Henare PeeniPEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Thank you very much Mr Chair for this opportunity. I am glad my esteemed colleague here knows the definition of motorcycle" and "scooter". It is an important thing. I want to touch on a couple of things and one of those is around impairment while in charge of a vehicle. While the bill talks about alcohol it also talks about drugs. I think it is a relevant debate to have given the issue around synthetic drugs today—not your traditional drugs which I am sure many police who have worked in this particular space are familiar with but synthetic drugs.There is a real issue with synthetic drugs and how they impact on people's functions and abilities and clearly in this case the ability to drive a vehicle or control a vehicle. The definition of what synthetic cannabis is I think still up for debate. Some would argue it is not cannabis and is in fact a whole host of other different poisons—not cannabis per se but clearly something that is bad for you and can impair your ability to be in command of or drive a vehicle. I would like to see perhaps some clearer definition around that.I also want to touch on the point made by my colleague Mr Michael Wood on Braille. The reason I want to highlight his particular contribution—which is around clause 58 "Section 30B repealed (Provision of identification information in Braille)"—is that the submitters to the select committee were very very clear and gave I thought very emotional submissions on fearing for the lives of the most vulnerable in our communities when they are hoping to catch a taxi somewhere. They also spoke about their dependence on taxis to get around places like Auckland. Although the quite regular use of taxis can be booked they fear that if a particular driver or their regular driver is not available and they get a different driver and they are not able to readily identify them then there is a serious issue there.There were recommendations that perhaps technology could help with this but the point was made to us that technology actually costs a fair amount of money and those who are vision-impaired and rely on taxi services are unable to afford the technology required to make sure that they get a timely service from the taxi service that is there to pick them up and that the identity of the driver is readily available and also the cab number. That was a serious concern. I will say it clearly in this Chamber: the submitters on this actually gave some harrowing stories where they feared for their lives when they were unable to clearly identify who the driver was felt they had been taken far off track and not to their intended destination and literally felt they were going to be murdered or hurt in some particular way. That is an important thing because like I say I thought those were very powerful submissions. I take the point that my colleague Mr Wood made which is that it is very clear that the cost to make sure that the signage is available on a car is very minimal—very minimal. In fact it is so small—I think if I recall correctly one of the submissions from the taxi company when asked about whether or not it is that hard to provide Braille signage for vision-impaired consumers was that it said: "Look compliance isn't that hard. Actually we're not too fussed. We're neither here nor there with it."So I wonder why we are taking this away when like I said for the most vulnerable members of our community who rely on this particular service we are not helping them. We are not looking after them. We are not making sure that they can continue to get from A to B safely. That is of huge concern to us primarily because we do not understand why such a small cost is not being considered when repealing this particular part of the legislation. We have got some concerns about that."