Genter Julie AnneJULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. This bill like so much that National has done since it has been in Government is OK; it is not great it is definitely not world-changing. There are some things that are definitely not ideal about it. When it comes to transport I think it does some of the bare minimum things that probably should have happened a few years ago for example updating the heavy vehicle regulations to align with the changes to the land transport rule around vehicle dimensions.The Green Party has not supported bigger heavier trucks because it is not very good for our roads and it is not very good for safety on our roads but some of the changes around vehicle dimensions have to do with accommodating the reality of passenger transport services in Auckland particularly bus services. Fully loaded buses and double-decker buses were not able to comply with our rules. Even though we knew that it was happening bus companies were not able to buy buses that were in accordance with the law and the law had to change to reflect that. So we support that.Some of the changes around strengthening the legislation covering alcohol interlocks is good and I think the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee made that even better because there were some issues that were raised by the Law Society and I believe the select committee made quite a huge improvement. The legislation as drafted would have enabled the police to confiscate a vehicle from someone just on the basis that they believed they knew who might have disobeyed the law. So there was a serious issue around people's rights that was affecting the way the legislation was originally drafted. We heard from the submitters. We heard that there were issues around that and we amended the law to improve it. I believe it has been improved. So we can still support that.Most of this debate has been around the changes to the regulatory system for small passenger services to accommodate the disruptive services and technology like Uber. I have to say when it comes to Uber it is really good technology. What is really great about the app itself—the software—is that it enables better utilisation of the vehicles that are on the road and it means that people can start seeing car transport as just one tool in their transport tool kit. That is something that the Greens have been advocating for a long time: a much more balanced transport system where you have got decent reliable frequent public transport in our major towns and cities safe walking and cycling which means people do not have to own a car—they do not have to shoulder that expense—but they do have access to a car when they need to use it. Uber is one example of how a car suddenly just becomes another tool in your transport tool kit. You are looking up what is the best option to get from A to B you have got some passenger transport options—bus and train or ferry services or walking and cycling and you combine those. Or at some times of the day a car is going to be the best option.But the issue with Uber as a company is that it is actually not a very ethical company and although its software is very very useful—and I do believe it will end up being implemented and adopted by other transport mobility agencies and probably taxi drivers—the way it has gone about it has been quite bad and it is eroding the wages of taxi drivers. So you know I think the reality is that if we get self-driving cars in the next 10 or 20 years driving will no longer be a profession and that is one example of how with increasing automation we need a tax system and benefit system that recognises that and shares resources more fairly which is very off-topic from this bill. Ha ha!But the reality is that we can agree with most of the changes because I think they have struck a good balance but we will be supporting Sue Moroney's Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) when the Committee stages of this bill come up and particularly the SOP around the requirement for Braille signage in passenger transport services. I do think this is really important. Jonathan Young gave this example of a taxi driver in New Plymouth which is a very small town with very high car ownership and very few people using taxis. But the reality is that people who are vision impaired might rely quite heavily on taxis and the reality is that this is not about: Oh well it's only a small percentage of people who need this Braille signage so on balance we don't think that everyone should have to pay for it."That is not how it works in this society. We actually want to lift everyone up to the same level. And just because someone is vision impaired does not mean that they should not have the right to know what is going on in the vehicle that they are getting into. You cannot make that kind of crude cost-benefit analysis: "Oh it only benefits one person in New Plymouth so we don't really need it because they know their regular taxi driver." Well you could not say that in Auckland because there is no chance in a city of 1.5 million people that somebody who is vision impaired and regularly using taxis is going to have the same taxi driver every time. That is just not how it works. There are heaps of taxi drivers in Auckland.We heard from the Blind Foundation that it is extremely opposed to this change and I just think that the test of a decent society is how it treats its most vulnerable people and people who are vision impaired deserve that our laws and regulations meet their needs at a bare minimum. The rest of us can put up with a lot of additional cost or additional disruption. We can do that because we can see and things are quite easy for us but we should be designing the system around the people who have the greatest challenges. So the Green Party will 100 percent be supporting Sue Moroney's SOP and we support the minority report that the Labour Party has put in.So on balance I would say that the Green Party can support the bill. We would really like to see this SOP that would look out for our most vulnerable people go through. And we would like to see some greater vision. I know the National Party try—and it is great that the rhetoric has gone there and that it is embracing technology and it is embracing the future but the reality is that with the overall approach to transport funding and policy it is pretty far behind and it is still orienting everything around private car ownership. The vast majority of the transport budget is going on a few extremely expensive stretches of highway. We have not actually seen National embrace technology and the reality that cities are most effective when they are designed around people not cars.The Green Party will continue to advocate for our transport policy which would probably actually be incredibly popular with everyone in Auckland and our other major cities—but particularly in Auckland I think people have realised. No matter who they vote for they support Green Party transport policy because we have realised that the only way to enable people to get around Auckland now is to invest in public transport. National has sadly—I know not all of their members agree with this—due to Steven Joyce as transport Minister from 2008-11—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Stick to the bill please.JULIE ANNE GENTER: —gone down the route of spending most of the money on private infrastructure that supports private car ownership but actually results in a whole lot more congestion.The Green Party supports this bill. We believe it could be better and that National could do a whole lot more for transport in this country if it embraced a more balanced approach to transport spending."