Lees-Galloway Iain: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLees-Galloway Iain: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 27 June 2013. Volume:691;Page:11370. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]12.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North)to theAssociate Minister of Transport: When was he or his predecessor first made aware of concerns about the installation and operation of security cameras used in taxis and the regular failure of some cameras to deliver images that Police could use to investigate allegations of violent crimes?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Associate Minister of Transport):I am aware that my predecessor the Hon Simon Bridges was provided with a Ministry of Transport briefing on 9 October 2012 that among other things quotes Taxi Federation head Tim Reddish saying that the cameras have had a huge effect particularly in deterring drunks and fare-evaders. I was first made aware of concerns around a particular system on 15 June by the media. I asked officials for further information before making public comment on the allegation unlike that member who was quick to comment but got his facts—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is a sufficient answer.Iain Lees-Galloway: On how many occasions since October 2012 has equipment failure prevented the police from acquiring taxi security camera footage to aid the investigation of criminal activity?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I do not have that information. It may be best to direct that to the police or the Minister of Police. What I do know is that the responsibility for maintaining the cameras is with the taxi organisations themselves.Iain Lees-Galloway: Why in the 8 months since Simon Bridges first became aware of this problem have changes to the Land Transport Rule: Operator Licensing 2007 which the Taxi Federation has repeatedly asked for to fix this problem not been made?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: As the member knows a review of taxi cameras is due to me in coming months as was required when the new rules were implemented. But in respect of the specific issue this is not one about the New Zealand Transport Agency’s role in the endorsement of the specification of cameras; it is about the counterfeit supply of a knock-off. If that member had sought to find out the true facts he would have known that.Iain Lees-Galloway: Does he agree with Taxi Federation Executive Director Tim Reddish that today 8 months on from when the Government first became aware of this problem up to 50 percent of cameras currently installed are either not working can be tampered with to distort time and data settings or produce images that are unable to be retrieved by the police?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I have not had those comments referred to me so I am unable to comment on their veracity. But what I would say is that this is an issue about a counterfeit product and that member has maligned the good name of the supplier and the New Zealand agent.Iain Lees-Galloway: I seek leave to table a letter written to the Minister of Transport Gerry Brownlee by Tim Reddish that outlines the exact statement that I just made—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leave is sought to table that particular letter. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Iain Lees-Galloway: Is he concerned that in the rush to get the optics right Steven Joyce oversaw the drafting of an inadequate rule that has failed to make taxi drivers and their passengers safer which is what Steven Joyce promised he would do?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I am satisfied that the rule as implemented has been a strong success and that has been the feedback we have had from the TaxiFederation. But I do remind the member that the rule states that the taxi organisations themselves are responsible for ensuring that the in-vehicle camera is fully operational.