O'Rourke DenisDENIS O'ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First will also support this bill to at least as far as the select committee when we will take another look at it to see whether we can support it further. That is because it addresses some of the most urgent changes that are needed to transport law currently especially through effective deterrents for fleeing drivers which is a very urgent issue and creating a level regulatory playing field for all small passenger vehicle operators including Uber. That is a pretty contentious issue at the moment as well.But we in New Zealand First do have some reservations and criticisms which I will come to in a moment. But I just want to go through the various parts of the bill bit by bit. The first relates to the mandatory alcohol interlocks. As we know currently it is discretionary as to whether alcohol interlock sentences are imposed on first-time offenders with high alcohol levels and offenders with repeat drink-driving convictions. This bill proposes to make that mandatory for those offences. We in New Zealand First applaud that. That is exactly the right thing to do. I observe that overseas experience shows that alcohol interlock devices result in an average improvement in terms of offending of 60 percent and that is spectacular. So this is one of those examples where modern technology can be used to reduce offending. So this is great. I am glad to see that in this bill.We also applaud measures to assist enforcement officers in dealing with cases of fare evasion. As people in Auckland know Auckland train services are notorious for free-riders—notorious for it. That has got to stop. Currently it is an infringement of course to free-ride but there is no way that the enforcement officers can enforce it because they cannot require the offenders to give names or addresses and therefore they cannot really do much effectively about it. So what the bill proposes to do is create new powers that will enable those officers to require passengers who have not got a ticket to prove that they have paid a fare to either give their name and address so that they can be prosecuted or to actually be ordered to disembark from the service. It will be an offence for a person to fail to comply with that as well. Police officers can of course be called to deal with the stroppy offenders in that respect so it is good to see that that sort of issue is also finally after all these years being tackled. I think that we will see an improvement in the quality of Auckland train services as a result.The next issue is the increases to penalties for drivers who fail to stop for police. As I have already said that is a very urgent current issue and something really does need to be done about that. Like Gareth Hughes said I noted what Victoria University criminologist John Pratt said about that: I don't think it"—meaning penalties—"will have much effect on these particular cases because people who do these sorts of things for the most part are likely to be young men who don't have much to lose in the first place." Well they will have a lot to lose if they lose their vehicle as a result of that behaviour and they will have a lot to lose if there was a possibility of losing their freedom through an additional penalty of imprisonment for the worst cases. So I do not agree with the professor; I think and we in New Zealand First think that very tough penalties are one of the most important things you can do about this problem.I read what is proposed here: "The mandatory driving disqualification period for a first-time [offender] will increase from 3 months to 6 months …". That is not enough; 3 months' to 6 months' disqualification for first-time offenders is not enough. There can be some pretty bad examples even from first-time offenders. That should be up to 1 year we believe. It goes on to say that there would be another offence for a second conviction—this is where it involves speeding or driving in a dangerous manner—and the penalty then would be mandatory disqualification for 1 year. We think that should be at least 2 years perhaps more. It goes on to refer to third and subsequent offences of that kind—an increase from 1 year to 2 years. That really really is far too light—far too light. We think that should be up to 4 years and in addition to that we believe at that point you should start to impose the possibility of imprisonment.This is a very serious offence we are talking about and we are talking about third and subsequent offences. That has to be deterred by really strong sentences. Imprisonment has to be a possibility then the young people will have something to worry about. So we would like to see that happen. After all people are dying as a result of this.I am going to read another thing that I saw—I think it in was the Dominion Post today. It gives the figures: "Overall fleeing drivers were involved in 29 deaths—of themselves or [of others]—in the five years to 2014/15."—29 deaths. It then says there were 2735 fleeing driver incidents in the 2014/15 year. That is an increase in 1 year of 371. So it shows you that it is not only serious but it is getting worse and it is getting worse rapidly. So we say that we want much stronger penalties with the possibility for the worst offenders of imprisonment.Just moving on to the updates for heavy vehicle regulation—I think that you have got to look at this in the context of these changes. We do not oppose any of these changes but you have to think about it in the context of what has been happening in recent times when we are getting more very heavy vehicles—I think far too heavy far too long—and huge vehicles on our roads that are capable of and doing extraordinary damage to the roads to the bridges and of course there are serious ramifications for safety as well. So looking at these provisions that is fine—the provisions themselves are fine—but if it is going to be an excuse that because you have got these harsher compliance requirements we can have even heavier and longer vehicles on the roads then I on behalf of New Zealand First want to express the most serious possible reservations if that is the ultimate effect of that.Finally I want to talk about the regulatory system for small passenger services. What we are really talking about here is what has happened as a result of the introduction of Uber. I agree with what is stated in the introduction to this bill—that it is silly to have separate rules for taxis private hire services and shuttles and that we should have one set of regulations covering them all. It is important that there is a level playing field. That is what most of the taxi drivers really complain about—Uber getting away with what they call "blue murder" and I agree with that whereas the taxi drivers have to comply.I want to particularly in my last minute or so mention two things that we will oppose. Amongst the proposals will be to remove a number of the current regulatory requirements. One of those is the requirement for mandatory signs on vehicles. I think they should stay and I think Uber vehicles should have mandatory signs on them as well. Everybody needs to know whether this is a taxi or whether this is an Uber service because that assists in enforcement and assists them in being identified. That is important so we will be opposing that particular provision. Secondly we would oppose the removal of the requirement for an operator to belong to an approved taxi organisation. We think again that is one of the best ways you can enforce the level playing field because if you are a member of an organisation there is a way to identify those people. Those organisations help with the maintenance of standards they help with tracking people for income tax purposes—and that is another thing that Uber does not provide very well.Those are two things we will be opposing but we are going to have a very close look at the rest of those provisions as well. We do not oppose the level playing field the single regulatory system but there are things within that that need looking at and we are going to look very closely at it."