Genter Julie AnneJULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): I rise to speak on the third reading of the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 2). I am going to start with something that has not been mentioned yet that is contained in this bill and that is the provisions around heavy vehicles mass dimension and axle loadings. There is a lot of detail there but really to make a long story short one of the factors that has been overlooked for a while now is that the rules around heavy vehicles and axle loadings that we have had for a number of years have not actually allowed our buses to be fully loaded. We have got all these buses driving around Auckland that are technically breaking the law if they are more than half full which is basically all the buses in Auckland now—all the buses any time of the day. I take the bus on Sunday afternoon on Friday night and all hours of the day and they are pretty much all full all the time. It is just a little bit strange that it took the Government this long to get this law changed. It was something that was being told to me by bus companies when I first got into Parliament nearly 6 years ago.So you know when we look at transport legislation and transport policy that has been coming through under this National Government I think what we see is that there is this very slight rearranging of deck chairs—these tiny little improvements that for some reason take many many years to come to the House. But we do not see a fundamental shift in paradigm that would actually seize the opportunities that are available to us within transport to create much more vibrant dynamic cities and towns to reduce our greenhouse pollution and to enable better public health and safer roads. For a while there the road toll was falling but now it is sky-high again and that is because fundamentally this National Government has not taken a smarter approach to transport which is available to them.While the Green Party is supporting this bill it is full of a lot of minor tweaks and changes that are trying to make up for change that is happening despite the Government. I think what New Zealand wants needs and can have is a Government that will lead on positive transformational change in a way that is going to improve everyone's life in New Zealand is going to ensure a fairer approach and is going to protect our climate for the long term. There is no area that is more exciting or full of opportunities than transport. So what do we have—we have the minor changes that are finally going to make legal something that was happening anyway around buses. Obviously one of the solutions that we need is not just to allow those vehicles to technically have heavier loads but many more buses and trains in Auckland to deal with the surging numbers of people who are trying to get around the city on wholly inadequate public transport because of this Government's failure to invest in public transport.Then we see the changes around small passenger services. Again the Government is like years behind what is actually happening with Uber out there operating. I do not condone the actions taken by Uber where it decided to go ahead and flout the law and start operating in ways—particularly down in Christchurch—you know before this law change could be made. Finally we have the Government making some changes and I do not think they are all good. I supported—the Green Party supported—Sue Moroney's amendments that were proposed during the Committee stage of this bill which would have required Uber to comply with some basic aspects of our law before it could start participating in this regulatory regime like ensuring that it is paying sufficient tax in New Zealand. We also do not want to completely deregulate some of the safeguards that have been built into the taxi industry which benefit some of our most vulnerable people. I think this is something the National Government often overlooks—the needs of the most vulnerable—because they just are not rich or powerful enough to get the ear of this particular Government. So requiring Braille signs in passenger services—I think that is a minor cost that makes a huge difference to people who are visually impaired and we certainly heard that from the people who came to the select committee. With an ageing population we are going to have increasing numbers of people with visual impairment and I think that we need to constantly be thinking about how our transport systems are enabling people with different types of disabilities or visual impairment to fully access everything that society has to offer to be able to get around. I really regret that that amendment was not adopted during the Committee stage because I think it is something that will not affect me right now but it might affect many of us at some point in our lives. We just do not know and with skyrocketing rates of diabetes we are having increasing rates of visual impairment. Of course type 2 diabetes is something that could be addressed by this Government—partially in transport and partially in the health policy through something like a tax on sugary drinks changing the environment in which people are making decisions about what they are consuming. But of course the National Government ever blind to the things that do not affect its particular constituency—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Come back to the bill.JULIE ANNE GENTER: —has failed to include those sorts of protections just like it has failed to include the protection for people with visual impairment by maintaining the requirement for Braille identification signs.The other aspects of the bill—they all fit a particular pattern. We have got the alcohol interlocks enforcing fares and the changes around fleeing drivers. You know on balance you can make sense of these changes within the existing structures but really ultimately what we are seeing is changes that are there to help punish people for doing something wrong rather than making it easy for them to do something right. I think that is the fundamental difference probably in the world view between the National Government and the rest of us: we understand that if you make it easier for people to live good lives to do things the right way they will do it. You do not have to just make it easier for the richest people to make more profits and then go out and punish those who are suffering from inequality.A perfect example is enforcing fares. We are going to make people criminals rather than making transport accessible and affordable for everyone. That is the reality. I know that Todd Barclay will not know about this because he hangs out down in Queenstown and I am sure Alastair Scott does not know because he is off on his vineyard. Most of the people on that side of that House do not know what life is like for the poorest people living in Auckland right now who cannot afford to get around.You know people have to make all their Work and Income appointments and somehow they need to get around and do that. There is horrific traffic congestion they cannot afford to have cars they cannot afford the rising rents and they cannot afford the outrageously expensive public transport which is infrequent and unreliable because the National Government has failed to sufficiently invest in it. What is the Government going to do? It is going to make it easier to go and penalise people who are trying to get around town to make it to their Work and Income appointments to make it to their job interviews. They are just trying to get around on outrageously expensive public transport and we are going to slap fares on them.Well that is going to make it easier for them to get ahead is it not? No it is not—it is not. But that is not what you want is it? No you want to preserve the privilege that you already have. An equal society—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry do not bring me into this rant. Try to construct a speech that is a little more in accordance with the Standing Orders.JULIE ANNE GENTER: Excuse me Mr Deputy Speaker. I really question whether or not an equal society is one that the National Government wants to achieve—one where people have every opportunity. If it did do that it would not be proposing this sort of land transport legislation. The Government would be proposing a fundamentally different approach to transport investment—one that makes our towns and cities easier to get around one that ensures that no matter how poor the family someone is born into they still have the opportunity to access education and to access opportunities and one that ensures that they are able to get around their city and participate in their community. That would require a fundamentally different approach from the one that has been taken by this Government. But it is one that a new Government will pursue.