O'Rourke DenisDENIS O'ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First will not support this bill further. We do support of course some of its purposes though and mandatory disqualification for drink-driving offences and especially indefinite disqualification for repeat drink-driving offences are some things that we would definitely support and also the offence of failing to pay for bus or train tickets which has become a pretty large problem especially for rail services in Auckland. We would definitely support that as well.Concerning the impounding of cars of fleeing drivers we do agree that it is necessary to delete the proposed provision because it is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and that is in respect of the right to be secure against the unreasonable seizure of property. In any event it is already possible for vehicles to be impounded under section 96(1AB) of the Land Transport Act which has the power to impound vehicles for up to 28 days for failing to stop. So that is already there and it is a serious issue because fleeing drivers were involved in 29 deaths in the 5 years to 2014-15 and 2735 fleeing driver incidents were recorded in that year alone. That is an increase in 1 year of 371. So it shows that this is actually a problem that is getting worse and worse. New Zealand First would like to see the police use those powers that they do have more than they currently do. This is an offence that has to be stamped out.When it comes to small passenger services however this is the part of the bill that New Zealand First cannot support. We do agree of course that it is silly to have separate rules for taxis and Uber services and others involved in the industry. One set of regulations ought to mean a level playing field and we support that. But that does not mean that we have to lower standards to provide a carte blanche for Uber services. In that respect we say in New Zealand First that the taxi-driver industry does have a valid complaint relating to the wholesale lowering of standards across the board that this bill will inevitably result in. That is especially in relation to the safety of passengers and drivers. It does seem that this is a price that the Government is willing to pay in order to have and encourage Uber services but we in New Zealand First say: Safety first." We say the safety of drivers and passengers comes before that. We agree with the accusation made by the taxi drivers through their organisation that Uber drivers have been getting away with blue murder as far as the services that they provide without compliance to the current regulations are concerned; whereas on the other hand the taxi drivers actually have a very fine record of compliance and we should be encouraging that and not discouraging it.Following the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee process Uber drivers will now be required to obtain a P endorsement but they should also have to do what taxi drivers are now required to do. One of those things is to have a good standard of English. I would have thought that is absolutely basic for a passenger service provider—absolutely basic for that. Another is an area knowledge test something that is also absolutely basic for somebody who drives people from A to B. How on earth can they provide a proper service without doing that? Those are the things that are being removed by this bill all to accommodate Uber.Another issue is the removal of mandatory signs on and in vehicles. We say they should stay. Uber vehicles should have the same mandatory signs on and in their vehicles as taxis now do. After all the signs on the exterior of vehicles could easily be removable in this day and age. Magnetic signs are very easy to obtain and that could be done without any inconvenience and with very little cost to the Uber drivers. Passengers need to know that a vehicle that is providing a transport service is an authorised passenger service. People are entitled to know that and they will not know that if the vehicles are not signed. In addition to that it assists vehicles in being identified as such so that enforcement when necessary can easily be carried out. We also deplore the deletion of Braille signs. I could not believe my ears when I heard Jonathan Young say that because of his experience in his home town where apparently he thinks that only one taxi with Braille signs in it should be needed—well surely he has been to larger towns than that where there are a lot of people who need that service and all vehicles should be required to have Braille signs inside them. After all how difficult is that to do? There is very very little difficulty and very very little expense in comparison with the huge benefit for sight impaired people.The same applies to interior security cameras. Passengers like that idea and most of all the drivers like that idea because it is a safety measure and it provides a record of events that would not otherwise be available—a well worthwhile thing inside taxis as they now are. Why should Uber drivers be exempt from that? Is it the expense? Is it inconvenient? Or do they just not like it in there for some reason? I do not understand why that is being deleted by this bill. It just does not make sense and it is another reason why New Zealand First will vote against it. We also regret the loss of the approved taxi organisations—because that is what it will be—which ensure compliance and the maintenance of standards and compliance with regulations. The loss of those is going to mean a loss of standards across the board especially when it comes to the safety of passengers and drivers all because Uber could not comply with that. So as a result we are going to see the demise of those organisations and that is a sad thing because it means more drivers taking risks and cutting corners. It is not something we should be agreeing to and yet this Government is doing it just to make sure that we get these Uber services. It will do anything apparently to do that. We say in New Zealand First that this country is not yet ready for a free-for-all Uber service in the way that you see operating overseas and that is what this bill is going to do. It is going to do that. It is going to lower standards and that is all because the Government thinks we need to accommodate Uber. Well actually Uber needs to accommodate our legal system and our standards. We deplore that these safety levels will be reduced and we deplore also by the way that Uber takes profits from New Zealand to benefit overseas owners. That is not the case with most taxi providers.However having said all that it sounds pretty anti-Uber but in fact New Zealand First is not anti-Uber. In fact all we actually want is a fair deal for taxi operators. That is not what the parties that are supporting this bill apparently want. All we want are these things and they are pretty simple—they are pretty simple to provide: first of all exterior vehicle signage; interior security cameras; interior information in Braille; a P endorsement for Uber drivers as well as for all others providing a passenger service; an English language test; and an area knowledge test. Not until we get those things are we actually going to get a genuine level playing field and a transport system for small passenger service vehicles that will be sustainable that will be safe and that could be supported by all parties in the House. Without those things New Zealand First will not be voting for this bill because it is substandard. It is substandard in terms of safety and it is substandard in terms of providing the great level of service that taxi drivers have built in this country over many years. That is all going to be destroyed simply because this Government has had its arm twisted up its back by people who want to provide Uber services. Well they should be coming to the party and providing the level of service and safety that our standards currently demand—nothing less. We will be voting against."