Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 2)

Before the member speaks, I will indicate that there are two amendments in Sue Moroney’s name that are debatable but are not in order for the purpose of voting because they have commencement dates dependent on an indeterminate event, which is inconsistent with the Standing Orders.

I rise to speak to the title of this particular bill. Much of the debate from this side of the House has been around those vulnerable members of our community. We have mentioned those who rely on Braille postings and Braille signage for their safety, comfort, and convenience. I wonder whether, perhaps, some of the titles that could be offered up in this particular part might be something like “Land Transport (Exclusion) Amendment Bill”, with reference to the exclusion of a significant part of our community. The point was made earlier by speakers on this particular bill that many of the submitters came in to speak to their safety. Many of them came in to speak particularly to the issue with regard to Braille in the taxis, to make sure that those communities that rely on those services were safe and were looked after.

Sadly what this Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 2) ends up doing is actually excluding a large part of our community. There were varying numbers I read through the submissions on those who will be affected, but they range from 22 percent of our community. In particular, one submitter spoke about their disabled community in Papatoetoe, South Auckland—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am going to interrupt the member and ask him to draw my attention to the specific clauses or subclauses between clause 93 and clause 97, in Part 2 of the bill, to which he is referring.

Part 2 of the bill?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Sorry; I apologise. Clauses 1 and 2.

I was speaking directly to the title of this particular bill. I mentioned earlier that in an attempt to amend the Land Transport Act, in fact it was excluding a significant part of our community, and I offered up the “Land Transport (Exclusion of Disabled Communities) Amendment Bill” as a potential title. While some members in this Chamber might cringe, the facts were quite clearly laid out to the select committee and, as I mentioned earlier, some very sensitive topics were raised by those submitters.

While there are parts in this bill that of course we agree with, and it does seek to amend significant parts in the Land Transport Act, there are still other aspects of this particular bill that we—I spoke about the exclusion of those communities. We also spoke about the issues with regard to Uber and the availability of passenger services and how that will impact on traffic in my electorate of Tāmaki Makaurau.

I just want to offer a little something for us to think about when we pass this particular bill. Actually, it does exclude people. It excludes a large part of our economy and those services in Tāmaki-makau-rau. I heard the Minister speak about how it will ease congestion. Well, that is not the vision or evidence to assure this member, whose electorate spans right across Tāmaki-makau-rau, that those congestion issues in Tāmaki-makau-rau will be settled or will be eased, if you like, through the passing of this particular bill. I will finish there with the offer of my particular changes to the title, in the hope that members across this Chamber will actually remember those submissions by those people affected—that their voices can be heard.

Thank you for the opportunity to rise and speak to clause 2, which is about the time when this bill, when it becomes an Act, commences—when it comes into being. I have two Supplementary Order Papers, which I want to acknowledge have been ruled out of order by the Chair. I think, actually, the very legitimate reason why they have been ruled out of order is an interesting point, in itself, to debate when we are looking at this part of the bill.

The two issues that my Supplementary Order Papers were wanting to address were about getting that actual level playing field that this bill purports to deliver, and does not quite do. It does not quite do, because of some of the issues that we have raised about safety in the previous parts, which have already been debated. I want to place on record how sorry and sad I am that three parties in this Chamber would not support the blind community in their requirement for Braille signage. I think that is really sad.

But what this part is about is—two things. First of all, we in Labour did not want this bill to pass until Uber had become fully compliant with all tax requirements obliged of it under New Zealand law. Not a big ask. Actually, Mr Seymour, that is what it is required to do. So I am not sure why this is a problem. But the ruling has been that what we are asking for here is an indeterminate date. In other words, this Committee cannot even determine a date on which Uber would become compliant with all its tax requirements obliged of it under New Zealand law. How bizarre! How bizarre is that?

What we know, what has been reported in New Zealand, is that Uber in 2014 declared gross revenues of just over a billion dollars in New Zealand. But in that same year it paid only $9,397 in income tax. How can that be fair?

💬 Alastair Scott: That’s turnover, not profit.

Now the National Government is coming to the defence of this unfair taxation system. A person on the average wage of $45,000 is taxed about $7,800. So how can that be fair? A person on the average wage of $45,000 pays just under $8,000 of tax each year, but Uber, with its over $1 billion, pays just over $9,000. The National Government thinks that is all right. It is defending that situation. Well, we do not believe it is right and it is not a level playing field. That is not the same situation for the taxi companies that are operating under this same piece of legislation that we are about to pass, and that is why we have raised it.

We have also raised again something that should just be pretty straightforward. We do not want this Act coming into force until the day after Uber becomes fully compliant with all transport rule requirements regarding logbooks and driving hours, as obliged of it under New Zealand law. Again, it has been ruled that we cannot actually even vote on that because it is an indeterminate date. We do not know when Uber is going to follow the law. That is basically what this Committee is determining.

Well, that is a crazy situation. It is an unsafe situation. As we know, there was the highly publicised situation that happened not very long ago, where an American couple arrived in New Zealand. They thought they were doing the right thing by publicly declaring their Uber driver to be a hero because in a dreadful storm this was the only way that they could get from Auckland Airport to Wellington in one driving feat. Well, one problem. That exercise flouted these laws that we are talking about. It actually flouted the laws that are in place to keep everyone on the road safe, to stop people from driving when they are fatigued, and to stop people in this industry from having pressure put on them to drive in an unsafe situation—in one of the worst storms that we have had in New Zealand this year, and that is saying something because we have had some pretty bad ones.

So I hope that parties will be able to support—

I wish to speak to the title clause. I think it is absolutely appropriate that the Land Transport Act is being amended, and amended for the second time in this Parliament—hence its title Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 2). The reason is that land transport does frequently change, and some of the changes are addressed well in this bill. For example, in central Auckland and in the Epsom electorate, where we have eight train stations, the use of public transport has gone through dramatic growth and change, but with that comes serious challenges and problems. One of those has been fare evasion.

People in my electorate have asked how it can be possible that it is not an offence and it cannot be enforced when people evade fares. It seems common sense that if you take something that is not yours, even if it is a service, you should be able to be forced to pay, under the law. That is one example of how this bill will improve land transport and why the title, which implies we are amending the Land Transport Act for the second time in this Parliament, is so appropriate.

In this stage, we have introduced Jami-Lee Ross’ Supplementary Order Paper 350, which will introduce fines and penalties for people who are doing windscreen washing. Again, this is something that has come about as a result of changes in land transport and the way that people use it. It is actually related to the fare evasion issue, because the police in Epsom tell us that we have a problem with people who use what they call the “free train”, having evaded fares, and then go about windscreen washing and committing other crime as related activities. So it is reasonable that an infringement notice regime, as introduced by Jami-Lee Ross’ amendment to the bill, is introduced in this amendment bill too. There are two major intersections in Auckland that are close to train stations and that do not have proper gating, and in both those instances we have had an epidemic of crime related to fare evasion and windscreen washing, children getting pushed off their bikes and having their cellphones nicked by people who have been breaking those two laws, which have not been easy for the authorities to enforce under the current law.

Another area where it is very appropriate to entitle this the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 2) for this parliamentary term is around the kinds of companies that do business in New Zealand. Again, I commend the Minister of Transport for his Supplementary Order Paper 351, which ACT has advocated for and strongly supported. That allows an entity that is otherwise based offshore to participate in the New Zealand land transport market by having a presence here in New Zealand. So long as it identifies somebody who can be identified as responsible for the company’s operations in this country, then that organisation is able to operate here. From the point of view of New Zealanders using land transport, that is hugely important, because, again, in central Auckland and particularly in the Epsom electorate, people are using land transport in new and different ways.

Literally hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders have signed up for Uber. But I would remind my friends on the other side of the Chamber who are in the business of making legislation in order to account for what they view as poor enforcement and picking on particular identities in a form of Venezuelan legislation: it is not just Uber; it is also, for instance, Chariot. It is also Lyft. We need an ecosystem of transport providers and ride-sharing companies in this country. This is amending the Land Transport Act to keep up with the changes that are coming about in the way New Zealanders use land transport, and so, again, that introduction is highly appropriate.

I am very proud to be supporting this bill. I think it could have done a lot more to facilitate ride sharing, but what it has done is take another step, in this parliamentary term, to making it easier for New Zealanders to safely get around our country. Thank you.

I am happy to speak on the title and commencement sections of the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 2), and, in line with the previous speaker, David Seymour, I do think that the title of the bill is an apt one. When you look back in the statute book there have been numerous amendments to this Act, and that is because land transport is a dynamic area in which technology is constantly changing, practices are constantly changing, and new policy issues are arising.

When I look at this, there are three key areas of land transport that it seems to me this bill addresses. One relates to the safety of the land transport system, and that part of the bill that specifically relates to vehicle interlocks was actually one in which there was a good deal of accord from around the Chamber in terms of the changes that are being introduced there. Land transport safety is incredibly important. We have had approximately 320 New Zealanders who lost their lives in the previous calendar year, and we know that a significant number of those people lost their lives because of people who were under the influence of alcohol. So we on the side of the House think that any measures that improve the safety of the land transport system in respect of people who are alcohol-impaired are to be applauded, and the changes in this bill in respect of the alcohol interlocks, we think, are a practical measure. It is addressing an improved piece of technology that we have, and we think it is a really smart set of changes, and so we are fully in support of those changes to make our land transport system safer.

There are changes in respect of the efficiency of the land transport system. They have not been particularly commented on in the debate here, and, again, I think this was a relatively uncontroversial part of the bill in respect of some of the technical bits of the legislation that relate to heavy vehicles. Basically, the legislation smooths off some of the rough edges that we currently have in that area.

The other part of the land transport system that this bill addresses, or does not address, is consumer protections. My colleague Sue Moroney has spoken, I think, really clearly and effectively about some of the concerns that we have on the side of the House about the lack of consumer protections that are built into this bill in respect of small passenger vehicles. What we have said, and in fact what submitters said throughout the select committee process, is that there is a huge amount of openness to consumers being offered more choices through the use of ride-sharing technologies. Pretty much everyone is open to that, but what we on this side of the House wanted to see in respect of land transport consumer protection were some basic bits of public-good regulation put into this legislation that would provide those protections—simple things like Braille signage and in-car cameras, things that people can expect when they take our small passenger vehicles at the moment, for the most part. I think some of the responses that we received in this debate simply did not satisfy our concerns in that area.

I was also disappointed that we did not get progress in another area of consumer protection in respect of the land transport system, and that is in the area of vehicle clamping in my Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 345, which was narrowly voted down. This is an area that has been of real concern around Auckland. It is totally unregulated. It is just a voluntary code, which gives a minimal level of protection to consumers and is, basically, ignored by some of the sharks operating around Auckland. We have had terrible stories coming through the media of consumers who have been completely predated on and ripped off by these people, many of them in Mr Seymour’s electorate, in fact, and he voted against giving those constituents a level of protection through my SOP, which would have simply picked up the Government’s current voluntary code and actually given it some teeth. That is all it would have done, but, sadly, that was voted down tonight. So we missed an opportunity for consumer protection there.

I would not be doing my job on behalf the Regulations Review Committee if I did not note the level of concern about the commencement section where, once again, we are seeing a level of looseness in respect of commencement. Once again, we are seeing a lack of clarity about the dates upon which certain parts of quite a consequential Act will come into force. So in clause 2(1) the “Commencement of amendments relating to alcohol interlock sentences … on 1 April 2018”—fine—“or on an earlier date appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council,”. We simply do not see the need for that level of legislative looseness, and we would prefer to see it kept at 1 April 2018. The same goes in respect of small passenger vehicles. We have expressed our concern there, but at the very least we think that given the huge numbers of people who are potentially affected, both consumers and current operators, by this law, we should give them the certainty of when these changes might take effect and not leave it to the whim of the Minister. Thank you.

Clause 1 agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 328 in the name of the Hon Simon Bridges to clause 2 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment presently.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported progress on the Appropriation (2017/18 Estimates) Bill and reported the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 2) with amendment.

Report adopted.