Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): It is a pleasure to be talking on the Land Transport Amendment Bill. I have got to say the last couple of contributions by the Opposition members have been very useful and thoughtful but the contributions from the Labour members who are also members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee were I thought shameful actually. The reason why I say that is that both of them but particularly Ms Sue Moroney made the allegation or inference that this Government is not concerned about how we see these things being enforced around transport issues. I really do think that neither of them has actually taken the time to read this bill.As we have heard there are six provisions in this bill. The first three I think are quite relevant in terms of enforcement obligations. So just to recap for a moment the first one deals with strengthening the legislation relating to alcohol interlocks. For people listening in from home these are devices that are attached to the steering wheel and stop recidivist drivers from actually starting a car. The rules that have been proposed in this bill will mean that effectively first-time high-alcohol drivers or people who are recidivists will have to have one of these interlocks installed in their cars. That is the first issue about enforcement. The second issue is about strengthening the framework for managing public transport services. I represent Hunua in Auckland. I have been on the train many many times. I have observed young people—and it is particularly young people I have observed but that is not saying it is all young people—who have come on to the train have often not paid and have been taken to task by the people on the train and they have simply walked off sometimes getting into the next carriage. The rules that are proposed in this bill deal with that quite comprehensively and I fully support it having witnessed that. The third issue is around making sure we are bringing about adequate enforcement deals with an effective deterrent to reduce the incidence of fleeing drivers. I do want to compliment my colleague Mr Stuart Smith who has proposed some of the measures that have been incorporated. Again these include quite a few issues around how we deal with these drivers—often younger people again—and the ability to confiscate their cars which I think is a really important issue around deterrence. The fourth one which I do not think these Opposition members have actually looked at is contained in the sixth which is sort of covered by the topic that talks about minor amendments. But if you look at those they are comprehensive. I am just going to read out a couple about prosecution issues. The explanatory note of the bill talks about allowing a stationary vehicle infringement notice to be served by providing it to the person who is apparently in charge of the vehicle at the time of service"—I think that is a good prosecution issue—"closing a loophole so that a person whose driver licence is suspended by the Police is also suspended from obtaining a driver licence:" and "correcting an error to allow vehicle seizure and impoundment warrants to be signed by Justices of the Peace or Registrars:''. I think those are all good enforcement things. There is also "enabling automated enforcement of certain traffic signs:"—mmm—and probably the last one which the previous speaker just referred to "clarifying the powers of the Police to take certain actions including forbidding driving and immobilising vehicles in the interests of public safety:". This is comprehensive and I am really looking forward to discussing it in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee."