that truck, from Taranaki to the Waikato, so there is one less truck on the road. The other thing that he said to me was that because of the heavier load that they are able to carry, the trucks actually feel safer on the road. I would agree with that, because I went for a ride in a ute without a load on the back, and I said to the person who gave me his ute for the weekend: “It’s very bouncy.” He said: “Yeah, but wait until you get a load on it, and it feels safe like a car.”

The point is that these vehicles are designed—

💬 Sue Moroney: Look at the research and evidence.

—to be safer on the road, and the evidence is—as the member opposite, Sue Moroney, will know, and as the Ministry of Transport has informed us—that the number of kilometres travelled by transport vehicles up and down this country has increased considerably over the last decade, but the number of accidents involving them has decreased by about 38 percent. That is because of better technology, better roads, better vehicles, and just the way that they travel.

What this bill is doing is addressing technology advancements in the transport sector, by and large. Here in the area of transportation, what we see does not just enable different dimensions but also, when we do that, we create better productivity for our companies, and that is very important because these are the companies that are employing New Zealanders out there. If they can have better productivity and if they can shift and move freight in a better and cheaper way, then not only the consumer but the producers are winners in all of this, and this is a good thing for New Zealand.

I want to just touch on one other area—there are a number of areas, but I want to touch on the mandatory alcohol interlocks. This is a very important part of this bill. You might ask the question: how many injuries and deaths are caused by drink-drivers every year? Well, drink-driving contributes significantly to vehicle crashes in New Zealand. It causes an average of 77 road deaths, 436 serious injuries, and 1,252 minor injuries each year, so this has a devastating effect on the people of New Zealand. Over the last 5 years, the social costs associated with drink-driving averages over $700 million per year, affecting our communities.

Having mandatory alcohol interlocks is going to be a very important step forward in using technology, particularly regarding areas of people who are convicted. First offenders who are 3.2 times the current blood-alcohol limit of 50 milligrams or 3.2 times the current breath-alcohol limit of 250 micrograms—these people will have a mandatory alcohol interlock placed on the vehicle. For those drink-driver offenders who are subject to mandatory alcohol and drug assessments—these are people who have had two or more drink- or drug-driving convictions within 5 years and have a limit of four times the current blood-alcohol limit or a breath-alcohol level exceeding 1,000 micrograms, four times the current limit—these people too will have this mandatory alcohol interlock placed on their vehicle.

What an alcohol interlock does is it is a breath-testing device that is wired into the vehicle, into its starting system. Before the vehicle can start, the driver must blow into the device. Actually, as the driver is driving along on their journey, there will be random times when the interlock device will require them to breathe into it again, because a lot of people would say: “Well, why can’t a friend just come in and breathe into this device, get the car operational, and then he or she can just drive off?”. This is a very good system that is going to bring, I think, some great changes to our road statistics. It has been surmised that the mandatory alcohol interlocks for specified offenders could save 8 lives a year, 43 serious injuries, and 126 minor injuries. That counts in our society.

No doubt we are going to have a great discussion as we open this up to the public through the select committee process. I am very happy to stand in support of some very good measures that this Government is bringing forward to this Parliament. Thank you.

One of the defining differences between the Labour Party and the National Party is that the Labour Party believes in having a capable Government and capable public services that can actually deliver positive outcomes for the New Zealand public, whereas the National Party believes in dismantling the Government, in dismantling and minimising public services, and in cutting public services.

One of the ways in which that has manifested itself is by the cuts to our police force—in particular, the cuts to our police force’s ability to enforce road rules and to actually be out there and keeping people safe on our roads. So whereas on this side we believe in having a police force that is capable of enforcing the law, members on that side have cut funding and they have dismantled the police force, and the result is the road toll is going up. That is what happens when you have an ideological fixation on cutting public services. Things happen, like the road toll goes up.

Good policing and good enforcement is not the only thing that has brought down the road toll over the last few decades, but it has been an important component in bringing down the road toll. So what happens when the National Government fixates on cutting the public sector? People die. That is the result. That is certainly the result in this case, with its fixation on cutting police resources. For decades we had a steady drop in the road toll, but for the last 3 years, against all the trends, the road toll has steadily been going up, and what the Government is trying to do through this legislation is fix a gap that will not be fixed by changing the law. It will be fixed only if the Government actually acknowledges its mistake and starts to fund our police force properly.

This bill makes a number of other changes as well, which are all fine and we will support them, and we look forward to having the conversation at the select committee. But if the Government is not prepared to actually resource its public sector to enforce these law changes, then we are all wasting our time. So, I mean, of course ride sharing is here. It has had a huge impact on the taxi industry, it has had a positive impact on a lot of consumers, and it certainly has brought prices down for a lot of consumers, and so it is appropriate that as technology has changed the landscape, we respond to that in the legislation. But it is absolutely pointless—absolutely pointless—if the Government is not prepared to enforce the law, and in this space of private vehicle transport, it is already failing to enforce the law. The Government is failing to enforce the laws we have right now. We have one particular ride-sharing company that proudly flouts the law. It came to the select committee and told us how proud it was about flouting the law, and the Government’s response has been utterly limp.

Many of these changes are extremely positive; let us go through some of the changes. Drivers will no longer need to have an area knowledge certificate. Well, all the drivers have got GPS, so that kind of makes sense. I must say, a couple of taxi drivers have said, well, actually, one of the things about having your local knowledge is you know when the GPS is going to take you through all the traffic lights, and with your own local knowledge you actually know that there is a much quicker route than just to follow the GPS blindly. But, you know, in the 21st century, with that kind of technology, that change makes sense. Not requiring a driver to pass the full licence every 5 years—I think that is perfectly reasonable, as long as we ensure that those drivers still have a P endorsement. This bill says, yes, they will still have to have a P endorsement. The problem is there are ride-sharing drivers driving passengers around New Zealand today without a P endorsement. They are breaking the law and this Government does not do anything about it.

So the Government says: “We’re going to keep the P endorsement in the law. That is a really important component of keeping strong law to protect passengers and to protect other drivers on the road, and we’re going to keep it in this law, but we’re not really going to bother enforcing it, because that costs money.” National is ideologically fixated on having a smaller Public Service, so it is not really going to enforce it, and it is going to be even harder to enforce it—because you can tell when a taxi is driving down the road. It has got a sign on top of it and it has got signs on the side of it. You cannot tell when a private vehicle that is being used for ride sharing is driving around. You cannot tell just by looking at it, so enforcement becomes a whole lot harder, in fact.

So the Government actually needs to resource the enforcement agencies to tackle that much more difficult problem of enforcement—of actually figuring out who is operating a ride-sharing vehicle and whether or not they are adhering to this law that we are debating in its first reading right now. But the Government has no plans to ensure that the resources are there to enforce this law. The Government does not care that we have already got people breaking the law, putting people at risk. It does not care. It just does not care. That is why the road toll is going up. Just a lack of care is what it comes down to, ultimately.

So, you know, we can debate this. We can feel really good—we can feel really good—that we are passing new legislation, but as long as we have got a Government that is that disinterested in public safety, then passing all these laws makes absolutely no changes at all, in reality, and the road toll will continue to go up. We can bring in alcohol interlocks—that is great. We support that. We think that is a fantastic initiative. We can strengthen the framework for managing public transport fare evasion—fine, no problem—and create more effective deterrents to reduce the incidence of fleeing drivers.

Great, let us do all that stuff—wonderful. Who is going to enforce it? Where are the resources? How is this Government going to make sure that our overstretched police force actually has the resources to deal with these things? Where is the backing of our front-line public servants? Where is it? It certainly is not coming from this Government, which cut funding, put more pressure on that workforce, put greater demands on it, and passed legislation like this that says “There’s more enforcement that you are going to have to do. You are going to have to do more with less.”, and then those members are surprised when bad things happen. They are surprised when it goes wrong. They sell themselves and the public this story that you can endlessly cut funding to the public sector and nothing will change. Nothing will go wrong. You can squeeze people harder and harder and harder and put more expectations on them, and nothing is going to go wrong. And then when the road toll goes up—“Oh, that is a surprise. We need to change the law. We need to change the law and bring it into the 21st century.”

This is the problem with this Government. This is the fundamental problem with this Government: its ideological fixation on a variety of things. It is why it cannot deal with the housing crisis—it just cannot bring itself to intervene in the housing market. It is just not in its DNA. It is just not what the National Party does. Likewise, properly funding our public services, like the police, is just not in the National Party’s DNA. It cannot do it. So when we have issues like this we have to actually ask ourselves who is capable of responding to them. Time and time again the National Government members demonstrate that they are just not capable of it. They often know what the answer is, but they cannot bring themselves to implement that answer, because it is just not in their DNA.

I support this legislation. I suspect that there are aspects of it that are not perfect yet, and that is why we are going go to the select committee. I look forward to hearing from all the submitters. I particularly look forward to the people who are operating in this space: the traditional taxi companies and the ride-sharing companies. I really want to make sure that we do everything we can to get this law right. But all our work—and I say this of the National Party MPs, as well, who are here just like us. They are legislators. This is the way in which we get to have an influence. This is the way in which we try to create a better society. All our work will be for nothing if the Government is not actually prepared to put the resources in to implement this legislation, to enforce this legislation.

So I support this bill. Let us take it to select committee. But if we really want to bring the road toll down, if we really want to see real change for the better in New Zealand, then there is only one answer, and that answer is change the Government.

It is a pleasure to speak on this Land Transport Amendment Bill. I particularly want to focus on the provisions around fleeing police. I must actually acknowledge the thanks that the Associate Minister of Transport gave for my strong advocacy, which actually took the form of a member’s bill. I am not the person, really, who deserves the credit for that, because I have a really strong policy group in the Kaikōura National Party branch. It was fantastic to have, particularly, Joe Sim, who is a former policeman who comes up with some fantastic policy ideas. He came along and said: “Do you know what? One thing police would really like would be stronger provisions around fleeing police.” So we did a lot of work on that. We developed a member’s bill, and lo and behold, it ended up as part of a Government bill.

I think that is a fantastic result. It could have languished, as one of my colleagues said, in the biscuit tin for quite some time, but it is actually going through the House now. I think that is a great result for everyone.

I think, actually, it really speaks to what is the essence of politics, which is getting into the grassroots, which is something that is just really in the DNA of the National Party. It is part of the actual fabric of society, particularly because we are made up, I guess, of so many electorate MPs—my fine colleagues. We are right in amongst the people, talking to them all the time and finding out what it is that actually matters, and fleeing police matters. It matters to the enforcement, which we heard a lot of rhetoric just before about—in fact, we would never let the facts get in the way of a good story in that particular speech. It was really a ramble about making a difference in enforcement, and this will make a big difference in enforcement, but not a word about it from the other side.

So I think this is a great provision in the bill. I really take my hat off to the Minister of Transport for including this in the bill. I think it is a great step forward. I think our members’ bills are really focusing on the things that matter. I am really pleased. I have got more in the pipeline. Some of them will probably end up as part of other Ministers’ bills as well, and I think that is fantastic. So it is with great pleasure that I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I rise to support this bill to the select committee, the Land Transport Amendment Bill 2016.

It is the day after we saw the final funding agreement for the Auckland central business district City Rail Link, one of the most important pieces of infrastructure in terms of our largest city, in terms of the national economy, and it is fantastic to finally see that happen. I do not know whether members are aware, but for the Green Party it has been a campaign for an awfully long time. There are actually Hansard records from this House from the 1880s that reference that rail line linking up the current rail network. It was Mayor Robbie in the 1970s who really pushed it. There are some wonderful 1970s orange - style concept designs of what it could have looked like. At least when we finally get it in the 2020s, it will probably look a little bit more modern than that beautiful 1970s sort of decor that it would have had. It is fantastic to see that project going ahead.

Another area where the Green Party has won when it comes to transport is in terms of cycleways. I note the Government’s investment in this area. We have worked with it in terms of rolling out the national cycleway network. So when it comes to public transport, better transport options for all New Zealanders, I think it is fair to say, without a bit of gloating, that the Greens have been ahead of the curve. It has been great to see the other parties play catch-up.

When you look at this legislation, we are grappling with some of those impacts of new technologies—for example Uber—the opportunities of new technologies, when you look at alcohol interlocks, and how that comes to this House. So although we are debating the Land Transport Amendment Bill, dealing with some more sort of regulatory and administrative features of transport, let us not take our eye off the prize, which is that we can have high-quality, modern ways that people can get around.

People want more choice to get their kids to school, to get to work, and to go and have fun and enjoyment, and they want a variety of options. People want to take a modern fast train in downtown Auckland. They want to have faster and more frequent trains from the west. They want to get to the airport and catch a train when it comes to Auckland. In Wellington we want to have light rail that links up our railway station with our airport through our city. We want to have better, more affordable buses. We want to have more affordable fares for groups such as students. So that is our vision and this is what we are going to be clearly articulating—a positive, fully costed transport plan for this country. This is what Kiwis want to see—these tangible projects. We have been at the forefront; we will continue to do it.

When it comes to the six provisions in this law—I want to touch on a few in this first reading debate. The first is around Uber. The Green Party takes the position that the proposed amendments are pretty reasonable. We are, basically, amending the taxi regulations relating to Uber and taking a less bureaucratic approach. I understand the arguments of Uber and some of its drivers that the current consent conditions can cost up to $2,000. That does seem incredibly high, particularly when you have got most of the information available via your smartphone. You can track the driver, you can see the driver’s photograph—all those sorts of things. But I would note that all the drivers have been flouting the law, when it comes to the existing law, which never can be on.

The amendments do look pretty reasonable—for example, drivers not having to have tests on their driver knowledge in terms of the cities they are going around. It does not really make sense in 2016 when you have got all the information on Google Maps or Uber’s files. So we support it. We want to hear from both the parties in the select committee, and we are going to welcome that discussion.

When it comes to alcohol interlocks, this is a good clause to be progressing. I remember sitting in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee hearings many years back when the Government was refusing to move the blood-alcohol level from 0.8, which was out of line with the rest of the world, to 0.5. I am glad that common sense has prevailed and we have gone more into line in terms of a safer blood-alcohol level, but the key message I heard from police officers and experts back then is that alcohol interlocks are the surest, safest way to get those repeat drink drivers off the roads. The existing law says that a court can mandate it, but this amendment will make sure that repeat offenders do have alcohol interlocks applied.

When you look overseas, the efficacy of them is in the order of 35 to 90 percent. The AA, I note, estimates that currently we have only a couple of hundred alcohol interlocks installed in New Zealand. We could be seeing 100 repeat drink drivers not on our roads. As someone who drives my kids around our cities and towns, it is a terrifying thought that a drunk driver could come screaming down the road through no fault of my own or my wife or any other person on our roads. It is a terrible thought that we could have these repeat drunk drivers who continue to get behind the wheel. Alcohol interlocks make sure that it is massively reduced, in the order of 90 percent.

When it comes to the third substantive section, which is increasing penalties for fleeing drivers, I would note on the record that the Green Party does have some concerns in this area. I note that the Attorney-General in his New Zealand Bill of Rights Act report also had some concerns. These changes are increasing the provisions the Government has for penalties when it comes to those fleeing drivers. I know that the Government claims there are about 2,300 people fleeing police every year, resulting in 460 crashes. I know it is an incredibly concerning phenomenon that innocent victims, including our police officers, are, in many tragic cases, killed or injured when it comes to fleeing drivers. I support the intent of it, but we do note those New Zealand Bill of Rights Act concerns.

The Attorney-General has suggested some drafting amendments, and we will pick that up at the select committee. But I would also note the comments of Victoria University criminologist Professor John Pratt, who has questioned the logic behind it in his comments, which are “I don’t think it’ll have much effect on these particular cases, because people who do these sorts of things, for the most part, are likely to be young men who don’t have much to lose in the first place.” Let us have that debate in the select committee. We really welcome that.

There are some changes around public transport fare evasion. In Auckland it is estimated to cost between $1.4 million and $2 million. As a party that has put out a huge volume of public transport policy, has delivered those wins in the past—for example, the electrification of Auckland’s public transport network, the CBD City Rail Link, and national cycleways. We want to see appropriate funding. When you are seeing maybe 6 percent of the network not being funded through fare evasion, we do have some concerns. We are going to be interested to explore how these new powers are actually going to work. We think a balance needs to be struck.

Then, fifthly, is the regulation of heavy vehicles and, sixthly, are the miscellaneous changes. There in particular we are going to be looking at the clause that says “clarifying the powers of Police to take certain actions, including forbidding driving and immobilising vehicles, in the interests of public safety.” This is something we want to delve down into in a little bit more depth, talk to the experts on, and find out exactly what that means. We do have to strike a good balance between our civil rights as New Zealanders and the rights that the police need to protect our public safety.

All in all, it is a pretty good bill. We will be supporting it to select committee. We will be hearing the debate there before deciding our final position. But let us keep our eyes on the prize, if I can make that key point in this contribution. There are so many public transport, better transport, and active transport opportunities New Zealand has. It is all about making sure the Government, with its scarce funding resources, is investing in the best infrastructure projects that deliver the best economic, best social benefits for New Zealand. We have questioned some of the very unwise spending decisions—for example, the more than $10 billion being spent on these roads of national significance at a time when road volumes are flat. Many people are delaying getting their licence or refusing to at all because they would rather sit on a high-quality train. They have been overseas; they have seen what is happening in Singapore or London or New York. They want to be on Snapchat and playing Pokémon GO as they speed through the city, not stuck in congestion.

So let us make sure we focus on the big picture, which is that we have got some great opportunities and big decisions ahead of us. It is good to be dealing with the regulatory, administrative stuff, but let us focus on the big picture too.

New Zealand First will also support this bill, to at least as far as the select committee, when we will take another look at it to see whether we can support it further. That is because it addresses some of the most urgent changes that are needed to transport law currently, especially through effective deterrents for fleeing drivers, which is a very urgent issue, and creating a level regulatory playing field for all small passenger vehicle operators, including Uber. That is a pretty contentious issue at the moment as well.

But we in New Zealand First do have some reservations and criticisms, which I will come to in a moment. But I just want to go through the various parts of the bill bit by bit. The first relates to the mandatory alcohol interlocks. As we know, currently it is discretionary as to whether alcohol interlock sentences are imposed on first-time offenders with high alcohol levels and offenders with repeat drink-driving convictions. This bill proposes to make that mandatory for those offences. We in New Zealand First applaud that. That is exactly the right thing to do. I observe that overseas experience shows that alcohol interlock devices result in an average improvement, in terms of offending, of 60 percent, and that is spectacular. So this is one of those examples where modern technology can be used to reduce offending. So this is great. I am glad to see that in this bill.

We also applaud measures to assist enforcement officers in dealing with cases of fare evasion. As people in Auckland know, Auckland train services are notorious for free-riders—notorious for it. That has got to stop. Currently it is an infringement, of course, to free-ride, but there is no way that the enforcement officers can enforce it, because they cannot require the offenders to give names or addresses, and therefore they cannot really do much, effectively, about it. So what the bill proposes to do is create new powers that will enable those officers to require passengers who have not got a ticket to prove that they have paid a fare to either give their name and address so that they can be prosecuted, or to actually be ordered to disembark from the service. It will be an offence for a person to fail to comply with that as well. Police officers can, of course, be called to deal with the stroppy offenders in that respect, so it is good to see that that sort of issue is also finally, after all these years, being tackled. I think that we will see an improvement in the quality of Auckland train services as a result.

The next issue is the increases to penalties for drivers who fail to stop for police. As I have already said, that is a very urgent current issue, and something really does need to be done about that. Like Gareth Hughes said, I noted what Victoria University criminologist John Pratt said about that: “I don’t think it”—meaning penalties—“will have much effect on these particular cases because people who do these sorts of things for the most part are likely to be young men who don’t have much to lose in the first place.” Well, they will have a lot to lose if they lose their vehicle as a result of that behaviour, and they will have a lot to lose if there was a possibility of losing their freedom through an additional penalty of imprisonment for the worst cases. So I do not agree with the professor; I think, and we in New Zealand First think, that very tough penalties are one of the most important things you can do about this problem.

I read what is proposed here: “The mandatory driving disqualification period for a first-time [offender] will increase from 3 months to 6 months …”. That is not enough; 3 months’ to 6 months’ disqualification for first-time offenders is not enough. There can be some pretty bad examples, even from first-time offenders. That should be up to 1 year, we believe. It goes on to say that there would be another offence for a second conviction—this is where it involves speeding or driving in a dangerous manner—and the penalty then would be mandatory disqualification for 1 year. We think that should be at least 2 years, perhaps more. It goes on to refer to third and subsequent offences of that kind—an increase from 1 year to 2 years. That really, really is far too light—far too light. We think that should be up to 4 years, and, in addition to that, we believe at that point you should start to impose the possibility of imprisonment.

This is a very serious offence we are talking about, and we are talking about third and subsequent offences. That has to be deterred by really strong sentences. Imprisonment has to be a possibility, then the young people will have something to worry about. So we would like to see that happen. After all, people are dying as a result of this.

I am going to read another thing that I saw—I think it in was the Dominion Post today. It gives the figures: “Overall fleeing drivers were involved in 29 deaths—of themselves or [of others]—in the five years to 2014/15.”—29 deaths. It then says there were 2,735 fleeing driver incidents in the 2014/15 year. That is an increase, in 1 year, of 371. So it shows you that it is not only serious but it is getting worse and it is getting worse rapidly. So we say that we want much stronger penalties, with the possibility, for the worst offenders, of imprisonment.

Just moving on to the updates for heavy vehicle regulation—I think that you have got to look at this in the context of these changes. We do not oppose any of these changes, but you have to think about it in the context of what has been happening in recent times, when we are getting more very heavy vehicles—I think far too heavy, far too long—and huge vehicles on our roads that are capable of, and doing, extraordinary damage to the roads, to the bridges, and, of course, there are serious ramifications for safety as well. So looking at these provisions, that is fine—the provisions themselves are fine—but if it is going to be an excuse that because you have got these harsher compliance requirements we can have even heavier and longer vehicles on the roads, then I, on behalf of New Zealand First, want to express the most serious possible reservations, if that is the ultimate effect of that.

Finally, I want to talk about the regulatory system for small passenger services. What we are really talking about here is what has happened as a result of the introduction of Uber. I agree with what is stated in the introduction to this bill—that it is silly to have separate rules for taxis, private hire services, and shuttles, and that we should have one set of regulations covering them all. It is important that there is a level playing field. That is what most of the taxi drivers really complain about—Uber getting away with what they call “blue murder”, and I agree with that, whereas the taxi drivers have to comply.

I want to, particularly, in my last minute or so, mention two things that we will oppose. Amongst the proposals will be to remove a number of the current regulatory requirements. One of those is the requirement for mandatory signs on vehicles. I think they should stay, and I think Uber vehicles should have mandatory signs on them as well. Everybody needs to know whether this is a taxi or whether this is an Uber service, because that assists in enforcement and assists them in being identified. That is important, so we will be opposing that particular provision. Secondly, we would oppose the removal of the requirement for an operator to belong to an approved taxi organisation. We think, again, that is one of the best ways you can enforce the level playing field, because if you are a member of an organisation, there is a way to identify those people. Those organisations help with the maintenance of standards, they help with tracking people for income tax purposes—and that is another thing that Uber does not provide very well.

Those are two things we will be opposing, but we are going to have a very close look at the rest of those provisions as well. We do not oppose the level playing field, the single regulatory system, but there are things within that that need looking at, and we are going to look very closely at it.

It is a pleasure to be talking on the Land Transport Amendment Bill. I have got to say, the last couple of contributions by the Opposition members have been very useful and thoughtful, but the contributions from the Labour members who are also members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee were, I thought, shameful, actually. The reason why I say that is that both of them, but particularly Ms Sue Moroney, made the allegation or inference that this Government is not concerned about how we see these things being enforced around transport issues. I really do think that neither of them has actually taken the time to read this bill.

As we have heard, there are six provisions in this bill. The first three, I think, are quite relevant in terms of enforcement obligations. So just to recap for a moment, the first one deals with strengthening the legislation relating to alcohol interlocks. For people listening in from home, these are devices that are attached to the steering wheel and stop recidivist drivers from actually starting a car. The rules that have been proposed in this bill will mean that, effectively, first-time high-alcohol drivers or people who are recidivists will have to have one of these interlocks installed in their cars. That is the first issue about enforcement.

The second issue is about strengthening the framework for managing public transport services. I represent Hunua, in Auckland. I have been on the train many, many times. I have observed young people—and it is particularly young people I have observed, but that is not saying it is all young people—who have come on to the train, have often not paid, and have been taken to task by the people on the train, and they have simply walked off, sometimes getting into the next carriage. The rules that are proposed in this bill deal with that quite comprehensively, and I fully support it, having witnessed that.

The third issue is around making sure we are bringing about adequate enforcement deals with an effective deterrent to reduce the incidence of fleeing drivers. I do want to compliment my colleague Mr Stuart Smith, who has proposed some of the measures that have been incorporated. Again, these include quite a few issues around how we deal with these drivers—often younger people, again—and the ability to confiscate their cars, which I think is a really important issue around deterrence.

The fourth one, which I do not think these Opposition members have actually looked at, is contained in the sixth, which is sort of covered by the topic that talks about minor amendments. But if you look at those, they are comprehensive. I am just going to read out a couple about prosecution issues. The explanatory note of the bill talks about “allowing a stationary vehicle infringement notice to be served by providing it to the person who is apparently in charge of the vehicle at the time of service”—I think that is a good prosecution issue—“closing a loophole so that a person whose driver licence is suspended by the Police is also suspended from obtaining a driver licence:”, and “correcting an error to allow vehicle seizure and impoundment warrants to be signed by Justices of the Peace or Registrars:’’. I think those are all good enforcement things.

There is also “enabling automated enforcement of certain traffic signs:”—mmm—and probably the last one, which the previous speaker just referred to, “clarifying the powers of the Police to take certain actions, including forbidding driving and immobilising vehicles, in the interests of public safety:”. This is comprehensive and I am really looking forward to discussing it in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee.

Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Thank you for this opportunity. I rise to speak to the Land Transport Amendment Bill. I want to just pick up where the member who has just resumed his chair, Andrew Bayly, finished, but perhaps with not as much creepiness.

When I look at these kinds of bills, these amendment bills, I always get a little concerned when I read “Miscellaneous amendments”. It makes people think that they are just some little minor things; “we’ll just sneak it in the back door and people won’t really pay too much attention to it, and we’ll just brush it off as miscellaneous”. But if you have a good, hard look at the details—and the member for Hunua has just spoken to some of those—there are actually quite a lot in there. I do think it is an important opportunity for the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee to do due diligence, if you like, on this bill to make sure that the amendments are not just miscellaneous, tagged on into other parts of the bill, where, once again, the wool is being pulled over too many people’s eyes. I look forward to that, and I want to reiterate that point—miscellaneous; it is just too common to find in a lot of the bills from this Government, where it just tries to sneak stuff in through the back door.

We support this bill going to the select committee. The fine members from the Labour benches on that select committee will be sure to debate and will be sure to listen to those stakeholders in relation to this bill. One of those important ones has been mentioned today during this debate. It is the police. I just happen to be sitting here next to the spokesperson for police, Mr Stuart Nash.

I look across the House, and Mr Jami-Lee Ross, we understand, has a bill about window washers. I think about the busy road in my electorate, the Great South Road, and I wonder, with that particular bill and some of the provisions in this bill, just how the police are going to find time to go to every intersection on Great South Road. Let me tell you, Great South Road is a very, very big road—in fact, from Tāmaki-makau-rau all the way down to Hamilton with busy intersections all the way. Now the police are going to be keeping an eye out for window washers—now they are going to enforce many of the parts in this bill. It goes to what my colleague Mr Lees-Galloway was saying, which was: how are they going to do that? Where are they going to get the resources? How are they going to find the time to make sure that the bills passed in this House actually mean something out there to the people?

We do support some of the things about making sure that the roads are safer, and making sure that when whānau and people are driving on the roads, going about their daily business, they can be safe in the fact of knowing that they are going to be safe on the road. I think about a particular place just south of Whangarei, which in the past 6 months has had no less than eight truck crashes.

💬 Su’a William Sio: How many?

Eight in the past 6 months on this one spot on State Highway 1. I wonder, then, when we look at this particular bill: how can we improve the safety on our roads? This side of the House—well, certainly myself and my colleagues on this side—would argue that, while we welcome some of the provisions about tightening up heavy loads on trucks, what we actually want to see is something more comprehensive—“more comprehensive” seems to be the catchword nowadays—to make sure that we can still meet the demands of freight transport and also keep the interests of your everyday road user in mind and make sure that safety is paramount.

There were eight heavy truck crashes, and in half of those—thank God—no other vehicle was involved, but for the other half there were serious injuries for the other road user but not for the heavy truck driver, who, with a heck of a lot of cargo and in command of a very large vehicle, sustained some minor injuries. Sadly, on half of those occasions, the driver in the other vehicle did not fare as well. So we want to make sure that the bills that we pass through this House have that in mind: safety must be paramount.

As other members have spoken about in the House there are other parts to this bill, such as the vehicle locking device for recidivist drink-drivers. I think that is a good thing. It keeps up to step with technology, but it has been a little bit late coming. I can recall when I first got into the House, members of the public were crying out for this kind of technology. It has been around for a long time. So we commend the Government for taking this step, but we do ask: why did it take so long? Since the time when I first started hearing the cries for this particular piece of technology to be utilised until now, how many have fallen victim to drink-drivers on the road? We support that particular clause.

I do now want to talk about some of those miscellaneous amendments. There are no less than a dozen in this particular bill. Some of them talk about simple things like digitising some of the functions for licensing and a few other things—those make sense to me. But I can tell you that, as a member of the public who quite enjoys going online and paying for things instead of walking into the post office, it says in the explanatory note of the bill “allowing recovery of bank charges associated with payments by credit card:”. People say that that is miscellaneous but, you know, for those of us who use our credit cards more and more, and who are going online to do these types of transactions, it is important that the public get to know about those things, and that it is not just a simple miscellaneous matter pushed through in this particular bill.

I want to now draw our attention to fare-fleeing. The member from the Greens talked about how up to $2 million is being lost from those people who actually skip paying a fare on public transport, in Tāmaki-makau-rau, in particular, where this Government crows about how great the public transport network is—and this is beside the point but I can tell you it is actually not that great. I think it is a good thing, but, once again, just like the infringements and the enforcement requirements of the police, we ask the same question: who is going to do that? How exactly are the people put in charge of fulfilling the particular duty that is prescribed in this bill going to make sure that they can carry out their duty? Or are we simply wasting our time, and will we continue to see more of it and people getting away with it, despite passing through this House the legislation that will supposedly smack those people on the hand and make sure that they do not do that again? Sadly, I do not believe the resources are put in place so that this bill is actually something meaningful for the general public.

There are some good parts in it. We do look forward to the debate, and I do take exception to the comments by the member from Hunua, Andrew Bayly, about my colleagues and our role on the select committee. My experience, in the short time I have been on that select committee, has been that we are, in fact, the hardest-working members on it, and we make sure that this Government is listening. Kia ora.

Thank you for this opportunity to take this call to support the Land Transport Amendment Bill in its first reading. I have to say that it is good to see the support to take this bill to the next step, which is the select committee process. I want to clarify to the Opposition that this bill is not about police numbers. This bill is about enhancing passenger safety. This bill is about allowing flexibility in the small passenger service industry to adopt technology, and this bill is also about fairness in competition.

In the small passenger service industry we know that the traditional taxi industry has been advocating for a level playing field, and this bill addresses that issue. Currently our rules for different operating models across the small passenger service industry are not consistent. The compliance requirements and restrictions on them vary a lot. This bill addresses that issue. This bill also brings in a requirement for small passenger service licences. So if commercial operators operate without that licence, it will be an offence. We have heard about mandatory alcohol interlocks, and, yes, the evidence shows that these interlocks work as an effective tool to reduce drink-driving. When people are drunk, they cannot make sensible decisions, so we want to use technology to reduce drink-driving, and that will definitely help us reduce the road toll.

Fare evasion is becoming a big problem and we need to address it, so this bill addresses that problem by giving more powers to enforcement officers. We have also heard about people who flee the police. This bill sends a strong signal to people that not stopping when asked to stop by a police officer or an enforcement officer is going to be a serious offence. For that, I want to acknowledge my colleague Stuart Smith for his contribution to this bill.

Finally, this bill is about updating heavy vehicle regulations, and that is about fairness in that field. As I said before, this is about bringing fairness into the competition that is in the transport industry. This is about bringing fairness into the small passenger service industry. This is also about allowing the flexibility to adopt technology, as we know that some small passenger service industries are adopting technology faster than others. I am looking forward to working on this bill in the select committee process. I support this bill and commend it to the House. Thank you.

As someone who, I assume, is going to contest a by-election in a couple of months, I would have thought that member would have taken more time than simply 2½ minutes to practise speaking; but, anyway, that is the way it is.

I stand to support the Land Transport Amendment Bill. There are six points that I would like to make. What I would like to say is that I think this bill has some fantastic initiatives. I am really interested to see what the experts round the nation have to say when they present in front of the select committee, but on the face of it there are some really good things here. What I want to do is work through them, and then make a final comment.

The first thing is these interlockers. I actually think this is a fantastic idea. In fact, I would almost like to see these compulsory in every car, and certainly in cars driven by people with P plates and learner licences. It is a great idea. Drink-driving is unacceptable in this day and age, but there is still too much of it. Let us accept the proposition that when people have been drinking their judgment is impaired. It is not just their judgment on driving down the road in a straight line; it is whether they should drive or not. What an interlocker does is it is a device that you blow into and if there is any alcohol detected then it locks the car. You cannot drive it. Fantastic! But let us see whether it does work. The small measures in the bill will, I suppose, provide a trial, and if it works, then perhaps we can have an evidence-based approach on how we roll this out across the country.

The second thing is fleeing from the police. We are going to increase the penalties for this. Again, it is a great idea. There are three reasons that have been given in the bill for why this is in here. The first one is that it will deter drivers. I have my doubts about that, to be fair. I think all the evidence shows that when people are committing a crime they do not think about the consequences, because they always think they are going to get away with it. The second thing is it will reduce the number. Again, I have my doubts because, like I mentioned just 2 seconds ago, I think when people are committing a crime the last thing that goes through their heads is a rational decision around the odds of being caught versus not being caught. But the third objective, which I completely agree with, is to send a very clear message that fleeing from the police is totally unacceptable and is a serious crime. There is a debate every time this happens and a driver crashes. Luckily, in the last two that I can remember no innocent bystanders were killed, but the risk, every time someone flees a police car, is that not only will they kill themselves, which is enough of a tragedy, but they will kill an innocent driver or an innocent pedestrian. The thing is that it also puts the lives of the police at risk.

As the Opposition spokesperson on the police I am asked, every time there is a media comment on this, whether I agree there should be chases or not. What I do believe is that the police use their discretion, and I think they do that very well and I back the police on this. But what I also believe is that this is a serious offence, it must be taken seriously, and the message we must send is that it is totally unacceptable to flee the police. The bottom line is you are going to get caught anyway; you are probably going to get done. If you flee, you have obviously done something seriously wrong. Just stop and take the consequences, for goodness’ sake.

The third thing is fare evasion. I actually did not know, until I read the bill, that when a passenger is asked to prove they have bought a ticket, they do not have to. There is no obligation to do that, and no obligation to give their name and address as well. They can be absolutely belligerent. If the conductor or someone comes up and says “Sir, can I have a look at your ticket, to prove you have purchased one?”, they do not have to show it and they do not have to give their name and address. This seems a little weird. So I think this is good because it means that you do have to provide proof of purchase. If you cannot provide proof of purchase, then you are required to give your name and address. It just makes sense, really. It is a pragmatic approach.

The fourth point is the update to the heavy vehicle registration. I listened very carefully to my colleague Sue Moroney’s thoughtful words on this. I must admit I will need to hear what the experts say before I am sold on this initiative. The thing that people do not realise is that the wear and tear on the roads from these heavy vehicles is significant. It is not a linear curve. You have got a small car here versus a big truck; it is exponential. In fact, the wear and tear on our roads from these large trucks is significant. We need to understand the cost benefit around this, and whether it is going to increase productivity or not, and the cost to our roading infrastructure. It will be interesting to hear the submissions on this point.

Taxis—the fifth point. Well, it ensures competition; competition is a good thing, we cannot argue with that. It engages with technology and updates the regulatory system to the 21st century. I think what it does do is it takes into account the disruptive business models we are beginning to see in this industry, and that is only fair, in my view. But, again, it will be interesting to hear what the submitters have to say, because I suspect this is going to be hotly contested and I suspect there will be some very thoughtful submissions presented to the select committee on the taxi regulation.

The last point I would like to make—and it is something I will spend a little bit more time on than the rest—is police resourcing, because, by and large, what we are going to ask the police to do is ensure that they are the ones who enforce the vast majority of the provisions in this bill. The irony is that it would have been about 2 months ago that the police Minister herself said that about 111 police are going to be taken off the road. I must admit, the irony of “111” police taken off the roads was not lost on a lot of people, but the thing that we know is that having officers on the road acts as a deterrent itself. We all know that if we are driving along at 103 kilometres an hour and we see a police officer, we will slow down to 100 kilometres an hour—I know that no one in this House drives over 103 kilometres an hour, but you know what I mean. It acts as a very serious deterrent; if we take the police officers off the road, there is no deterrent at all.

I am really concerned that what we are doing is loading up the police with yet more work. The interesting thing is that in the latest workplace survey, 55 percent of police said that they had unacceptable levels of workplace stress, and 60 percent of police officers actually said they do not believe they are delivering on the promises they make to the public. But the interesting thing about this survey is that over 80 percent of police said that they enjoyed their work, and 80 percent of police said that they had a commitment to the New Zealand police force. So what we have got here is a group of highly professional men and women who want to do what is right—they know what is right; they want to have the tools to get out there and make it happen, but they are just under-resourced. They are highly engaged, highly committed, but with a hell of a lot of stress and not meeting promises.

As mentioned, this bill does some really good things, but there is no way we are going to be able to enforce this if we continue to cut policing resources. The interesting thing is that in the 2016 to 2020 police strategic plan, signed off by the commissioner and signed off by the Minister on 27 May this year, it actually highlights the fact that there was a slight drop in police numbers from 2014 to 2015, and then from 2016 to 2020 there will be no additional police. No additional police, and yet we are dealing with a force that says itself that it is stressed—that says itself that it cannot meet the promises that it makes to the public. Police want to—they work hard, they are committed to their communities, and they are committed to the people of New Zealand—but there are not the resources. Luckily, the Minister of Police and the Prime Minister himself have come out and said: “Look, maybe we got it wrong in that strategic plan. We are now requiring police to investigate every single burglary, instead of the 70 percent investigated in the past. As a consequence of that we need more police on the street, we need more police in our communities, and we need more police on the front line.”

The thing I would say is that it is all very well to come into this House and say to the media “Yes, we need more police.”, but it is a different matter to actually deliver on that promise. Before this bill passes through this House, what we need, I believe, is a firm commitment of how many police and when they are going to come online, because there is no point in passing this law through the House if there are not the men and women out there to enforce it.

Just to sum up, I think there are some great initiatives here, I think there are some pragmatic provisions in this bill, and I am looking forward to hearing what the select committee and the submitters say, but—and that is a really big “but”—I think we are wasting our time putting these measures in place if there are not the men and women on the front line to enforce them. We need more police in our community, and we need a firm commitment from the Minister of Police and the Prime Minister around when these police are going to arrive, how many, and where they are going to be deployed. Thank you very much.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee.