Henare PeeniPEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): 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."