Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 2)

It is a pleasure to stand up and talk about the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 2) in the Committee stage. Talking about Part 1, something that I would like to talk about is the “Mandatory alcohol interlock sentence for repeat offences and certain first offences”—this is new section 65AB, inserted by clause 19, on page 11. There is no doubt about it that drink-drivers cause death on our roads. People who drive when they are drunk or impaired by alcohol should be—anything to get them off our roads makes a huge difference. In fact, I remember talking to a retiring—I think he was an assistant commissioner of police, of road transport policing. I cannot remember his name, which is terrible, but he is heading off to Geneva, and he said to me that one of the things—this is good for Mr Iain Lees-Galloway—that will actually save lives is Iain Lees-Galloway’s member’s bill, I think it was, that changed drug alcohol limits.

But the bottom line is that we want to stop people from driving drunk. Of that there is absolutely no doubt, and there is also no doubt that there is too much recidivist drink-driving. I think a New Zealand First—no, no, I think it was one of the Greens; David Clendon spoke about the fact that he visited a drug and alcohol court and a chap was there for his ninth offence, or something ridiculous. That is totally unacceptable, someone with nine offences for drink-driving. What we do know is he had been caught nine times. What we do not know, obviously, is how many times he had driven drunk. But he had a real problem; of that there was no doubt.

So there are these things called alcohol interlock devices, and what they do is they are fitted to a vehicle and the person has to breathe into this and pass a test before they are allowed to drive their car. I think this is absolutely fantastic, and what this bill does is it makes them mandatory for repeat offences and for certain first-time offences. Now what is a first-time offence? Well, we all know what a repeat offender is, of course. They have been convicted before for drunk-driving within 5 years of the date on which the offence has been dealt with by a court. So if it is outside that time, then they are not a repeat offender; if it is within the 5-year time, then they are classed as a repeat offender under new section 65AB(1)(a).

We talk about what a first-time offender is. Well, that is if they have a high blood-alcohol reading that exceeds 800 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath. The proportion of alcohol in a person’s blood, as ascertained from the analysis, exceeds 160 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. It probably means nothing if you do not know exactly what I am talking about, but what I would say is that it is a lot, OK? This is someone who is drunk, who is impaired, and not only puts their own life at risk but, more importantly, puts the lives of everyone else on the road at risk.

The thing about these devices—I would actually like to see these mandatory in every vehicle. Why are we doing it only for people who have been convicted of a high blood-alcohol level or a high breath-test analysis? Why are we not doing it for everyone? I know there is an expense here, and I do know that—I assume it is the department of Justice that will provide a fund, but correct me if I am wrong; and no doubt one of my colleagues will. If you have been convicted of this and one of these has to be fitted to your car, then you have got to pay for it. What we do not want to do is penalise a person twice by making them pay for something that they just cannot afford and therefore they do not do it. So there will be a fund set up to do this, because the most important thing, of course, is to stop someone from driving drunk. It cannot be prohibitive in the sense that they just simply cannot afford it. But would it not be great to have these in every single vehicle? I mean, what are the rules now, Mr Lees-Galloway? If you are under 18, you cannot have any alcohol on your breath?

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: That’s right.

No alcohol whatsoever. What is the risk of having this in every single car and just dialling it down? For example, if the car is owned or it is driven by someone who is 18 or under, then this is automatically installed in the car. In fact, I think that is probably the future, and maybe this is just a trial. We want to stop people driving drunk. In fact, I would pay to have this in any of my children’s cars, no doubt about that, and I think there are many people around the country who should have them installed whether they have got a drink-driving conviction or not. But the bottom line is that it is the right thing to do. It is using technology in a very smart way to save lives. I was not on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, but I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that this was supported by all.

One thing I am unsure about, and I have been trying to find it in the legislation, is actually the cost of this. What the court can do is when it imposes—this is new section 65AH—a fine or a court order or imprisonment or an assessment or anything like that, “the court may take into account the cost of an alcohol interlock sentence [when setting] the amount of any fine.” So, as mentioned, what we do not want to do with these things is make them prohibitive or make them unaffordable, but the bottom line is that if you are convicted of drink-driving, there is a price to pay. What we also know is that when people have been drinking their judgment is impaired—is that not right, Mr Seymour? So what we need to ensure is that these things take that element of risk out of the equation when someone has had a few too many drinks and wants to hop in a car. The other thing it can do, of course, is it means that people who need their vehicle for work—you know, it is a vital component of their life—can possibly have one of these installed and know with confidence that they will not be done for drunk-driving again. But the bottom line is that it is the right thing to do.

There are exceptions. There is an exception for people who are not given an alcohol interlock sentence, and that is set out in new section 65AI. For example, and there are 3 of them, any disqualification as “appropriate under the provision relating to the qualifying offence;”—oh, anyway, you can read them yourself if you are very interested, there is no doubt about that. It would get a little bit boring if I were to go through it. It is quite technical, but it is important. All I would say is that I think these are a fantastic initiative. I actually think they should be in all cars. I would love to hear from someone who was on the select committee to provide a little bit of direction of why, in fact, we did not suggest this for everyone who has been convicted of a drink-driving offence and why they are not mandatory for anyone under the age of 18 who is driving a vehicle. The records show that those are the ones who are going to kill people on our roads. Thank you very much.

I am very happy to take a call on the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 2), and I am particularly pleased as this is my first opportunity to speak in this debate as Labour’s new transport spokesperson. In introducing that point, can I just acknowledge the work that my colleague Sue Moroney has done not only in this role but also on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee in working constructively on the progress of this bill. I would like to take a few calls on the bill this evening. There are lots of quite important points to cover off here.

The Labour Party’s position on this bill is that we support many of the measures within it, but we do have some real concerns that we want to flag and have some engagement with the Minister in the chair, Scott Simpson, on. The one that I want to touch on in my first contribution relates to the provisions in this bill—and we are talking about clause 58 here—which remove requirements to have identification information in Braille in small passenger vehicles. I want to reflect on some of the things that we heard in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee about this and really dig into why we have not been able to see some proactive and sensible and pragmatic changes made to the legislation through that select committee process in response to those concerns.

This really goes to, I guess, probably the heart of Labour’s concerns about some of the deregulatory aspects around small passenger vehicles that come through in this bill. We are a party that supports sensible public-good regulation. We always have to be careful when we are regulating that we do not get into the territory of being overburdensome, but we have public-good regulation to protect the public good.

What we had in the select committee in respect of this issue was, I thought, a number of very good submissions, including one from the Association of Blind Citizens of New Zealand—and I could not really put it better myself. It made the point that it sees real potential through the introduction of ride-sharing services like Uber—it is not anti-Uber at all. The association thinks it is a good service that offers opportunities for the people it represents. It goes further—and I quote directly from them here—it says: “we urge caution to ensure that there are no serious and perhaps unforeseen consequences for people who are most dependent on such services for their everyday transport, and who may also be amongst the most vulnerable. We are deeply concerned that the overall thrust of the changes, as explained in the explanatory note to the bill, is to ‘remove regulatory requirements that impose costs on operators but no longer offer any significant benefits’.” What it goes on to say in its submission is that it does believe, as one of the bodies that represents the interests of vision-impaired people, that there are significant benefits in terms of having that Braille identification in small passenger vehicles.

What we really have not heard from the Government through the course of the Committee stage debate, or at any other stage, is why this relatively non-onerous piece of public-good regulation has been removed. In this respect, I want to speak to the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that was put forward by Sue Moroney, Supplementary Order Paper 346, which seeks to directly address this issue. It is very simple. It means that in the legislation, in the bill here—and we are looking at page 36 of the bar 2 bill—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Order! I am sorry to interrupt the member but, just for the purposes of transparency, the Supplementary Order Papers that the member Sue Moroney has put forward are out of order because they are on an intangible or not-a-fixed date. Discussions around Uber and what regulations should be imposed on them—so discussion about what the Supplementary Order Papers are intended to do is fine and totally in scope, but they will be ruled out of order come voting time. Just to let you know.

Thank you, Mr Chair. If I can continue on in this vein, it would be really good to hear from the Minister in the chair on the substantive point that we are talking about in respect of clause 58 of the bill here, which is why there has been such reluctance from the Government to listen to this point. While the SOP might be out of order, I do note, from the commentary, we heard in the select committee that, in fact, the provision of this Braille signage is actually very cheap—possibly about $20 per vehicle. So it does seem to be a relatively non-onerous thing that we could do to ensure the safety and comfort of vision-impaired people.

In the short time I have got—actually the frozen time I have got, judging by the timer—in the remainder of this call, I would just like to address a very, very specific point I picked up in terms of one of the changes that was introduced by the select committee—and I would like to come back to some other calls a little bit later—and this is on page 42 of the bill, and we are looking at clause 80 here, and it is the definition of “moped”. I have a particular interest in this because I am the proud owner of a nice little 1998 Honda Giorno. It is more sort of held together by duct tape and things these days—I probably would not want the land transport authorities looking too closely at it. But ensuring that those vehicles are roadworthy and ridden in accordance with the rules of the road is very important. Of course, they are a very useful addition to a vehicle fleet, particularly in our congested cities.

The question that I have got is around clause 80(1). Clause 80(1) introduces, through a select committee change, a new definition of “moped”, and here we have got “has 2 or 3 wheels;”—well, we understand that that is an accurate thing to say—has “an engine cylinder capacity not exceeding 50 cc”, and 50cc has always been the standard definition of what separates a moped from a motorcycle or the baby vehicle from the grown up one; 50cc’s the cut-off point. So we know that that is right; and “a power source other than a piston engine”. Effectively, a moped is a lawnmower that you ride around on the roads.

But it is clause 80(1)(b) that I just want to question and perhaps get the Minister in the chair to respond to: “a maximum speed not exceeding 50 kilometres per hour;”. This is important. This is part of the definition of a moped in this piece of legislation. Every moped that I am familiar with has a maximum speed of more than 50 kilometres per hour. The maximum speed at which a moped is legally, lawfully, allowed to drive on the road is 50 kilometres per hour, but the maximum speed of a moped is generally far more than 50 kilometres an hour. So it would just be helpful to check through the Minister that we are confident that the definition of “moped” is not going to, through a loose use of language, create potential definitional issues when we get to the implementation of this legislation further on down the track. I will wind up my call there, Mr Chair, but I will be very keen to take a few more calls later in this debate.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair, for this opportunity. I am glad my esteemed colleague here knows the definition of “motorcycle” and “scooter”. It is an important thing. I want to touch on a couple of things, and one of those is around impairment while in charge of a vehicle. While the bill talks about alcohol, it also talks about drugs. I think it is a relevant debate to have, given the issue around synthetic drugs today—not your traditional drugs, which, I am sure, many police who have worked in this particular space are familiar with, but synthetic drugs.

There is a real issue with synthetic drugs and how they impact on people’s functions and abilities, and clearly in this case the ability to drive a vehicle or control a vehicle. The definition of what synthetic cannabis is, I think, still up for debate. Some would argue it is not cannabis and is in fact a whole host of other different poisons—not cannabis per se but clearly something that is bad for you and can impair your ability to be in command of, or drive, a vehicle. I would like to see, perhaps, some clearer definition around that.

I also want to touch on the point made by my colleague Mr Michael Wood on Braille. The reason I want to highlight his particular contribution—which is around clause 58, “Section 30B repealed (Provision of identification information in Braille)”—is that the submitters to the select committee were very, very clear, and gave, I thought, very emotional submissions on fearing for the lives of the most vulnerable in our communities when they are hoping to catch a taxi somewhere. They also spoke about their dependence on taxis to get around places like Auckland. Although the quite regular use of taxis can be booked, they fear that if a particular driver or their regular driver is not available and they get a different driver and they are not able to readily identify them, then there is a serious issue there.

There were recommendations that perhaps technology could help with this, but the point was made to us that technology actually costs a fair amount of money, and those who are vision-impaired and rely on taxi services are unable to afford the technology required to make sure that they get a timely service from the taxi service that is there to pick them up, and that the identity of the driver is readily available and also the cab number. That was a serious concern.

I will say it clearly in this Chamber: the submitters on this actually gave some harrowing stories where they feared for their lives when they were unable to clearly identify who the driver was, felt they had been taken far off track and not to their intended destination, and literally felt they were going to be murdered or hurt in some particular way. That is an important thing, because, like I say, I thought those were very powerful submissions.

I take the point that my colleague Mr Wood made, which is that it is very clear that the cost to make sure that the signage is available on a car is very minimal—very minimal. In fact, it is so small—I think, if I recall correctly, one of the submissions from the taxi company, when asked about whether or not it is that hard to provide Braille signage for vision-impaired consumers, was that it said: “Look, compliance isn’t that hard. Actually, we’re not too fussed. We’re neither here nor there with it.”

So I wonder why we are taking this away when, like I said, for the most vulnerable members of our community who rely on this particular service, we are not helping them. We are not looking after them. We are not making sure that they can continue to get from A to B safely. That is of huge concern to us, primarily because we do not understand why such a small cost is not being considered when repealing this particular part of the legislation. We have got some concerns about that.

I would just like to make some short initial remarks with regard to two amendments in the name of Sue Moroney: Supplementary Order Papers 348 and 349. These two amendments are positively Venezuelan in that they name a particular company and target it as though the purpose of the House is not to make laws that apply equally to all New Zealanders and all who operate in the Realm of New Zealand but that we are actually legislating in the House, naming individuals or naming corporations and bullying them through legislation. That is the sort of approach that we find in Venezuela, where Sue Moroney’s fellow travellers have destroyed the country—

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: How much is this contribution worth?

—and, as F A Hayek predicted, have taken that country down the road to serfdom, where it now finds itself, having collapsed inevitably from central planning to out and out dictator—

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: Is the cheque in the mail yet, David?

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Iain Lees-Galloway has asked whether I am receiving a cheque for speaking in the House. As you know, under Standing Order 120, that is unparliamentary and not the kind of behaviour we would expect from a King’s College old boy.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Well, I can understand the sensitivities. However, he said: “Is the cheque in the mail?”, and he could have been talking about anything. He did not actually refer to whom the cheque could be from, or speculate. I take the point you are making in respect of the context, though, and I would suggest to Mr Lees-Galloway that he refrain from making such glib comments.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This is a fresh point of order. Prior to that, he asked: “How much is this speech costing?”. If you are seriously denying that he is in contravention of Standing Order 120, then I think you have misread what he was saying.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): I ask Iain Lees-Galloway whether he confirms that that is what he said.

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: Yeah, he is close enough.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Well, I suggest you withdraw and apologise.

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: I withdraw and apologise.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Actually, I was not suggesting that; I was instructing it.

Thank you, Mr Chair—

💬 Michael Wood: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Mr Seymour’s point of order interrupted one that I was about to take myself, which is that the prior comment that had set off that exchange was comparing a Labour Party member to a regime that is murdering its own citizens on the streets. I think we take offence at that and would ask that that is withdrawn.

💬 Sue Moroney: I have taken offence.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Unfortunately, the member should have objected at the time. But let us just see whether we can deal with this in a relatively respectful way, bearing in mind the latitudes of the House.

Thank you, Mr Chair. However, I have to say that comparing one’s policies is quite different from comparing one’s motives, and it is a fact that throughout history, wherever these types of policies—socialism and central planning—have been adopted, they have inevitably led us down the road to serfdom and have inevitably concentrated power in the thugs and bullies and led to great violence.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Let us get back to the bill.

If Michael Wood is offended by that, I am very sorry, but those are the facts. To have a member of the Labour Party in 2017 putting an amendment before this House that targets a particular corporation—

💬 Sue Moroney: And ask them to pay their taxes.

—names it, and attempts to shame it is a disgrace. And there is Sue Moroney saying: “Oh well, we’re only asking them to pay their tax.” Well, the fact of the matter is that the assumption in a civilised society, in a democracy, in 2017 is that all corporations are observing the rule of law, and only Sue Moroney could possibly misunderstand that and put forward such ridiculous amendments to this bill. So I hope that these amendments will be voted down, I hope that they will not stand, and, in fact, Mr Chair, I hope that you will rule them out of order because I felt it necessary—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Order! I can put the member’s mind at rest. I gave an indication to the Committee earlier that the Supplementary Order Papers in respect of the company are out of order because they relate to an indeterminate date. However, debate around the company is within the scope of the bill.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Nevertheless, I think it is important to put it on record that for this House to make legislation targeting specific individuals and targeting specific companies is positively Venezuelan, and the Labour Party should be ashamed for putting such amendments before this Committee. Thank you.

It is a great pleasure to take a call on this and to just set a few things on the record for starters. Firstly, I must thank the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for its diligence on this bill. I think it is a very significant bill. As I say, I think the changes to alcohol interlocks are entirely right. I am sure they will have widespread support amongst the Committee. I think the fare evasion provisions, again, are important, particularly in Auckland, where we are starting to see this emerging. It has been happening for some time and certainly is a growing issue. They will be helpful provisions and will empower enforcement officers to require passengers to show evidence they have paid the fare and to provide their contact details if they do not. The fleeing driver provisions—again, I think we will see widespread support, as well as for the heavy vehicle regulations and the like.

I think, for my part, we are focusing on the most significant part of the bill in the sense that it is the newest. It is the most interesting of the provisions, and that is in relation to some small passenger services. I can say personally that I am proud of these provisions. I think this is going to be a very significant reform that will make an incredibly positive difference to, broadly, the small passenger services area—taxis and private carriage and the shuttles, and so on, as well. I say that because, really, what they do is they lower the compliance, they level the playing field, and they bring us into a world that is far different from the one in the 1980s, when what we had, of course, was not even big brick cellphones, really. I mean, they might just have been on the scene, but we certainly did not have these smartphones and all that technology and innovation have put before us today.

Ultimately, what the bill is going to do is provide for much greater service to consumers—to the people of New Zealand—and that has got to be a good thing. There will be more competition, more service, more choice, and that choice, I think, by lowering the compliance, is going to result in an array of different services. I think you will still see traditional taxis that are identical to what we have today. You will walk out of an airport, you will get out on a rank, and you will see exactly what we see now—the branded car with the meter, the camera, and all those things. People will still do that, and that will be a strong way of doing it.

But I think you will also see different models, where people will use their phone and they will see a different range of services. If they want the cheaper option to get somewhere quickly, which might be the mum with her shopping, or if they want to go sharing—perhaps the university student will be getting in with strangers or other university students in a ride-sharing situation—this bill is going to be incredibly enabling for all that. So it will be empowering for consumers, and I think it will also see a reduction in congestion over time. I have talked about electric vehicles, autonomous vehicles, all these things—I think this area of ride sharing is the most significant in the short to medium term.

I just want to address a couple of the concerns that I have heard from members that I think it is valid to raise. Firstly, the one by Michael Wood about mopeds—it is good to hear his personal history when it comes to mopeds. The definition of moped in regard to the maximum speed limit of 50 kilometres is actually in the Act now, so that is the current situation, and the changed definition is designed to better include three-wheeler mopeds.

I also want to address head-on what I think is a valid concern about the disability sector and about Braille that we have heard. I can understand the concerns being raised, but what I heard in the lead-up to the bill and what Craig Foss, the then Minister, heard at quite a number of meetings was that this was a sector, the disability sector, for which the small passenger services sector was really underperforming. They do not see the status quo today—well, they might say it is just passing, but not good enough.

What has happened is that technology has changed everything. We have a situation now where technology, through apps, through different credit cards and payment forms, provides every bit the same—actually much more—assurance for a disabled person in a taxi or in a private hire vehicle as they could have had before. It allows them, of course, through various apps with talking technologies, etc., etc.—there is so much happening in this area—to have much better direct communication with operators and much better direct assurance about the operators and whom they are getting in advance, records of the trips, and all of these things, than they ever could have had with the tatty piece of paper and the compliance cost on regulators that the Braille signage provides at the moment.

So I think this is the right thing to do: to strip away compliance costs while actually ensuring, as we know, that the technology and innovation provide other, different—and, I believe much better, stronger—safety assurances for disabled folk who are using these sorts of services. This is a system, I repeat, that is going to be enabling more service, more consumer choice, more technology, and innovation that is better.

I also give this guarantee to the sector. At the moment, Total Mobility is the service that provides for them in this area, and provides subsidy, effectively, for their services. I believe that this regime is going to show much more service for them, some of it much cheaper, which is something that they have complained about in the past. But if we see any sort of reduction in service, I will, as Minister of Transport in a newly constructed National Government—or the National Government will—up the Total Mobility subsidy. I will up the amount we are putting in if we find that the system is not working as it should. I know that it will, though.

I feel very strongly that what we are doing here is a step forward. I feel that, in fact, technology and innovation and the enabling that we are allowing here for the apps and so on, which at the moment they cannot do properly, legally, under the current regime—which will pass when this bill is passed—will allow for much better assurance, not less, for the disabled sector in New Zealand.

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this debate on the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 2). It does cover a wide range of issues in Part 1 here, but I want to focus particularly on a couple of issues in the first of what I hope will be many calls, because I have quite a number of Supplementary Order Papers on Part 1 of this bill.

Can I first of all say that David Seymour from the ACT Party just jumped the shark. He just jumped the shark. If anyone does not know about jumping the shark, it is a reference to what Fonzie did on Happy Days when they were desperate to try to make the show look a bit more groovy and entertaining—that is what David Seymour just did. He just accused me of being like a regime that murders its own citizens because—oh, wait for it—I put forward Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 348, which says that this bill should not actually come into force until the day after Uber becomes fully compliant with all the tax requirements obliged of it under New Zealand law.

I have put this forward just to say that all of these companies should be compliant with tax laws, and we know that, in fact, there is an issue with Uber. That is why Uber was named. In the New Zealand Herald in July 2016, it was written that Uber declared gross revenue of just over $1 billion in New Zealand in 2014 but paid just $9,397 in income tax. So how can that be? How can that be right?

We in the Labour Party are all up for having a level playing field here in New Zealand. We want to make sure it is utterly a level playing field. That is why we are supporting this legislation, because it is an attempt to get a level playing field in the small passenger vehicle services. That is part of this bill. But we also want it to be fair across the board, because the taxi companies are not able to use the sorts of loopholes that Uber is using. They are paying tax on every cent, so why is Uber not? So if we want a completely fair and even and level playing field, Minister Bridges, then we need to get real about the rest of the situation, as well.

The other Supplementary Order Paper—Supplementary Order Paper 349—that David Seymour seemed to think equated to murdering one’s own citizens was requiring Uber to become “fully compliant with all Transport Rule requirements regarding log books and driving hours as obliged of them under New Zealand law.” The reason for this is that there have now been a number of well-publicised cases where people driving for Uber—and, you know, the Uber company will be very clever, and say: “You know, actually, we don’t employ drivers. We just have partners.”—

💬 Peeni Henare: Rod Stewart.

—that is right—“It’s an application. Don’t you realise that Uber is an app. It’s not a vehicle that is being driven.” Of course we understand that, but there have been cases where Uber drivers have been driving outside those hours. Every New Zealander should be concerned about that because we all share the roads with those same drivers, and I want to make sure, and the New Zealand Labour Party wants to make sure, that our roads are safe.

One of the ways that we do that is we have transport rules and regulations for these services, and, for some reason, Uber seems to think that those do not apply to it. So the Supplementary Order Papers—which I fully accept have been ruled out of order, but the ACT member objected to them—were simply about saying that the legislation should not proceed and should not come into force until those issues had been addressed by that company. After all, it is, by and large, that company’s performance and introduction into New Zealand that has required the law to be changed in this way. Yes, it is time to update this law, but let us be really clear that when we deregulate—and that is what this is; be very clear that this is piece of deregulation—we need to be very careful that we get it right.

We need to be very careful about that, because when deregulation goes bad, it costs lives. We know that. We know that through the Pike River mine experience, which we have had in our very own country. We know that because much more recently, we have seen the tragic events that unfolded in London, where fire standards had been deregulated. There was that horrific sight of that building going up in flames, when several people—tens of people—lost their lives. That is what happens if we deregulate and we get it wrong.

This is a service that people rely on when they are sometimes impaired. They are sometimes impaired. Sometimes that is because they have been out on the town and they have been drinking, and they are doing the right thing by not driving themselves but by calling up one of these services. We want to make sure that when people do the right thing, they are in safe hands. That is why this is so critically important. Quite frequently, it will be young women who are in that situation, so we want to make sure that they are looked after. People are very vulnerable in these circumstances.

Also—and the Minister made reference to this—people with disabilities rely utterly on this service. It is not a thing that they choose to do every once in a while when they go out on the town. This is how they live their lives because, with particular disabilities, they cannot drive themselves. The entire way that they interact with their community and the way they get themselves around is entirely dependent on this service, so the standards are very important to them.

One of my SOPs that, thankfully, has not been ruled out of order is just requiring all of those services to have some Braille signage on the side of the door, as they currently do. If you get into a taxi, you will see on the passenger side of the door that there is a little bit of plastic and it has got Braille signage on it. We had disability advocacy service after advocacy service after advocacy service come into our select committee and beg us not to remove the requirement for that Braille signage because they rely on it so utterly. We were told that if it is done well and properly, the cost is about $20 per each one of those little plastic stickers. Twenty dollars—for the want of $20, Minister. The cost is not burdensome for the safety that it provides for those very vulnerable people in our community who are sight-impaired.

For people who are blind and who, therefore, cannot drive themselves around and who cannot easily use public transport, this is their lifeblood, and all they are asking for is for it to be safe in a way that they know they can find out information about what vehicle they have just put themselves into. Yes, there is new technology, but all of them said that nothing was going to be as secure for them as having that little plastic sticker on that actual door. If you are sight-impaired and you are using an app to try to identify the driver in the picture of the driver on the app to make sure it is the right person, and you do not want to get into a vehicle you may regret getting into, then that is not going to work for a sight-impaired person.

We kind of kid ourselves quite a bit about what all this new technology means, as if it is going to fix everything—as if it is going to fix every circumstance. Well, it is just not, but the thing that has worked are these Braille stickers. They give certainty and security to the people who most rely on this service and who are most vulnerable when they are using this service. So I urge all parties to seriously consider supporting Supplementary Order Paper 346, because all it does is keep the current regulation in place that requires Braille signage in any of those vehicles that are being used to provide a small commercial passenger service. It is not too much to ask, but it is incredibly important for those people and it is what they rely on in terms of their safety.

I am really looking forward to some further debate on those SOPs. I want to hear from the Government, if it is not going to support SOP 346, why not.

New Zealand First will continue to oppose this bill solely because of its provisions in relation to Uber. We do not believe any of the points that Minister Bridges made are true or correct. We think, to the contrary, that the bill will degrade the standards applying to small passenger vehicles, and that will impact on passenger safety. We say that there will be no level playing field provided for Uber in relation to taxis and that that is a bad thing. We do not accept that simply because there is a new technology, it is necessarily good—and it is not good in this case.

In fact, we think that the taxi drivers have a very valid complaint in relation to the lowering of standards, which they have worked so hard, for so long, to maintain, not because of the Transport Agency but because of the taxi drivers and their organisations themselves. We think that that will have a very adverse effect on the safety of passengers and drivers alike. The Government seems to be willing to pay that price, and we think that is deplorable.

We say that the bill will not provide a level playing field between Uber and taxis, and that there is no possible way this legislation could do so. Uber should be required to do what taxis and taxi drivers are required to do. One of those things is that they should be required to pass an English language test and an area knowledge test, and maintain a log book and comply with restrictions on hours of driving, in just the same way as taxi drivers are required to do.

Another issue is the removal of mandatory signs on and in vehicles. We say that they should stay. Uber vehicles should have mandatory signs on the exterior of them, in just the same way as taxis do, and the reason for that is that passengers have a right to know whether the vehicle that they are going to pay for a ride in is being run by authorised providers. You cannot do that without proper signage, and signage assists in identifying the vehicles and the drivers so that that identification can be used for enforcement of regulations. We also oppose the deletion of the requirement for Braille signs in the interior of the vehicles. We think that it is perfectly reasonable that for sight-impaired people, those Braille signs should stay. We say the same about security cameras—we think they are a very important adjunct for the safety of passengers and drivers, as they are in taxis. They should be required for Uber vehicles in exactly the same way. Security cameras record passenger misbehaviour and provide a very good record of events, should that be required for enforcement purposes.

Most of all, however, New Zealand First is very deeply concerned that Uber pays no tax in New Zealand and that most of its drivers will pay little or no tax either, as a matter of fact, while taxi drivers will be required to continue to do so. That is certainly nowhere near a level playing field, and the Government should be aiming for a level playing field.

It is also true that Uber drivers do not pay at airports for drop-off fees or pick-up fees in the same way that taxi drivers do, nor will Uber drivers have to pay for renting taxi stands at airports. Uber drivers just pick up or drop off people as though they are members of the public; they are not in that category. I know of one taxi organisation in Wellington that pays $200,000 a year for taxi stands at Wellington Airport. Nobody in the Uber industry will be doing that, and that is another very important way in which this bill is not providing Uber with a level playing field.

New Zealand is not ready for a free-for-all Uber service in New Zealand in the way that this Government intends. The standards that will apply will be too low. The safety levels will be very significantly reduced. Uber will take profits from New Zealand to benefit overseas owners, with no benefit to New Zealand whatsoever.

There are already 7,000 Uber vehicles in New Zealand, and they include drivers on student visas whose real reason for being here is to find work, not to study. They take jobs away from Kiwis, jobs that should not be taken away from Kiwis. But even those drivers are being ripped off by the Uber organisation itself, which has recently severely reduced Uber drivers’ incomes, to the point where you would have to wonder whether it is viable at all.

The truth is that Uber is an international organisation with no interest whatsoever in the welfare of New Zealand or New Zealanders, especially in the viability of the small passenger services industry in this country. New Zealand First wants Uber out of New Zealand, as has happened recently in Denmark and in Italy for good reasons, and we want a fair deal for taxi operators. This bill is not going to do it, and we will not support it.

I have some regard for Denis O’Rourke. On some of the more legal bills I think he gives a good perspective on things, and that is excellent. But that was a ridiculous speech. It was a ridiculous speech because it wants to take us back to the 1960s or 1970s, and to sort of blindfold ourselves to the technology and innovation that is happening. He said in his contribution that New Zealand is not ready for Uber drivers. Well, I have got a little secret. It is a dirty little secret for the member: they are here in their thousands. Tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders use them, Mr O’Rourke, and that is the way it goes.

Be very clear though: this bill is not for Uber. It is not the Uber bill. This bill is for a lower-compliance, level playing field that brings competition to the likes of Uber, actually. I will tell you what, a company that excites me much more than Uber is a company called Lyft, which we see in the US. Actually, over half of its trips these days involve more than one stranger passenger. It is effectively doing sharing better than anyone I have heard of. It is particularly strong in American university towns.

Think about that, and about the congestion benefits it would have, if in our bigger centres we saw that sort of technology and innovation—people getting into cars with others, rather than the 1.2 people per average, or something, that we seem to have at the moment in our vehicles, on our highways, and on our arterial roads. It would make a really big difference indeed, and that is what excites me about this bill. It is the competition and it is the choice that New Zealanders will have.

It will not be just Uber; I think it will be players like Lyft, and I think there will also be significant indigenous players. We are already seeing them. Here in Wellington there is Chariot. I know there are others—actually, if I had gone and got a list, I could have reeled a few of them off for you—who are wanting to play in this space and are waiting for this law.

💬 Sue Moroney: If they are paying their taxes.

It will not happen overnight, but over time you will see more of this. Sue Moroney mentions taxis. Actually, I am with her, inasmuch as I know that the Blue Bubble cabs and the others will, in very much a “horses for courses” way—

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: Taxes, not taxis.

Well, she is obsessed. She is obsessed with that. That actually has absolutely nothing to do with this bill, but that is the way that Sue rolls. Taxis will also, I think, offer their traditional services, and they will also offer the app-based kind of services. They may do a bit of both from the same car, and I welcome all of that innovation.

Sue Moroney said this bill deregulates. Well, it does, and I am proud of that. Actually, if you look at the deregulation it removes a number of unnecessary current regulatory requirements that impose costs on operators. That is what National is about. We believe in that, and we think it is good for New Zealanders to do that. We are reducing the mandatory signage—I have talked about that. I have addressed the Braille concerns, from the Government’s perspective.

It removes requirements, such as an area knowledge certificate—I mean, why you would have that today, when every taxi driver I ever get in with now does not have the knowledge and actually goes off the GPS, is beyond me; the full licence test every 5 years, because that is unnecessary and they get the test when they start; the P endorsement course, of course, which we are doing away with but keeping the P endorsement, which is important and I will come back to it; belonging to an approved taxi organisation; providing a small passenger service 24 hours per day, 7 days per week; holding a certificate of knowledge of law and practice; and monitoring of driver panic alarms in taxis from a fixed location 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. We are doing away with a lot of compliance.

Sue Moroney also said something else that I think is interesting and is important. That is that we need to make sure when we deregulate that we do not make mistakes and that we do ensure that safety is paramount. This bill does that. That is because, contrary to submissions that I know the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee heard, we have kept the P endorsement. We want to make sure, and we will continue to ensure, that people who drive others in a commercial service have the police checks, have the good-character checks, have the medical assessments, and so on. It will be at a dramatically reduced cost because we want to democratise what we are doing in this area, but that P endorsement will still be there, and that is very important.

I think it is also very important to place on the record what is happening with the in-vehicle camera because there is a lot of misunderstanding in that area. Let me briefly detail that. There is still a requirement for in-vehicle cameras in all of the 18 largest centres in New Zealand, just as there was. What is also true is that there is an exemption process there where the small passenger service can, and indeed must, to meet the exemption requirement, provide services only to registered passengers.

So where the provider can make quite clear and satisfy the New Zealand Transport Agency that in advance of—let us take the case that we have heard from Sue Moroney—that impaired person getting in the vehicle, he or she knows in advance who the driver is and they know everything about them and their company. They have probably used the company before, because they have it all there. Equally, from the driver’s safety perspective, they know that it is Sarah Jones whom they are picking up. They have her details—actually, they will have her bank details, and so on. I would argue that that is actually a much more effective safety deterrent and way of doing things than the in-vehicle camera, in terms of the assurances that it provides before the trip and during the trip.

Also, they will need to have recording devices because they will need to be able to make available and retain specified information for at least 168 hours after a trip. They will be able to detail where the trip has been—effectively, GPS information; there is the power of technology now to do these things. They will need to be able to say when it was at X point and when it then reached Y point. These are requirements that, in fact, drivers do not need to provide today, so they are additional and different safety assurances from the in-vehicle camera, but I think the international experience is showing that they are every bit as strong as the in-vehicle camera.

So it will be a situation where, in the 18 biggest centres, drivers will either have to provide the in-vehicle cameras and services or there will need to be the registration and the information that is kept for a period of time.

I would like to take a short call on the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 2). I acknowledge that I am not a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, but, just to remind us, the bill attempts to improve the regulation and support the efficiency and safety of land transport. There are six parts: reducing repeat drink-driving offences by strengthening the legislation; giving enforcement officers other than the police new powers; reducing the incidence of drivers who fail to stop for the police; updating the heavy vehicle regulations to align with recent changes to the land transport rule; updating the regulatory system for smaller passenger services to ensure that it is responding to emerging technology; and, the sixth one, making minor amendments to the Land Transport Act to clarify interpretations of the legislation and improve its operation.

In terms of Part 1, I just want to draw the attention of the Minister in the chair, Simon Bridges, to Subpart 2, “Fare evasion”, and to make some observations. We have got clause 29, where it talks about “Penalties for failure to pay passenger service fares”, replacing section 79M, “Penalties for failure to pay service fares, etc”. I am assuming that when we talk about “etc.” under this particular provision, we are talking about buses, taxis, airplanes, ferries, trains, and whatever comes under “pay service fares”.

When I read this particular clause—and the Minister, perhaps, can answer this, probably, when we come back—I have three questions. One is that when I read this particular clause, I immediately say: “How this is to be implemented?”. How are we going to have enforcement officers across all those public transports? It is an interesting point, but I would like to be really clear as to how this is going to be implemented and who is actually going to pay the cost. Who is actually going to pay the enforcement officers to be on the planes, be on the trains, or be on the taxis? I just think it is a legitimate question to ask—how this is going to be applied across those particular pay service fares—because—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): I am sorry to interrupt the member, but the time has come for us to adjourn for the dinner break. She will have 2 minutes and 44 seconds remaining when she comes back.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

When we broke for dinner, I was addressing Part 1, Subpart 2, “Fare evasion”, and talking about clause 29, “Penalties for failure to pay passenger service fares”, which replaces section 79M, “Penalties for failure to pay service fares, etc”. The question I was seeking clarification about from the Minister in the chair was assuming that “pay service fares, etc” included transportation like buses, taxis, airplanes, ferries, trains, and any other passenger-paying service, and the question I was proposing before we broke was one around implementation, about the practicality. This is because in clause 29 of Subpart 2 on fare evasion, it talks about the appointment of powers to an enforcement officer to ensure people who are riding on these particular public services pay their fare.

So the question to the Minister in the chair is around just the practicality of how this is actually going to be enforced and who is going to pay these enforcement officers—really just trying to get some clarification from the Minister. Did we consider the kind of cost that maybe the businesses, the transportation entities, would have to face by giving these extended powers of enforcement?

But I would also like to get some clarification, if we look at Subparts 2 and 3, because they talk about the penalties in subsections 5 and 6 of new section 79M as inserted by clause 29. I just seek clarification from the Minister because when you read new section 75M(2)(b) it talks about “fails to provide (in response to an enforcement officer’s direction given in accordance with section 128F(1)) evidence of having paid the fare.”, and then when you go down to subsection (3)(a) it repeats that: “fails to provide (in response to an enforcement officer’s direction given in accordance with section 128F(2)(a)) …”. The reason why there could potentially be confusion there is that the penalty related to subsection (2)(a), if you break this, is a fine of $200, and the penalty targeted to subsection (3)(a) is $1,000.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak in this Committee stage of the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 2). As we look at Part 1, Subpart 1 this evening, looking at mandatory alcohol interlocks, this is an incredibly important part—perhaps one of the most important parts—of this bill, because this has the power to reduce recidivist drink-driving by at least 60 percent of those who have been convicted in the past of this offence. But in the past, only 2 percent of those who could have received the sentence had received the sentence, so making this mandatory is very, very important if we want to see the road toll come down and see a greater change of behaviour from those people who have been involved in this continual issue and problem around drink-driving and also the high intoxication of some drivers.

This is going to contribute significantly to the reduction in vehicle crashes in New Zealand. Drink-driving causes on average 77 road deaths a year—that is a very significant number of people—436 serious injuries, and 1,252 minor injuries. We are talking substantial figures and numbers, so this part of the bill brings forward some very significant changes to the regime that are important for New Zealanders’ road safety.

Once an offender has received the mandatory alcohol interlock sentence they need to apply to the New Zealand Transport Agency for an alcohol interlock licence. In fact, one speaker earlier on in the debate this evening said he would like to have this as mandatory across all young drivers. Well, we know that the cost is quite significant: around $2,400 to $2,800 for the installation of these devices. Indeed, they are very effective. You have to blow into them before you can start your vehicle. Then there are periodic intervals when you are driving your vehicle—because I wondered this question myself: could it be that somebody who continues to have the habit of driving under the influence of alcohol just gets a friend to blow into the interlock to enable that car to get started? But the technology is that at periodic intervals during the journey you will have to blow into the interlock and so the current driver, i.e., the person who has that device, who has that licence, will be required to do this if their journey is going to continue.

I think that is marvellous technology and it is expensive technology: $2,400 to $2,800. We understand that this may cause numbers of people not to be able to afford to do this, and so the Government is putting in place a fund of $4 million to enable this mandatory sentencing to take place so that we do see these alcohol interlock devices installed and see the change of behaviour that is intended to happen. The big winners are those people who have those sentences because it will require that they comply with the law. That is a good thing, so we do not see that recidivist breaking of the law. Secondly, it is a great thing for the road users of New Zealand to see these situations where you do not see recidivist driving as much, because, as I said earlier in my remarks, it brings a 60 percent reduction in recidivist behaviour in terms of driving under the influence of alcohol.

So as we just look at Subpart 1 of this first part of the bill, there is a tremendous emphasis on this aspect of the amendment bill. I think this is a great step forward. It is really important to see these sorts of provisions that will save lives, save serious injuries, and save the number of minor injuries happening to New Zealanders on our roads and in our places of driving activity. I am very pleased to see this portion, and happy to make a contribution later on as we come to other parts of this bill. Thank you.

I want to speak on the issue that is raised in my Supplementary Order Paper 347, which is about ensuring that every vehicle involved in this type of service would need to be fitted with an in-vehicle security camera system. I know that Minister Bridges spoke about this issue before, and I have just two words to say to the Minister about his assertion that an app that tells you who the driver is and who the supposed passenger is fixes this issue, and, therefore, if they have that application in place that they should be exempted from having these in-vehicle security cameras. Well, the two words that I want to say to the Minister are “Rod Stewart”. That has piqued his interest—

💬 Clare Curran: That got him captured.

That did catch his attention—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: I wonder what song he’s thinking of?

Ha, ha! This is because we had Rod Stewart come to the Law and Order Committee—and, of course, it was not actually Rod Stewart but this man had been able to register as an Uber driver using the Uber app and using the name Rod Stewart and using the photo of the singer Rod Stewart. He, clearly, when he came into the committee looked nothing like Rod Stewart; his hair was somewhat tidier. He did not look like Rod Stewart at all, but he had been able to operate as an Uber driver under an application that he—

💬 Alastair Scott: No, he didn’t.

Well, yes, he did. I know that Uber contests this, but he actually did. He actually picked people up. They knew he was not Rod Stewart, but they were in the vehicle anyway. So I think that was a demonstration of just how—that was an exaggerated example of how these systems are not foolproof. Not only was there that instance, where someone can register and even use the photo of someone quite famous when they are obviously not, and still register and do that, but, secondly, what a lot of the submitters raised with us was that if you are a passenger and you are an Uber user—and so you are registered and you make an arrangement for an Uber to come and pick you up—what is to say that you are actually that person? But, more so, what is going to happen is that the other couple of people who come with you in that vehicle may not be registered at all. So who is to know what their identity is if something goes wrong? So that is why it is not the same, Minister, as having every vehicle in those 18 metropolitan areas, those 18 largest areas, fitted with an in-vehicle security camera system.

I have a really sad but recent incident to discuss that absolutely raises the reason why we need these in-vehicle security camera systems. They were brought in not that long ago, actually. I think they were brought in in 2014—have I got that right, 2014? It was pretty recent. They were brought in for a reason. There were two shocking murders of taxi drivers, two brutal murders of taxi drivers that happened—one in Auckland and one in Christchurch. So that is the reason why the current Government brought those in. And do you know what? Instantly, the taxi drivers knew that they worked, and a lot of the taxi companies that had argued against that level of regulation at the time are now arguing in favour of it. But they want a level playing field, and they want it for all of these services.

What they found was that not only did the violent offences drop immediately, and have continued to stay low—and, in fact, there has not been a reported murder of a taxi driver since this regulation came into being—but what they also found was that they did not have as many runners. So knowing that there was a system operating in that vehicle meant that people were much less likely to try to take off without paying. So there was not only an immediate health and safety benefit to these companies and, obviously, the safety of their staff, but there was also an immediate economic benefit. Some of the companies that were opposed to them when they were introduced are now big fans of this because they have seen how well they operate.

But the recent incident that I want to refer to—Mr Chair, if I could have another call [Bell rung]—is the incident that happened in Hamilton just on the weekend, on Friday night: the shocking and unnecessary murder of a man in Norton who was stabbed to death. The arrests that have been made are for three young women. I caught a taxi back from the airport last evening, and the taxi driver who basically caught those young women was my taxi driver. Here is the story that he told me—he is a hero. Before I tell the story, I just want to say to Norman Kingi’s family that I want to express my sincere sympathies to them and say may Norm rest in peace, because he was a deeply valued member of our community. This is a sad situation that he found himself in.

Those young women allegedly murdered him around about 10.30, 11 o’clock on Friday night. At around about 2 o’clock the next morning, this taxi driver was called to an address nearby and picked up three young women. He said that he had not long had them in the vehicle when he realised that he was in trouble, because, even though these were quite young women, they were instantly aggressive with him. He just knew that they were bad news and he needed them out of his vehicle as soon as possible. He had an in-vehicle security camera system operating in his vehicle and even though he had that, he knew that he needed them out of his vehicle. He saw a cop car. He pulled up behind the cop car, got out, and said to the police officer: “Get these women out of my car. They are bad news.” The policeman went and got them out of the car, realised whom he had, and that is why the police were able to arrest these young women so quickly after that murder.

The reason I tell the story is that—you know the app that the Minister talked about that you can get an exemption from having this in-vehicle security system for? If one of those young women was registered—sure, she may not have caused a problem ever before—go to that address, get picked up. But guess what? The other two get in with her, and the other two are the bad eggs.

What this driver told me was that he thought two of them were pretty whacked out on drugs and one of them was completely sober, in his assessment. That could have been the one who used the app to call up the driver, and then the other two climb in as well. Now, if that driver was in that situation without an in-vehicle security camera—and without just driving down the road and having the good sense to do what this driver did, which was to pull up immediately behind a cop car and get them out of there, and the good luck that that police car happened to be there—what might have happened? What might have happened next? I can tell the Committee that this taxi driver was thanking his lucky stars that he did what he did, because who knows—did they still have the knife on them? What could have happened next? There could have been an even deeper tragedy for our community.

I do want to come back to that issue about deregulation, Minister. Yes, you may be proud that it is deregulation, and, certainly, if it is a level playing field and it is sensible deregulation, we have no problem with that. But time and time again this House gets it wrong with going too far. And time and time again, when there is a National Government in place, deregulation does go too far, because the National Government always argues that it is too expensive. It is too expensive. Well, how expensive are taxi drivers’ and Uber drivers’ lives? What cost do we put on the safety of people who are impaired, either temporarily through having a night out or permanently impaired through their disability? What price, Minister, do we put on that? The Labour Party says at least the cost of getting an in-vehicle security camera system in those 18 locations across the board; not penalising the taxi industry by making it have them but not the other group. Let us get serious about having security and safety first.

I want to address my remarks to the Supplementary Order Paper that has the deletion of clause 58, which is around the Braille—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): 346.

—provision. Supplementary Order Paper 346—thank you, Mr Chair. I am actually appalled. I did not sit on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for this. I have been reading some of the submissions. I have heard Minister Bridges speak generally about these issues, but I do not know if he has quite specifically dealt with—

💬 Alastair Scott: Very specifically.

Well, you know, give me the chance to ask the question and some of the questions around this. With reference to the fact that there were 14 submissions on this piece of legislation, including from individuals, blind citizens—and I know that there have been references made to submissions from the New Zealand Taxi Federation, the Office of the Ombudsman, The Braille Authority of New Zealand Aotearoa Trust, Otago Regional Council, other very auspicious organisations, and Local Government New Zealand. All of those submissions make reference to this particular clause in the bill.

When I actually read the officials’ report on this I failed to understand what the logic is, actually, other than cost, for the removal of this clause. This clause required a simple Braille identification mechanism for people who are sight-impaired to know that when they got into a small passenger vehicle it had a safety measure that they could verify then and there. One of my questions to the Minister in the chair is: is it the cost of that that is the reason for the new technology and the reason for the removal of this clause?

The precise number of sight-impaired people in New Zealand is around about a quarter of a million, at least, to maybe half a million people—it would be good if somebody could give me the precise figures on that. That is actually quite a lot of people, and it is a significant enough number of people, surely, for the Government to be paying attention to them as a group in society and their ability to have accessible means of transport.

When I read the officials’ report, I read with some horror, around the commentary on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, that there was a reference to the fact that the convention does not specifically require the provision of information in Braille and that the convention requires New Zealand to take appropriate measures but it does not identify specific initiatives that must be implemented. So that felt like a kind of “get out” clause, which I think, in terms of health and safety and the accessibility that this Government says it is providing to people—why would the Government say that the provision of an app where there is a tracking mechanism, and if there is a problem then the Uber driver or whoever can actually be tracked in retrospect, is a solution? How is that a solution, where you can track somebody retrospectively but where, if there is an issue when they get into the vehicle and an issue occurs and they do not have a mechanism to identify that it is a viable vehicle—

I move, That the question be now put.

We have had at least a dozen Opposition speeches on this part, and I think there has been an opportunity to cover everything.