Parker David; Brown SimeonDr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. I'd just like to query the Minister regarding Supplementary Order Paper 421 and the definition in clause 4 of a moving vehicle offence" particularly around paragraph (a)(iii): "any offence against regulations made under this Act or the Transport (Vehicle and Driver Registration and Licensing) Act 1986" with regard to these point-to-point average speed cameras. So my question is: can the Minister confirm that these automated systems for every single car that's passing through there are going to be picking up people with expired warrants of fitness (WoFs) and expired registrations which means basically not just an incredible revenue-raising exercise—but will the picking up of this information and pinging these drivers disproportionately affect those on lower incomes? There are those families that are perhaps a little bit out with their WoFs and their regos often by accident but maybe it's just another cost in this current cost of living crisis that they haven't got around to it. Will the system sit there all day and night pinging those drivers many of whom can ill afford it? So if the Minister could just provide clarification on that that would be helpful. Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Transport): I'm happy to. No the automated infringement system will not apply to the lack of a registration sticker or an expired warrant. It only applies to moving vehicle offences. There's a Supplementary Order Paper dated 29 August which slightly changes the wording of that and it reads that a "moving vehicle offence" means "(a) an offence detected by approved vehicle surveillance equipment that is—(i) a speeding offence; or (ii) an offence in respect of the failure to comply with the directions given by a traffic signal or a traffic sign that is a variable traffic or land control sign; or (iii) any offence against [certain regulations made under the Transport Act]; or (iv) a toll offence; or (b) a speeding offence detected by a point-to-point average speed system". SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you Mr Chair. I think the point which the Minister made earlier which was that this would be the role of an operational decision as to what was a high-risk road doesn't leave motorists with much comfort around the operation of these systems. I again use the example of what's happening in Nelson Street in Auckland which as the Minister will know is not a State highway. It is a local road which has many entrances and exits. Now I'm not sure whether that's a trial or whether that is something which is being used by Auckland Transport for other purposes. But the question I've got is why is that being trialled for what purpose and if the Minister's intent and the Government's intent in this legislation is for these point-to-point cameras to be used on State highways or on roads which don't have many entrances or exits why is that not more clearly defined in the legislation to actually give motorists more confidence that this is not just a revenue-raising tool or a tool to simply try and now force these much slower speed limits which many people are frustrated about—why is the Minister not actually providing that clarity in the primary legislation rather than leaving it up to road control authorities? I've just given an example of a road controlling authority which is doing average speed checks on a non - State highway with many many intersections on that particular stretch of road. So surely there needs to be some clarity around that in the legislation. Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Transport): I'm advised that that is purely a trial to test systems and look at data and that there is no intention to use it on a road like that which has got multiple entrances and exits; indeed their intention is to use it in the sorts of corridors that I've previously described. The Government disagrees that all of these things need to be specified in the legislation and is willing to trust the road control authorities to make sensible decisions as to their deployment."