Wood MichaelMICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): I am very happy to take a call on the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 2) and I am particularly pleased as this is my first opportunity to speak in this debate as Labour's new transport spokesperson. In introducing that point can I just acknowledge the work that my colleague Sue Moroney has done not only in this role but also on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee in working constructively on the progress of this bill. I would like to take a few calls on the bill this evening. There are lots of quite important points to cover off here.The Labour Party's position on this bill is that we support many of the measures within it but we do have some real concerns that we want to flag and have some engagement with the Minister in the chair Scott Simpson on. The one that I want to touch on in my first contribution relates to the provisions in this bill—and we are talking about clause 58 here—which remove requirements to have identification information in Braille in small passenger vehicles. I want to reflect on some of the things that we heard in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee about this and really dig into why we have not been able to see some proactive and sensible and pragmatic changes made to the legislation through that select committee process in response to those concerns.This really goes to I guess probably the heart of Labour's concerns about some of the deregulatory aspects around small passenger vehicles that come through in this bill. We are a party that supports sensible public-good regulation. We always have to be careful when we are regulating that we do not get into the territory of being overburdensome but we have public-good regulation to protect the public good.What we had in the select committee in respect of this issue was I thought a number of very good submissions including one from the Association of Blind Citizens of New Zealand—and I could not really put it better myself. It made the point that it sees real potential through the introduction of ride-sharing services like Uber—it is not anti-Uber at all. The association thinks it is a good service that offers opportunities for the people it represents. It goes further—and I quote directly from them here—it says: we urge caution to ensure that there are no serious and perhaps unforeseen consequences for people who are most dependent on such services for their everyday transport and who may also be amongst the most vulnerable. We are deeply concerned that the overall thrust of the changes as explained in the explanatory note to the bill is to 'remove regulatory requirements that impose costs on operators but no longer offer any significant benefits'." What it goes on to say in its submission is that it does believe as one of the bodies that represents the interests of vision-impaired people that there are significant benefits in terms of having that Braille identification in small passenger vehicles.What we really have not heard from the Government through the course of the Committee stage debate or at any other stage is why this relatively non-onerous piece of public-good regulation has been removed. In this respect I want to speak to the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that was put forward by Sue Moroney Supplementary Order Paper 346 which seeks to directly address this issue. It is very simple. It means that in the legislation in the bill here—and we are looking at page 36 of the bar 2 bill—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Order! I am sorry to interrupt the member but just for the purposes of transparency the Supplementary Order Papers that the member Sue Moroney has put forward are out of order because they are on an intangible or not-a-fixed date. Discussions around Uber and what regulations should be imposed on them—so discussion about what the Supplementary Order Papers are intended to do is fine and totally in scope but they will be ruled out of order come voting time. Just to let you know.MICHAEL WOOD: Thank you Mr Chair. If I can continue on in this vein it would be really good to hear from the Minister in the chair on the substantive point that we are talking about in respect of clause 58 of the bill here which is why there has been such reluctance from the Government to listen to this point. While the SOP might be out of order I do note from the commentary we heard in the select committee that in fact the provision of this Braille signage is actually very cheap—possibly about $20 per vehicle. So it does seem to be a relatively non-onerous thing that we could do to ensure the safety and comfort of vision-impaired people.In the short time I have got—actually the frozen time I have got judging by the timer—in the remainder of this call I would just like to address a very very specific point I picked up in terms of one of the changes that was introduced by the select committee—and I would like to come back to some other calls a little bit later—and this is on page 42 of the bill and we are looking at clause 80 here and it is the definition of "moped". I have a particular interest in this because I am the proud owner of a nice little 1998 Honda Giorno. It is more sort of held together by duct tape and things these days—I probably would not want the land transport authorities looking too closely at it. But ensuring that those vehicles are roadworthy and ridden in accordance with the rules of the road is very important. Of course they are a very useful addition to a vehicle fleet particularly in our congested cities. The question that I have got is around clause 80(1). Clause 80(1) introduces through a select committee change a new definition of "moped" and here we have got "has 2 or 3 wheels;"—well we understand that that is an accurate thing to say—has "an engine cylinder capacity not exceeding 50 cc" and 50cc has always been the standard definition of what separates a moped from a motorcycle or the baby vehicle from the grown up one; 50cc's the cut-off point. So we know that that is right; and "a power source other than a piston engine". Effectively a moped is a lawnmower that you ride around on the roads.But it is clause 80(1)(b) that I just want to question and perhaps get the Minister in the chair to respond to: "a maximum speed not exceeding 50 kilometres per hour;". This is important. This is part of the definition of a moped in this piece of legislation. Every moped that I am familiar with has a maximum speed of more than 50 kilometres per hour. The maximum speed at which a moped is legally lawfully allowed to drive on the road is 50 kilometres per hour but the maximum speed of a moped is generally far more than 50 kilometres an hour. So it would just be helpful to check through the Minister that we are confident that the definition of "moped" is not going to through a loose use of language create potential definitional issues when we get to the implementation of this legislation further on down the track. I will wind up my call there Mr Chair but I will be very keen to take a few more calls later in this debate."