Young JonathanJONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Yes maybe at the Committee stage Sue Moroney can carry on with her story. I just have to say a couple of things regarding Rod Stewart. Rod Stewart is quite a common name I am sure there are plenty of people around the world who are called Rod Stewart—Sue Moroney: Who look like that?JONATHAN YOUNG: —and no doubt there are plenty of people who dress up like Rod Stewart as well. So to say that that is—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Here's one.JONATHAN YOUNG: Not you Mr Deputy Speaker. But to say that that is a reason why there are objections to this bill is ludicrous.In terms of safety this was a big big issue that of course the previous speaker raised. I remember on one journey from my residence to the New Plymouth airport I spoke to the taxi driver and I said You've got this Braille sticker on the side of your car so tell me about that. Who uses that?" and he said: "Yes there is a person who uses it who hops in my car every week and it is the same person every week." It is the same person every week. He said "He is a regular customer."—and look the reality is that people who have some degree of impairment most often use the same driver. The companies understand their need. The companies provide a personalised service and good on them for that because that is caring for their customers. There is a huge connection between those drivers and their customers. They know each other by name.When it comes to using for example a company like Uber—and when I was overseas I used Uber a number of times. On your app—which can speak to you by the way; it can talk to you if you have a sight impairment—is the name of the driver their rating the identification of the vehicle and the type of vehicle so there is ample acknowledgment of identity in terms of the people you use. So what this bill is doing is not minimising or disregarding safety of the public or safety of the drivers but it is responding to technology that is already amongst us and that people are wanting to utilise.I understand that as you read the Labour minority view in the report it acknowledges that there are benefits around ride sharing or benefits around some of these modes of private transport services that will reduce congestion and reduce issues around environmental pollution. So in many regards I think that what the member—and you know kind regards to her for caring for people but I do not believe that this bill puts in jeopardy public safety nor does it put in jeopardy driver safety. Even though that mandatory legislation regarding video cameras in taxi-cabs was put in place it still remains the choice of taxi drivers if they want that technology in their cabs to put it there. So if they want to have that degree of I guess backup in terms of their safety about the identification of their customers and clients who travel in their taxi-cabs they can still do it and the price of that technology has reduced as we know. All technology is reducing in cost.So I think that the comments of the Opposition—and I appreciate that the Labour member and those members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee are by and large supporting this bill. But I do think that their objections do not warrant the level of concern that they vocalise. So I am keen to speak on many other aspects of this bill and I am going to do so when we have a little bit more liberty around the time in the Committee stage. But I believe this Land Transport Amendment Bill takes us forward into the world. The future has already come our way and is meeting us but the bill brings legislation into place that puts sensible regulation around those advancements and those technology opportunities and advantages to our society. So I am very pleased to stand in support and commend this bill to the House. Thank you."