O'Rourke DenisDENIS O'ROURKE (NZ First): 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 $200000 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 7000 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.