Moroney SueSUE MORONEY (Labour): I want to speak on the issue that is raised in my Supplementary Order Paper 347 which is about ensuring that every vehicle involved in this type of service would need to be fitted with an in-vehicle security camera system. I know that Minister Bridges spoke about this issue before and I have just two words to say to the Minister about his assertion that an app that tells you who the driver is and who the supposed passenger is fixes this issue and therefore if they have that application in place that they should be exempted from having these in-vehicle security cameras. Well the two words that I want to say to the Minister are Rod Stewart". That has piqued his interest—Clare Curran: That got him captured.SUE MORONEY: That did catch his attention—Hon Ruth Dyson: I wonder what song he's thinking of?SUE MORONEY: Ha ha! This is because we had Rod Stewart come to the Law and Order Committee—and of course it was not actually Rod Stewart but this man had been able to register as an Uber driver using the Uber app and using the name Rod Stewart and using the photo of the singer Rod Stewart. He clearly when he came into the committee looked nothing like Rod Stewart; his hair was somewhat tidier. He did not look like Rod Stewart at all but he had been able to operate as an Uber driver under an application that he—Alastair Scott: No he didn't.SUE MORONEY: Well yes he did. I know that Uber contests this but he actually did. He actually picked people up. They knew he was not Rod Stewart but they were in the vehicle anyway. So I think that was a demonstration of just how—that was an exaggerated example of how these systems are not foolproof. Not only was there that instance where someone can register and even use the photo of someone quite famous when they are obviously not and still register and do that but secondly what a lot of the submitters raised with us was that if you are a passenger and you are an Uber user—and so you are registered and you make an arrangement for an Uber to come and pick you up—what is to say that you are actually that person? But more so what is going to happen is that the other couple of people who come with you in that vehicle may not be registered at all. So who is to know what their identity is if something goes wrong? So that is why it is not the same Minister as having every vehicle in those 18 metropolitan areas those 18 largest areas fitted with an in-vehicle security camera system.I have a really sad but recent incident to discuss that absolutely raises the reason why we need these in-vehicle security camera systems. They were brought in not that long ago actually. I think they were brought in in 2014—have I got that right 2014? It was pretty recent. They were brought in for a reason. There were two shocking murders of taxi drivers two brutal murders of taxi drivers that happened—one in Auckland and one in Christchurch. So that is the reason why the current Government brought those in. And do you know what? Instantly the taxi drivers knew that they worked and a lot of the taxi companies that had argued against that level of regulation at the time are now arguing in favour of it. But they want a level playing field and they want it for all of these services.What they found was that not only did the violent offences drop immediately and have continued to stay low—and in fact there has not been a reported murder of a taxi driver since this regulation came into being—but what they also found was that they did not have as many runners. So knowing that there was a system operating in that vehicle meant that people were much less likely to try to take off without paying. So there was not only an immediate health and safety benefit to these companies and obviously the safety of their staff but there was also an immediate economic benefit. Some of the companies that were opposed to them when they were introduced are now big fans of this because they have seen how well they operate.But the recent incident that I want to refer to—Mr Chair if I could have another call [Bell rung]—is the incident that happened in Hamilton just on the weekend on Friday night: the shocking and unnecessary murder of a man in Norton who was stabbed to death. The arrests that have been made are for three young women. I caught a taxi back from the airport last evening and the taxi driver who basically caught those young women was my taxi driver. Here is the story that he told me—he is a hero. Before I tell the story I just want to say to Norman Kingi's family that I want to express my sincere sympathies to them and say may Norm rest in peace because he was a deeply valued member of our community. This is a sad situation that he found himself in.Those young women allegedly murdered him around about 10.30 11 o'clock on Friday night. At around about 2 o'clock the next morning this taxi driver was called to an address nearby and picked up three young women. He said that he had not long had them in the vehicle when he realised that he was in trouble because even though these were quite young women they were instantly aggressive with him. He just knew that they were bad news and he needed them out of his vehicle as soon as possible. He had an in-vehicle security camera system operating in his vehicle and even though he had that he knew that he needed them out of his vehicle. He saw a cop car. He pulled up behind the cop car got out and said to the police officer: "Get these women out of my car. They are bad news." The policeman went and got them out of the car realised whom he had and that is why the police were able to arrest these young women so quickly after that murder.The reason I tell the story is that—you know the app that the Minister talked about that you can get an exemption from having this in-vehicle security system for? If one of those young women was registered—sure she may not have caused a problem ever before—go to that address get picked up. But guess what? The other two get in with her and the other two are the bad eggs.What this driver told me was that he thought two of them were pretty whacked out on drugs and one of them was completely sober in his assessment. That could have been the one who used the app to call up the driver and then the other two climb in as well. Now if that driver was in that situation without an in-vehicle security camera—and without just driving down the road and having the good sense to do what this driver did which was to pull up immediately behind a cop car and get them out of there and the good luck that that police car happened to be there—what might have happened? What might have happened next? I can tell the Committee that this taxi driver was thanking his lucky stars that he did what he did because who knows—did they still have the knife on them? What could have happened next? There could have been an even deeper tragedy for our community.I do want to come back to that issue about deregulation Minister. Yes you may be proud that it is deregulation and certainly if it is a level playing field and it is sensible deregulation we have no problem with that. But time and time again this House gets it wrong with going too far. And time and time again when there is a National Government in place deregulation does go too far because the National Government always argues that it is too expensive. It is too expensive. Well how expensive are taxi drivers' and Uber drivers' lives? What cost do we put on the safety of people who are impaired either temporarily through having a night out or permanently impaired through their disability? What price Minister do we put on that? The Labour Party says at least the cost of getting an in-vehicle security camera system in those 18 locations across the board; not penalising the taxi industry by making it have them but not the other group. Let us get serious about having security and safety first."