Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 2)

on behalf of the Minister of Transport: I move, That the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. I am very pleased to speak on the third reading of such an ambitious piece of legislation. The bill will modernise regulation of small passenger services, update rules for heavy vehicles, support the effectiveness of public transport operations, and improve road safety.

The first part of the bill addresses alcohol interlocks, which are a very effective tool for reducing the incidence of repeat drink-driving. They work by requiring a driver to pass a breath test before they can start their vehicle. Evidence shows that interlocks are effective in protecting the safety of the public and that they reduce reoffending rates by an average of 60 percent while the devices are fitted. The bill makes alcohol interlocks mandatory for first-time high-alcohol offenders and repeat offenders, with limited grounds for exceptions proposed. The bill also sets out how the mandatory alcohol interlock sentence applies when other offences with disqualification penalties have been committed. The Government will fund a financial assistance scheme to assist low-income offenders where the cost 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 bill creates a sound foundation on which to further develop the interlock programme in the future.

The second part of the bill addresses the Government’s commitment to supporting a well-functioning public transport system. We want to prevent a culture of evasion of fares from becoming established. This is because the evasion of fares is, essentially, theft, and affects the efficiency of public transport services. The bill strengthens the legislative regime for managing evasion of fares. It gives enforcement officers new powers to require passengers to provide evidence that they have paid a fare, provide their contact details when evidence of payment is not produced, and/or order a passenger to disembark a public transport service. It will be an offence for a person to fail to comply with an enforcement officer’s directions. The changes in the bill will enable enforcement officers to deal with most cases of fare evasion. The police could be called in more difficult cases involving non-compliant passengers and would continue to attend more serious cases involving antisocial behaviour.

The third part of the bill implements increases to the penalties for drivers who fail to stop for police. When drivers attempt to flee, 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 also 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.

The fourth part of the bill makes key changes to the regulation of heavy vehicles. It enables more efficient enforcement of heavy vehicle weight limits, makes it easier to redirect vehicles for weighing, and increases the maximum penalty for overloading. The changes will lead to productivity and safety gains with fewer heavy vehicle trips being required on the transport system to transport the same volume of passengers and freight.

The fifth part of the bill addresses the fact that new technologies like smartphone apps are changing the way the small passenger services sector can operate. Modernising our regulatory framework ensures we can keep pace with these changes and make sure it is flexible enough to accommodate new business models while managing safety risks. The bill, together with the amendments to regulations and land transport rules, will overhaul small passenger services by removing outdated provisions and bringing the sector into the 21st century to allow all transport providers to operate and compete on a more even footing.

Finally, the bill introduces a range of minor amendments to clarify interpretations or the intent of the legislation, improve its operation, remove inconsistencies, and make minor technical adjustments. Although minor, these changes are a sign of the Government’s commitment to better regulation.

I want to thank the members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for their work on this bill, as well as those who submitted on it or who made contributions in different ways. Taken together, 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 commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on the third reading of the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 2). With a bill with a name like that, we would really hope that this was the bill that was going to actually do something to reduce congestion, to maybe reduce the road toll, or to make sure that our transport system works much more effectively and efficiently than what it does. Maybe there would be hope that this would be a bill that would actually make better use of our rail system, for example, up and down the country and in the regions.

But, sadly, no—it does not do any of those things. It is a bit of tinkering around the edges from a Government that has spent $9 billion of taxpayer funding on transport, only to make carbon emissions higher, to make congestion worse, and to have the road toll go up for 4 years in a row now. I do not know about you, but I think that takes a high level of ideological incompetency to spend $9 billion and get worse outcomes from our transport system. But that is exactly what this Government has achieved—if you could call that an achievement. But, good news—soon there will be a Labour-led Government that will actually truly bring about amendment to our land transport system that will make a real difference and will get New Zealand moving, and get it moving in the right direction.

This bill does have a lot of features that, yes, we do support. So we are voting for it because it does not do terribly much harm, but it does not do much that is great either. However, we have some real reservations about this bill. We tried to fix it up. We tried to help the Government out at Committee stage by proposing some really sensible amendments that we thought would have made a real difference to this. The area that concerns us most in this bill is the area where it deregulates and lowers the standards in the small passenger vehicle services—always makes me think that it might be a service that jockeys can use, being small passengers. I think we need to find a different phrase to use to talk about this service, but it is basically what people know of as being—

💬 Jonathan Young: Very small passengers.

Ha! That is right: small passengers. It is kind of like the taxi services and Uber, and trying to bring all those things together and get a level playing field. In doing that, the Government is deregulating.

Now, why this needs some particular attention is that when Tory Governments—when National Governments—deregulate, in this country it has led to disastrous outcomes, and in other countries too, actually. What it normally means is that they deregulate and they just kind of throw away the rule book. They lower standards so far that it makes thing dangerous. So, the Pike River mine—there is a local example of an area that was deregulated, and 29 men paid the consequences with their lives. Leaky buildings—that is another area where that Government deregulated, and now thousands of New Zealand families are out of pocket because of that level of deregulation. So it is always really important to look closely when a National Government deregulates.

We think that in this area it is just the same. It is so important—so important—because the people who are using these small passenger vehicle services are often—not always, but often—impaired at some level: either temporarily because they have been out on the town and have done the sensible thing and ordered up one of these services rather than driving themselves home, or, actually, because they are permanently impaired. People in the disability community are utterly dependent on these services—utterly dependent on them—for having some level of independence, for being able to get around their community, and for being able to participate in society. So getting the safety features of these services right affects some of the most vulnerable people in our community. People are often very vulnerable when they are using these services.

So, here are some of the areas that we think the Government has got wrong in here—where it has deregulated too much, where the idea of cost has actually been put ahead of the issue of safety. There are two key areas. One is taking the requirement for Braille signage away from that service. At the moment people will know when they get into a taxi that on the passenger side there is a little plastic strip for people who are sight-impaired and for people who are blind so that they will be able to work out where they are. Are they in the right vehicle? Who is the driver? They will know details about the car that they have just stepped into.

But that Government says that that is no longer needed. Here is the bizarre truth: submitters came along and told us—actually most of the advocacy organisations for the disability sector came along and begged the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee not to go down that route, not to take away one of those main safety and security features for them. They also told us that those strips can be produced for about $20 each. So for the sake of $20 for people who are sight-impaired to have that certainty and that security—that Government will not even afford them that. It is saying the cost is too high. Well, the cost of not getting the service right, like the cost of deregulating the mining sector, like the cost of deregulating building materials—those costs are simply too high.

The Government will argue: “Hey it’s all right, because they are all going to have smartphones.”—I have not even got mine on me—“They are all going to have smartphones. They are going to have an app and it is going to say: ‘Here’s your driver. Here is what he or she looks like.’ ” You know, if you are sight-impaired, how is that going to go, guys? I am just saying. Those Government members are all nodding over there, saying: “Yep. The app is going to sort it out.” Yes, well, how is that going to sort that out? So when Rod Stewart’s picture pops up—because we know that a person was able to register as an Uber driver using Rod Stewart’s photo and his name and start picking people up when he clearly was not Rod Stewart. And even when fully sighted people could see that the picture and the driver did not match up, they still got in the car. So, this idea that these technological advances will fix every situation and look after people’s safety is just utterly wrong, and the Government members have their heads in the sand about it.

The second thing that the Labour Party proposed was that all of these services should, if they operate in the 18 largest urban areas in New Zealand, retain the requirement to have a security service in that vehicle. This provision came in only a few years ago. It was brought in by that National Government. At the time some of the taxi companies rebelled against it. They said: “Oh, it will be too costly and it is not a good thing, and it is too over-regulating.” That was on the back of two vicious murders of taxi drivers—one in Auckland and one in Christchurch. That is why that regulation came in. And do you know what? Since then, those same taxi companies are now begging for that provision to stay. Those ones that thought it was overreaching at the time, that thought it was going to be too much compliance and too much cost, now say that it is the best thing that they did. They have seen the violent offences completely drop—drop by about 40 percent, actually, in the first couple of years of operation of that new provision. They have also seen that they do not have as many people running off without paying—another unintended but good consequence of having those systems in place.

I am going to put that Government on notice right now. I am going to put it on notice. It voted down those two sensible amendments. The first time that a vulnerable woman gets attacked and raped in one of those services, and the first time that one of those vulnerable drivers picks up someone violent who attacks them—and I hope we are not talking about murder, but a violent attack—I want that Government to stand up and say: “That is our fault. We did that.” That is what it is inviting. That Government—[Interruption] Well, those members are already shaking their heads and washing their hands of that responsibility, but they had the opportunity to vote to have those security systems maintained right across that fleet. They need to understand the seriousness and the consequences of not getting the level of regulation right in this bill.

Finally, I will say that the other two amendments that we wanted to see put in place were that we did not want to see this change at all until we had certainty that Uber was going to pay its fair share of taxes, which it currently does not, and that it lived up to the regulations of having logbooks and driver hours, which it currently does not in some circumstances. Those are just about fairness and getting it right. If we are going to have a level playing field for everyone, then let us do it right across the board and get that right. We support this bill with major reservations.

I would like to just pre-empt my comments with a response to what the previous speaker, Sue Moroney, has said regarding an issue that came up in our select committee hearings. Mr Wayne Branks brought allegations against Uber and, as a process in select committee called natural justice, we give a person or a company who has had allegations brought against them—particularly in public hearings—the opportunity to respond.

The previous speaker is aware of this response, yet continues to bring this situation into this House and into the public arena. I would like to just read out one paragraph from Uber’s submission.

💬 Sue Moroney: Read the whole thing. Do the job properly, Jonathan.

No, just one paragraph is sufficient. [Interruption]

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will stop interjecting.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. “In his submission Mr Branks seems to claim to have provided trips to riders using the Uber app under various different aliases. Uber confirms that Mr Branks does not have, and has never had, an active Uber profile in New Zealand under his name or any other alias connected to his driver’s license or P-endorsement.” He is in fact a taxi driver for another company. It goes on to say: “Mr Branks has registered his interest to drive using the Uber app under various aliases, but none of these Uber profiles has ever been activated.” I am just reading that out as part of the record, thank you. That came to our select committee, and the member was fully aware of that response to that natural justice issue.

In my closing comments regarding this bill, I would like to say that one particular area that I think is going to be very, very important and helpful for the road safety of New Zealand—and the previous speaker raised that as well—is the mandatory alcohol interlocks regime, which is going to be strengthened under this bill. The bill proposes making alcohol interlock sentences mandatory for recidivist drink-drivers and first-time offenders with high alcohol levels. The existing alcohol interlock sentence has not been used much by the courts since it became available in 2012—only 2 percent of eligible offenders have received a sentence. So this bill makes it mandatory, and will not prevent the courts from giving additional sentences such as fines or imprisonment, should the circumstances of a repeat driving offence merit it. The reason why this is so important is that alcohol interlocks have the record of reducing recidivist drink-driving by 60 percent, and that is going to translate into fewer people being injured seriously and killed on our roads in New Zealand. Thank you; I commend this bill to the House.

The Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 2) is a bland but appropriate title for a piece of legislation that actually does a range of things and makes a range of changes to our land transport legislation. The area that has received the most attention is of course the area of small passenger services, which I will come to. But as the chair of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, Jonathan Young, mentioned in his very brief contribution, there are other aspects to it: the alcohol interlocks, matters relating to fare evasion on public transport, dealing with fleeing drivers—drivers who attempt to escape from the police and cause police chases—matters relating to heavy vehicles, and other miscellaneous amendments as well. It is as close to an omnibus bill as you can get without actually being an omnibus bill, because all of those matters are dealt with within one piece of legislation.

I also would like to speak about the alcohol interlocks. I think this is progressive. This is an important change to our legislation to try to reduce the incidence of repeat drink-drive offences and to reduce the harm caused by drink-driving. This House has made some changes to our drink-drive rules over recent years—most notably, reducing the blood-alcohol limit for drink-driving, which itself is already proving to be positive and to be having a positive impact on the harm caused by drink-driving. These changes will, essentially, make it mandatory not only for people who are convicted of repeated drink-driving offences but also first-time offenders who are seriously over the limit. It is a mechanism to try to keep them off the roads if they continue to attempt to drink and then get behind the wheel.

What I would also like to see more of from this Government is investment in actually helping people deal with the problems that being a drink-driver actually signify. If you talk to anybody who works in the alcohol and drug field, being a drink-driver is a very good sign of having an underlying alcohol addiction problem—but not for everybody. Sometimes people just make a mistake. It does not excuse it. Frankly, I think it is one of the most appalling things that you can do, to get behind the wheel whilst you are intoxicated by alcohol, or impaired by any other substance, for that matter. Sometimes, people do just make one mistake, but more often than not it is actually a sign of an underlying problem, and I would like to see a lot more investment from the Government in alcohol and drug services, and using a conviction for drink-driving as a sign that we actually ought to be getting that person into treatment and supporting them to not be a recidivist by actually dealing with the underlying causes. This is important, to be able to extend the use of alcohol interlocks and also reduce the opportunities to be exempted from having to use an alcohol interlock. So those are important.

It is very important that we clamp down on the evasion of public transport fares. Public transport absolutely relies on everybody making their contribution, and those are helpful changes that will help councils in particular to be able to enforce the rules.

Fleeing drivers—the bill increases the penalties for fleeing drivers and also gives the police powers to impound vehicles and permits that vehicles can be seized and impounded for up to 28 days after a failure-to-stop incident. Again, this is a behaviour that puts the public at an extraordinary risk, trying to speed away from a police vehicle when the police officer is trying to pull you over. It often ends in an accident. It often ends in serious harm or death to the driver. But it often involves other drivers and damage to property and injury to people who are not even on the road, because high speeds are involved, people lose control, and considerable harm results from that. Everything that we can do to discourage drivers from attempting to evade and flee from the police, especially at speed, should be done, so we absolutely support that.

On the issue of small passenger services—so what we are talking about here is the massive technological change that has occurred all around the world, with the introduction of apps such as Uber. Uber is not the only one, but Uber is the major operator here in New Zealand and has been the operator that has engaged the most on this legislation. It has been pretty fraught, actually, and I think the problem that this House has had with Uber is its flagrant disregard for the law. It is one thing to lobby politicians, to lobby Governments and Parliaments and encourage us to change the law—and there is no doubt that our law as it stands, before we make these changes, is simply not fit to deal with this new technology. So, absolutely, come and lobby us and encourage us to make changes, but do not just go out there and break the law. Do not go out there and, potentially, put other people at risk or undermine other operators that are sticking to the law. That is not on. Then, frankly, the way Uber came and behaved in its dealings with politicians and with the Government and with the regulators and those tasked with enforcing the law was abhorrent, and it did not encourage us to work with it.

My advice to any business, or anyone actually, that wants to work with this Parliament to make positive changes is find out the way Uber did it and do everything in the exact opposite fashion to how Uber went about its business. That is just a little bit of PR and lobbying advice to anybody who wants to work with us in this House. Having said that, technological change is coming—well, it is not coming; it is here, and it has been here for a long time. Parliaments can be a bit slow to keep up with this stuff sometimes, and to try to turn back the tide, to try to deny the fact that changes are happening and that new technology is available, and even to deny that a lot of those changes are positive, that they come with positives, that they often come with reduced costs or more availability or simpler access—those things are all good. A lot of passengers do enjoy the positive benefits that some of this ride-sharing technology brings. So we should not try to deny that. We cannot try to turn back the tide, but we do have to get it right.

We do have to get the safeguards in the right place—

💬 Sue Moroney: We think it’s a good thing. We like ride sharing.

Absolutely, ride sharing is a great thing. But we have got to get the right balance between opening up that market and making it work properly, making sure that there are good rules in place and making sure that people are safe, the passengers are safe, the drivers are safe, and the other people on the roads are safe. This speaks specifically to the other people on the road. I was distraught when we had an item in the news applauding an Uber driver for having done a full shift and then, at the end of their shift, driving from Auckland to Wellington in an appalling storm when they were fatigued, when they had not taken the appropriate breaks, and when they had driven for a longer period of time than what is actually allowed within the law. Initially, that driver was treated as a hero. Well, I think that driver is an absolute villain because he put himself at risk, he put his passengers at risk, and he put every other driver who was on the road when he was at risk as well.

I am really pleased to see that one of the changes that this piece of legislation requires is that apps like Uber keep records of the distances travelled and the hours travelled. What they also need to do is make sure that they are working more closely with their drivers so that they understand the law and they know when they are in breach of the law. Whether or not that driver knew he was in breach of the law, we do not know. It does not actually matter. Being ignorant of the law is no defence. We need to make sure that people are safe whilst we adopt this new technology and embrace it at the same time.

This bill represents largely good changes. It is not perfect, but it has largely good changes, and we certainly do commend it to the House.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak in the third reading of the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 2). As we heard from the Hon Paul Goldsmith on behalf of the Minister of Transport at the start of this reading, there are several components in this bill, and all of these components show our commitment to improved public safety.

It is good to see support for mandatory alcohol interlock sentences from all sides. Having mandatory alcohol interlock sentences is important to make the alcohol interlock programme viable and also to see some significant results in terms of road safety, by preventing drunk people getting behind the wheel. If we do not make it mandatory then we will not be certain about the uptake and we will not be certain about the outcomes. This step has been taken based on evidence that has been collected here in New Zealand. We know that if even a small number of people take up alcohol interlock devices to stop themselves from driving when they are drunk, we have seen a reduction of thousands of drink-driving attempts. So mandatory alcohol interlock sentences are good, and it is good to see the support for making alcohol interlock sentences mandatory for repeat drink-drivers and also for serious drink-drivers.

At the same time, we have to see that things are practical too. That brings me to several exceptions that are there in the legislation. One of the exceptions is actually based on access to an approved alcohol interlock service centre. It is important that offenders have access to an approved alcohol interlock service centre, and it was important to decide a criterion. The criterion that is picked in this legislation is distance. When the legislation was proposed it was 30 kilometres, but now it has been changed to 70 kilometres because we want to make sure that we bring in as many offenders as possible into this programme.

Along with that there are medical conditions. Yes, if they are medically certified there will be exceptions, but this legislation also allows for resentencing of offenders who receive an exception because of a special circumstance if that circumstance changes. So the aim of this part of this bill is to bring as many offenders as possible into the alcohol interlock programme.

Very quickly, I want to also touch on the small passenger service provider provisions that are in this bill. Yes, we are upgrading the regulatory framework to provide a level playing field to various players in the small passenger service provider industry. As the Government, it is important that we allow good competition. We know that businesses like to adopt unique ways to grow their client base to get a bigger market share, and we have to allow that, keeping in mind passengers and drivers’ safety. Again, this bill actually shows our commitment to public safety and also our commitment to help businesses grow. I support this bill and commend it to the House. Thank you.

I rise to speak on the third reading of the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 2). I am going to start with something that has not been mentioned yet that is contained in this bill, and that is the provisions around heavy vehicles, mass dimension, and axle loadings. There is a lot of detail there but, really, to make a long story short, one of the factors that has been overlooked for a while now is that the rules around heavy vehicles and axle loadings that we have had for a number of years have not actually allowed our buses to be fully loaded. We have got all these buses driving around Auckland that are technically breaking the law if they are more than half full, which is basically all the buses in Auckland, now—all the buses any time of the day. I take the bus on Sunday afternoon, on Friday night, and all hours of the day, and they are pretty much all full all the time. It is just a little bit strange that it took the Government this long to get this law changed. It was something that was being told to me by bus companies when I first got into Parliament, nearly 6 years ago.

So, you know, when we look at transport legislation and transport policy that has been coming through under this National Government, I think what we see is that there is this very slight rearranging of deck chairs—these tiny little improvements that, for some reason, take many, many years to come to the House. But we do not see a fundamental shift in paradigm that would actually seize the opportunities that are available to us within transport to create much more vibrant, dynamic cities and towns, to reduce our greenhouse pollution, and to enable better public health and safer roads. For a while there, the road toll was falling, but now it is sky-high again and that is because, fundamentally, this National Government has not taken a smarter approach to transport, which is available to them.

While the Green Party is supporting this bill, it is full of a lot of minor tweaks and changes that are trying to make up for change that is happening despite the Government. I think what New Zealand wants, needs, and can have is a Government that will lead on positive transformational change in a way that is going to improve everyone’s life in New Zealand, is going to ensure a fairer approach, and is going to protect our climate for the long term. There is no area that is more exciting or full of opportunities than transport.

So what do we have—we have the minor changes that are finally going to make legal something that was happening anyway, around buses. Obviously, one of the solutions that we need is not just to allow those vehicles to technically have heavier loads but many more buses and trains in Auckland to deal with the surging numbers of people who are trying to get around the city on wholly inadequate public transport because of this Government’s failure to invest in public transport.

Then we see the changes around small passenger services. Again, the Government is, like, years behind what is actually happening with Uber out there operating. I do not condone the actions taken by Uber, where it decided to go ahead and flout the law and start operating in ways—particularly down in Christchurch—you know, before this law change could be made. Finally we have the Government making some changes, and I do not think they are all good. I supported—the Green Party supported—Sue Moroney’s amendments that were proposed during the Committee stage of this bill, which would have required Uber to comply with some basic aspects of our law before it could start participating in this regulatory regime, like ensuring that it is paying sufficient tax in New Zealand. We also do not want to completely deregulate some of the safeguards that have been built into the taxi industry, which benefit some of our most vulnerable people.

I think this is something the National Government often overlooks—the needs of the most vulnerable—because they just are not rich or powerful enough to get the ear of this particular Government. So requiring Braille signs in passenger services—I think that is a minor cost that makes a huge difference to people who are visually impaired, and we certainly heard that from the people who came to the select committee. With an ageing population, we are going to have increasing numbers of people with visual impairment and I think that we need to constantly be thinking about how our transport systems are enabling people with different types of disabilities or visual impairment to fully access everything that society has to offer, to be able to get around.

I really regret that that amendment was not adopted during the Committee stage, because I think it is something that will not affect me right now, but it might affect many of us at some point in our lives. We just do not know, and with skyrocketing rates of diabetes, we are having increasing rates of visual impairment. Of course, type 2 diabetes is something that could be addressed by this Government—partially in transport and partially in the health policy, through something like a tax on sugary drinks, changing the environment in which people are making decisions about what they are consuming. But of course the National Government, ever blind to the things that do not affect its particular constituency—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Come back to the bill.

—has failed to include those sorts of protections, just like it has failed to include the protection for people with visual impairment by maintaining the requirement for Braille identification signs.

The other aspects of the bill—they all fit a particular pattern. We have got the alcohol interlocks, enforcing fares, and the changes around fleeing drivers. You know, on balance you can make sense of these changes within the existing structures, but really, ultimately, what we are seeing is changes that are there to help punish people for doing something wrong, rather than making it easy for them to do something right. I think that is the fundamental difference, probably, in the world view between the National Government and the rest of us: we understand that if you make it easier for people to live good lives, to do things the right way, they will do it. You do not have to just make it easier for the richest people to make more profits and then go out and punish those who are suffering from inequality.

A perfect example is enforcing fares. We are going to make people criminals rather than making transport accessible and affordable for everyone. That is the reality. I know that Todd Barclay will not know about this, because he hangs out down in Queenstown, and I am sure Alastair Scott does not know, because he is off on his vineyard. Most of the people on that side of that House do not know what life is like for the poorest people living in Auckland right now who cannot afford to get around.

You know, people have to make all their Work and Income appointments, and somehow they need to get around and do that. There is horrific traffic congestion, they cannot afford to have cars, they cannot afford the rising rents, and they cannot afford the outrageously expensive public transport, which is infrequent and unreliable because the National Government has failed to sufficiently invest in it. What is the Government going to do? It is going to make it easier to go and penalise people who are trying to get around town, to make it to their Work and Income appointments, to make it to their job interviews. They are just trying to get around on outrageously expensive public transport, and we are going to slap fares on them.

Well, that is going to make it easier for them to get ahead, is it not? No, it is not—it is not. But that is not what you want, is it? No, you want to preserve the privilege that you already have. An equal society—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry, do not bring me into this rant. Try to construct a speech that is a little more in accordance with the Standing Orders.

Excuse me, Mr Deputy Speaker. I really question whether or not an equal society is one that the National Government wants to achieve—one where people have every opportunity. If it did do that, it would not be proposing this sort of land transport legislation. The Government would be proposing a fundamentally different approach to transport investment—one that makes our towns and cities easier to get around, one that ensures that no matter how poor the family someone is born into, they still have the opportunity to access education and to access opportunities, and one that ensures that they are able to get around their city and participate in their community. That would require a fundamentally different approach from the one that has been taken by this Government. But it is one that a new Government will pursue.

There are many parts of this bill that New Zealand First supports: effective deterrents for fleeing drivers, increases in penalties for drivers who fail to stop for the police, mandatory alcohol interlocks, measures to assist enforcement officers in dealing with cases of fare evasion on public transport, and the updates to heavy vehicle regulation, to name a few.

New Zealand First does not oppose any of those changes. But New Zealand First will vote against this bill solely because of the provisions relating to Uber. I have the Uber app on my phone and I have used it in the United States, especially in places where the taxi service is very substandard. So New Zealand First and I are not against new technologies where they comply with proper standards, and that is not the case with this bill or with Uber.

The bill will degrade the standards applying to small passenger vehicles, and that will impact significantly on passenger safety. We also say that there will be no level playing field, as claimed by the Government members, provided for Uber in relation to taxis, as a result of this legislation. That is a very, very bad thing, which will have many adverse effects.

We do not accept that simply because there is a new technology that it is necessarily good, and its applications in this case are going to be bad. In fact, we think that the taxi drivers have a very valid complaint in relation to the lowering of standards that they have worked so hard, for so long, to maintain. We should be proud of what the taxi industry in New Zealand has achieved. When you compare it with what you see in other countries, we should be proud of it. It is a very good industry and very well operated.

I think that this bill will have a very adverse effect on the safety of passengers and drivers alike. It is a shame that this Government is willing to pay that price, that reduction in safety, that reduction in standards, simply to accommodate one new technology that is being operated by people and a company that do not give a damn about standards or safety in New Zealand.

We also say that the bill will not provide a level playing field between Uber and taxis, and that Uber should be required to do what taxis and taxi drivers are required to do in this country. Drivers should be required to pass an English language test and an area knowledge test, maintain a logbook and comply with restrictions on hours of driving, just in the same way as taxi drivers are required to do. The fact that some Uber drivers are driving many hours, after doing a normal week’s work, and working, I have heard, hours in total like 70 or 80 hours a week—incredibly long hours—shows just how important these restrictions are and why Uber drivers should be required to comply with them.

Another issue is the removal of mandatory signs in and on 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 are required to do. The reason for that is that passengers have a right to know whether the vehicle they are going to pay for a ride in is a properly authorised vehicle and that the driver is a properly authorised and competent driver. That is the whole point of signage. It is not just advertising. You cannot achieve the standards that are necessary without proper signage, and exterior signage assists in identifying the vehicles and drivers for the better enforcement of regulations. If you do not have a sign on your car, you feel pretty free to do things that you might otherwise not feel free to do.

So we oppose that, and we oppose the deletion of the requirement for Braille signs on the interior of the vehicles. It is perfectly reasonable that for sight-impaired people those Braille signs should stay, because for sight-impaired people those simple little things are very important. It may not seem important to the rest of us, but it is certainly important for them.

We say the same about security cameras. We think they are a very important adjunct to the safety of drivers but also the safety of passengers. Sue Moroney pointed out the two murders that have occurred as a result of inadequate security in taxis, and I think those security cameras were a very important way to reduce violence by unruly drunk or drug-affected passengers. Those are very serious issues, and security cameras are important in stopping the worst happening. They should be in Uber vehicles as well as in taxis. They record passenger misbehaviour and provide a very good record of events that might be required in prosecutions and for other purposes later.

Most of all, though, New Zealand First is very deeply concerned that Uber pays no tax in New Zealand, whereas taxi drivers and taxi companies are, of course, required to do so. That is certainly nowhere near the level playing field that the Government says it is providing in this legislation. The result of that is that Uber drivers can charge less because they are simply ripping off the taxpayer. That should not be encouraged; that should be prohibited.

Uber drivers also do not pay at airports for drop-off or pick-up fees in the same way taxi drivers do, nor will Uber drivers have to pay for renting taxi stands at airports. I know of one taxi company in Wellington that pays $200,000 a year for its taxi stands at Wellington Airport. Uber drivers would not contemplate that. They do not have to pay that, and that is another reason why they can charge less, because they just pick up or drop off people as though they are members of the public. They are not members of the public. They are not in that category, and, quite frankly, their behaviour in this respect is patently dishonest. They know what their obligations are and they do not even attempt to meet them, yet this is being expressly condoned by this Government and this legislation. It is already tacitly condoned by the Transport Agency, which has been extremely incompetent in enforcing the rules in this respect. It should be upholding its own rules rigorously and the laws of New Zealand rigorously, and the Transport Agency has no credibility or integrity for its performance, as far as Uber drivers in New Zealand are concerned. It stands, in my view, utterly, utterly condemned by its lack of adequate action. It is letting Uber get away with blue murder, and that is not good enough.

New Zealand is not ready for a free-for-all Uber service in New Zealand in the way that the Government intends. Whether it intends that or not, that is going to be the actual effect of this legislation. The standards that will, effectively, apply will be far too low, and we will end up with small passenger services that are as bad as some of the worst countries in the world. The safety levels will be very significantly reduced. Uber will take tax-free profits from New Zealand to benefit its overseas owners, with no benefit to New Zealand whatsoever. There are already 7,000 Uber vehicles in New Zealand, and that is growing. They include drivers on student visas—many drivers on student visas—whose real reason for being here is to find work and not to study at all. They work long hours, they do not comply with the rules, and they take jobs away from Kiwis. That is another adverse effect of this legislation and the encouragement of Uber in New Zealand.

But even those imported Uber drivers are actually themselves being ripped off by the Uber organisation itself. It has recently severely reduced drivers’ incomes, to the point where you have to wonder whether it would be worth them doing it at all. The truth is that Uber is an international organisation with no interest in the welfare of New Zealand’s small passenger vehicle service. It has been kicked out of Denmark and Italy for those reasons, and we should do the same right here in New Zealand. This bill is utterly disgraceful in its deliberately adverse effects, and New Zealand First will be voting against it.

I will try to address the points that Mr O’Rourke made, in the short time I have. For a start, Mr O’Rourke, area knowledge is no longer required because we have an app. There is Google Maps; there are lots of apps that will tell the holder of the smartphone exactly where they are in any country that is able to manage Google. I too have used Uber all around the world, and I know exactly where I am at any time.

The second point is signage. Why do we need to have the name of the driver on the side of the car when we have the information in our app, when we know the name of the car is identified by its registration plate? I know exactly which car I am going into before the car even approaches me, because the registration number is available to me on this app. So that provides me with a lot of security and a sense of understanding of the driver whom I am going to be driving with.

💬 Denis O’Rourke: What if you can’t see?

I will get to that. I even know what other people think of this driver. Other people who have used this same driver have been able to rate and rank that driver, so I can see if he is a 4.8, a 4.9, or a miserable 3.2. If he or she was a 3.2, I can decline that driver. So I have a choice as to which driver I am able to ride with.

So just on that safety aspect, I feel, for one, much safer in an Uber car than I do in a taxi, and I have ordered Uber cars for my 18-year-old and 15-year-old daughters, because I feel safe that they will be home. I can track her. I know exactly where she is, when she gets in the car, and when she gets home, or whether she is going to some other destination—very secure in understanding where the person is and whom the person is with.

The Braille aspect—again, the application will tell the blind person what car is approaching and who the driver—

💬 Denis O’Rourke: How will they see that?

In the same way that the only information in Braille is the car and the car’s ID—in the same way that the application can provide the same information. In fact, a lot more information is available through the application, through the app, than just a number of letters that are available by Braille in its current form. So the information available in the application is far more than is currently available and so should give security and assurance to the passenger or to Mr O’Rourke when he enters into the car, whether he is blind or not.

As far as paying tax, there has been talk about a billion dollar turnover, but we get taxed on the profit of the business, not on the turnover. And rest assured, those drivers in the Uber cars in Wellington and Auckland are receiving income. They are receiving income; they would not do it for free and, no doubt, they would also be paying their fair share of tax as taxpayers in this country. When I pop out of the Uber, I know I can get a GST receipt so, again, I know the GST is being paid to the Government, and the income tax is being paid by the driver.

To highlight again, the Uber business, or the business, is only taxable on its taxable income—its profit, in other words.

💬 Denis O’Rourke: Overseas?

It may even be a loss situation that a start-up company faces, Mr O’Rourke, and overseas owners, just like New Zealand owners, receive income from overseas. So too do offshore investors receive income from New Zealand.

So I think I have covered all the points that—oh, the airport point. The airport point is that Uber drivers are not able to pick up passengers from airports. The airports do not allow them, and they fine them when they do come across them. The taxi drivers pay the fee because they have easy and quick access—and privileged access, in fact—which is what they are paying for, from the passengers who rock out from the airport immediately on to the passenger waiting queue. With that, I commend this bill to the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call. David Clendon—5 minutes.

In the short time that I have I would just like to reiterate, firstly, that the Greens are supporting this very modest bill—should I say? We would like to see a great deal more done in the transport space, but we see enough in this bill to support it. It does some good and useful things.

I would just like to comment on two aspects of the bill, one of those being the alcohol interlock devices, the other being the issue of fleeing drivers—drivers failing to stop. The bill, in part, seeks to increase the pick-up, the take-up, of these devices. They have been available for some time for sentencing and for conditions for people who have been convicted, particularly recidivist drunk-drivers, or for people who have been caught for the first time with extraordinarily high levels of alcohol. And that is a good thing. They are useful devices. They are a technology that does ensure that people will drive at least responsibly, in that sense. The privilege of driving is retained for people who are using these devices, to enable them to get to work, to function in a normal way in society, and use their vehicles accordingly.

They are, however, a short-term technical fix, and Mr Lees-Galloway, in his very useful contribution, sort of started down the track that I would just like to comment briefly on. That is that while we can celebrate and commend the use of these devices, they are often not a long-term solution for recidivist drunk-driving. They know that people can use these devices on their vehicle, which will prevent them from driving, but they will still have a very deep-seated problem with alcohol addiction and abuse, and that is something that we can address.

This Government, I have to say, has been remarkably unwilling to recognise success when they see it, and I speak of the success of the alcohol and other drug treatment courts, very ably led by Judge Lisa Trewmewan and Judge Ema Aitken, in Waitakere and Auckland respectively. For 5 years they have been demonstrating how successful those courts and those processes can be in actually changing people’s behaviour at a very significant level, a very deep and meaningful level. They have had considerable success in turning people away from alcohol abuse and addiction. Those people, for the most part, will no longer drive. We are told there is a 60 percent reduction in drunk-driving with the alcohol interlocks while they are fitted, but there is very little assurance that they will continue with those behaviours after the devices are removed. In a way, the alcohol and other drug treatment court process does seem to be much more robust, much more reliable, in actually changing people’s behaviour and attitude. So while we commend the use of these devices, I think this Government needs to get real and acknowledge that the alcohol and other drug treatment courts are a wonderful success and to stop, frankly, fiddling about with this extended 3-year pilot.

To return to the issue of the fleeing drivers, that is, undoubtedly, a lose-lose proposition for police. Sadly, in instances where police have pursued vehicles, this has led to those vehicles crashing, causing serious injury or death. The police are then told they got it wrong. Equally, if the police decide not to pursue, they are told they are getting it wrong, they are letting people get away. It is an extraordinarily difficult decision to make—literally, in a matter of seconds—and I think it is a very difficult area for them to pursue. So I do not have, I am afraid, any substantial suggestions for how police make those spur of the moment decisions. What I am sure of is that increasing penalties is often quite a weak deterrent, actually. Most of these people who are inclined to flee are actually not thinking rationally, as in “What is the penalty if I do this?”, so I have serious doubts that merely increasing the penalties will have much effect.

I think one small way we could influence the likelihood of particularly young people fleeing is investing more in helping young people get their driver licences. We know that driving offences are called a gateway to the justice system, for good reason. Many people enter prison for the first time on the back of multiple driving offences. If a young person, in particular, does not have a licence, then they literally have nothing to lose. I think it is a very expensive proposition in this day and age. In my long distant youth it cost a matter of a few dollars to secure a licence. A lot of young people cannot afford the process now, and that is more likely to have them driving illegally—therefore they are more likely to flee if a police officer tries to stop them. I think investing through community groups, through schools, and through local government to enable these young people to get licences is money well spent. Thank you.

I call Stuart Nash—5 minutes.

It is my pleasure to take a 5-minute call on this very briefly, but there is one point I would like to make to the member Alastair Scott, who said: “No, of course Uber pays all its tax. Why wouldn’t they?”. Well, if that is the case, let us have a look at these sums on this. I will just say, it was very interesting that the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Revenue today outlined measures they were taking on this base erosion and profit shifting scam—i.e., multinationals to pay their fair share—and then we had the member stand up and defend Uber. There is a little bit of irony there, is there not?

In 2014 Uber declared revenue of $1,061,018. It paid tax of $9,397—that is less than 1 percent tax on its gross revenues. But I accept that you do not pay tax on revenue; you pay tax on profit. So if it is paying tax on its profit, if it is paying 28 percent company tax, then it must have meant that it made around about $35,000 profit, because that is what $9,397 is—about 28 percent. It is about a $35,000 profit or about 3 percent, so the margin is about 3 percent. You know, you would have to be a little bit naive to believe that these guys were making 3 percent. They can stick it in the bank and get better money than that. Of course these guys are evading tax, goodness me, Mr Scott! And it is wrong, it is absolutely wrong. We do not have to defend them. We can go after them for a whole lot of reasons, but let us not defend for tax avoidance. It is not evasion—I am not saying they are doing anything illegal—but it is avoidance, of that there is no doubt.

There are a number of points in this bill that we agree with. We are supporting the bill, but there is one thing that I shake my head at. You know, according to the Local Government Commission—I do not know why it submitted on this—the 12,000 members of the Blind Foundation, about 53 percent of them take taxis. And there are around about 75,000 New Zealanders whose sight is such that they rely on someone else to ferry them around. Yet we are being so mean-spirited that we are taking the Braille requirement out of taxis—

💬 Peeni Henare: A $20 sticker.

$20—that is mean. That is mean-spirited. Surely we have got much more important things to concentrate on, and for a lot of these people life is a challenge anyway, let us not make it harder. Mr Scott says: “Oh well, you can use the app.” Well, maybe you can use the app, but leave what is in place. Leave what these people know in place.

The alcohol interlocks—we all acknowledge that drunken drivers are a menace on the road, a danger on the road not only to themselves but to everyone else. We want to keep these people off the roads. I would have actually liked to see these alcohol interlocks in place for everyone who has been convicted for drink-driving. In fact, they should be in place for every person 18 years old and under who is driving a car, considering they are not allowed any alcohol on their breath. In fact, I would recommend putting them in any car just so people can know whether they are over the limit or not. If they are over the limit, then the car just does not start. It is not a bad deterrent, I would have thought. It should be mandatory in every single car. But, anyway, that is the way it is.

Fleeing drivers—this talks about fleeing drivers. What it says here is that if you have been a driver who has “flee-ed” from the police, run from the police, driven away from the police three or more times, you can go to jail. Why three times or more? It also says that if you have “flee-ed” the police—it is the wrong word, is it not—if you have taken off from the police, they can confiscate your car for 28 days or more. This is a really contentious issue and the reason I say that is that every now and again someone who flees dies. The reason they die is they are an idiot and they crash into something and they kill themselves. Usually, thank goodness, it is not another person; it is a lamp post or it is a stationary car, or it is a tree. We have got to get tough on this. I know—and Mr Assistant Speaker, you know as well—that the police complaints authority has had a good hard look at this. We cannot stop this from happening. I do not think we can say to the police “Do not pursue anyone who flees.”, because that would be wrong. Every young driver would know that as soon they put their foot down then the police would not chase them, and that sends the wrong signal.

In my last 30 seconds I would just like to make a comment. I would say there is a saying that a week in politics is a long time—try 24 hours. We started this week on a downer; we have finished this week on top of the world. We have got Jacinda Ardern and Kelvin Davis leading the Labour Party to victory. The energy and the enthusiasm for the party out in the electorates have gone through the roof. The money is coming in, the volunteers are coming in, the energy is rising, and you can see it over there—you can see it over there. It is now “Game on!”. Bring it on, I say! Thank you very much.

This bill aims to improve the land transport system, and we all know that road crashes have both economic and social costs. In New Zealand there are about 300 fatal crashes each year, killing over 300 people, and also we have thousands of injury crashes, so it is in our strong interests to manage our transport and make it safer for people to travel on the road.

This bill contains a number of changes. One critical change is, of course, to strengthen the legislation relating to alcohol interlocks, and previous speakers have mentioned this frequently. Basically, strengthening the legislation relating to alcohol interlocks will make our land transport system more efficient, more effective, and safer. Alcohol interlocks, of course, are highly effective, but they have not been used very frequently. Some people have a habit—quite a bad habit—of drink-driving, so they need a strong regulatory mechanism to manage their drinking behaviour. So this bill will result in the greater use of alcohol interlocks, particularly by those high-risk drink-driving offenders, and also repeat drink-driving offenders. For that reason, this bill is a good bill.

Of course, alcohol interlocks are not cheap. They can be prohibitively expensive for low-income offenders. For that reason, this Government will set up—will fund—a financial assistance scheme to support the new mandatory alcohol interlock sentence. So this is another change in the bill.

Another change in the bill is, of course, the new regulatory framework for small passenger services. Previous speakers mentioned Uber. I know that Uber has been a bit controversial, but at the end of the day, the services provided by Uber have made it easier and cheaper for the public to travel. They also have the potential to reduce congestion and to enhance productivity. For that reason, what we can do is to simply face reality and regulate such services to make our small passenger services sector more effective, and this bill is aimed at enhancing the effectiveness of small passenger services and at regulating in a better way.

So I would like to commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to speak in the third and final reading of the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 2). There have been some meaningful contributions across the House on this particular bill, and there are some very good mechanisms in this bill, as mentioned by Dr Jian Yang, the member who has just taken his seat.

But I want to speak to several other points that have been raised, and one of those in particular is of course Uber. My colleague Stuart Nash has talked about some of the tax question marks that still sit on multinationals, but I want to make it clear, because the Government members of this House are suggesting that we on this side of the House are anti-technology and we are anti the evolution process in small passenger services. Can I say this: the taxi companies—the well-established taxi companies in this country—were all for Uber coming in. They were. That is what they said in their presentation to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and in their submission. All they asked for was a level playing field—a level playing field. They welcomed the competition. Competition is a good thing for the market—we know that. All they asked for was that drivers who drive for Uber had to operate just like they do, on a fair, level playing field. I think that is fair to ask for.

Sadly, what this bill does, though, however, is it actually creates a disadvantage for many of those taxi companies. What it does too is—we know this. We see this everywhere we go. Taxi drivers will drive all day, stick to the books, do what they are supposed to do by the law, and then, at the end of the day, they will take their magnet off and then go and drive for Uber. They go and drive for Uber. They are a danger on the road. They are a danger to themselves, to the driving public, and to the public at large. Why? Because they go beyond acceptable hours, and driver fatigue is a serious issue in this country. Let us be real about that. You can spot an Uber car a mile away, because they generally look like one of the taxi cars that you probably just got out of on the way to the airport, or from the airport to Parliament here. Simply remove the sticker and, all of a sudden, it is an Uber car. That is not fair.

I also want to speak about the fairness to a sector of our community, one of the most vulnerable sectors of our community, and that is the disabled and, in particular, the vision-impaired. The members on that side of the House raved on about how technology will solve this issue for them and how technology, or a particular app, will be able to tell them who the driver is, what taxi company it is, what cab and rank—all the rest of it. But here is something for that side of the House. People in the disabled community earn 37 percent less—37 percent less—than the average wage here in New Zealand. They earn 37 percent less. With rising house costs and with the rising cost of living, how are they expected to have the kind of technology that that side of the House says will solve this particular issue—will solve this particular issue?

My grandfather’s eyesight was failing him towards the sunset of his life, and we tried as hard as we could to say: “Papa, you need an iPhone. This is going to change your world. You can connect to all of your mokopuna across the world.” He said: “No, son. This old Nokia here is what I need.” Why? Because the buttons were big enough for him to see. How are you going to download an app on an old phone like that? How are you going to do that? On that side of the House, they simply brush off the submission from an important part of our community. They brush it off by saying technology will solve their problem. I reiterate the point—37 percent less. Actually, that number—the 37 percent less than your average income in New Zealand—was a 2015 statistic. I dare say that has actually increased. I dare say that has increased. Why? Because we refuse to make taxi companies put a Braille sticker on the car at a cost of approximately $20—the cost of approximately $20. We have marginalised a part of our community. It shows just how out of touch this Government really is—how out of touch this Government really is.

So I am disappointed in that particular part of this bill. We say to those communities: kia kaha. Kia kaha. When we take over that side of the House—the Government benches—we will be fixing this. We will be fixing this, because the heartfelt submissions made to the select committee actually opened even my eyes to the issue—my eyes to the issue.

I come to fleeing drivers. I totally agree with the sentiments by my colleague Mr Stuart Nash, the fantastic MP for Napier, around making sure that there is an element in this particular legislation—keep passing me the notes, Mr Nash—to deter drivers from fleeing. That is absolutely important. We see it far too often—far too often. In places like South Auckland we have noticed an increase of drivers fleeing. Recently, a motorcyclist took off from the cops and, sadly, ran into trouble at a traffic intersection in Tāmaki-makau-rau and, sadly, passed away. So there do need to be stronger mechanisms in legislation to ensure that this does not continue to happen, and it also must have the effect of deterring people from fleeing from the police.

One of the things that always concerns me when we push through bills in the House—and we know that this particular bill has some aspects to it that will require significant resource. One of those is for fare evasion. This particular bill has a clause that will look to clamp down on those who evade paying a fare on a public transport system, and a growing public transport consumer base in Tāmaki-makau-rau suggests that, actually, the numbers are quite large. I recall the submission to the select committee, and I was actually quite surprised by just how much money is being lost from those who are failing to pay their fare on public transport. But I always ask the question: how do we expect to police this? How do we expect to police this? I know the provision in the bill gives authority to some officers of council, and those who police public transport sites around Auckland, in particular, but I know Wellington as well, as its council gave a very good submission. Just exactly how can we expect this to have the capacity to make sure that those who do catch the public transport system actually pay their way?

I just want to also touch on another part of capacity. I know the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) included in this bill by Mr Jami-Lee Ross, SOP 350, is a good one. I understand why he has done that. During summer, of course, all of us in this House, I am sure, noticed an increase in those washing windows at intersections. I think about how in Tāmaki-makau-rau you cannot manoeuvre yourself around many places without seeing these particular people out trying to wash windows to make a buck. What was sad to see was some of the threatening behaviour that came with gangs and with groups of young people—men, usually; young boys—who were out trying to make a buck washing windows. Intimidation tactics—drivers actually felt really unsafe.

Here is another question, and it is just like the fare evasion. We all know that Great South Road is a very long road, with intersections right across Tāmaki-makau-rau. I wonder whether this is just another burden on a police force that is already inundated with work—inundated with work. Of course we want to stamp out intimidation tactics. Of course we want to stamp out bad behaviour and criminal behaviour. But I wonder, in terms of it being a priority for a police force that is struggling under the weight of work that they have to cope with at this point in time—I cannot help but think: “Exactly how is this going to work?”. How are we going to make sure that we support the officers and those who are clamping down on window washers at intersections?

Just finally, to close my contribution, I want to talk about Te Roopu Waiora Trust, a great group in Manukau city—a Māori disabilities rōpū. It made it very clear to me just how hard the struggles are for people with disabilities getting around Tāmaki-makau-rau. I want to apologise to them for the failure of this Government to make sure that those vision-impaired people actually can.

I am pleased to support the third reading of this bill. Much of this bill is around safety, and it is around public safety and ensuring that the land transport legislation works better for New Zealanders.

We have already seen debated in the House the changes that are within this bill around alcohol interlocks, which will ensure that there are greater penalties and greater use of alcohol interlocks for those who are repeat drink-drivers. There are also the clauses in here around fleeing drivers. I think the House needs to give Stuart Smith, the MP for Kaikōura, some credit for that idea coming through and ending up in the legislation.

I want to reply to Peeni Henare a little bit, just briefly, and talk to the change that went through on Tuesday night. I am talking about Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 350, which I put forward. That was around the washing of vehicles—typically known as window washers. I did not speak to the SOP during the Committee stage, but I do want to say thanks to the Committee for allowing that to go through. It went through without dissent on Tuesday night.

The reason why I put forward that SOP was to go along with the theme of this bill, which is around ensuring greater safety for the public with the land transport legislation. Peeni Henare raises some very good points. There is a lot of activity, particularly during summer months, with window washers who are threatening, harassing, and intimidating to members of the public. Police in my local area have spoken to me and other local MPs about their concerns that they did not have sufficient tools to be able to tackle the issue of window washers.

The council has attempted to deal with them by way of a by-law. However, for a council to deal with them using a by-law, it had to take prosecutions through the court. That took a lot of time—many months—and it cost the ratepayer a lot of money as well. A solution was suggested, which was to see that land transport legislation include it as an offence around window washing. So the SOP inserted into the bill new rule 11.6A: “Washing of vehicles. A pedestrian must not wash or offer to wash a vehicle, or part of a vehicle, on a road unless the vehicle is legally parked.” Once this bill goes through the third reading, this change will effectively make window washing an unlawful activity. It will give police a tool that they can use in their tool box to enforce an issue on the roads.

I take Peeni Henare’s view around resourcing and capacity. The issue is that police know there is a lot of activity on intersections with window washers that turns into other crimes where people have been attacked, where people have been subjected to robberies around their businesses, and where young children have seen themselves attacked and have had their bikes or bags stolen. If we can give police a tool so that they can move those window washers on from problem intersections, a tool whereby they can ensure that their prevention-first approach to policing can be applied in this case, then we can actually keep the public safer.

In fact, a window washer himself was bowled over a couple of months ago on Great South Road in Tāmaki-makau-rau. That window washer ended up in hospital because he was running in and out of traffic and he got injured. From a public safety perspective I was pleased to put forward that SOP and I am pleased to see it now inserted into this bill, and I look forward to the bill’s third reading very soon.