van de Molen TimTIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you Mr Speaker. I think we've got to a good place on this bill and I want to reiterate some of the comments that the Minister mentioned and particularly the sad circumstances that led to some of the provisions within this bill being put forward particularly around that regulatory aspect and the now subsequent establishment of the director role within the land transport framework. It actually makes sense because if you think about it well we have a director of the Civil Aviation Authority and also Maritime New Zealand so having one for land transport now is an appropriate alignment across those. But it also reflects that there were some issues there were some regulatory compliance failures and that shouldn't have happened. It did and we need to make sure we address that; this bill does that. So from that perspective we're in a good space. We've landed I think pretty well in relation to those.It's also establishing a register around land transport records such as speed limits which normalises or makes easier access to those for the public as well which is important. One of the aspects that we do have a couple of reservations on was around the speed limit zones or setting changes—so in particular New Zealand Transport Agency effectively being able to require those road-controlling authorities to set a particular limit as opposed to empowering them to create the limits as necessary for them. I understand the intent there is again to try and standardise or get consistency across those different territorial authorities to have more appropriate limits that align so you're not having to worry about whether you've crossed a boundary and where that's sitting. But the risk is—particularly I think in rural settings—that a type of road could be classified as needing a particular limit which is appropriate for part of that area but is not appropriate for many other parts. So that is a concern I do just want to note. In urban settings that's probably not such an issue because generally a particular type of road is reasonably uniform throughout that location if you're in a town or a city. But when you get out into the countryside those roads can be quite different and can change depending on which part of the countryside you're in as well. So it may be appropriate for a gravel road to continue with a speed limit of 100 kilometres an hour if it's a flat gravel road that's pretty straight. But then there's plenty of other gravel roads that are quite winding undulating and may indeed be more appropriate to have a lower speed limit. Of course the reality is throughout all of this we do rely and expect our drivers on the roads to make appropriate decisions so we can't regulate away responsibility. So that's something we do need to be mindful of as well. But that is just one of the concerns that I did have and wanted to put on record around the blanket approach to that.Having said that I think it's good we're moving on. Most of those changes will come in promptly around those speed limits etc. The director role though actually doesn't come in until I think it was 1 April 2021. Actually that makes sense when we think about transferring some of those functions and responsibilities; it will take a little bit of time to set up that structure so having a bit of lead in to that is appropriate.So on the balance of it I think we've landed in a good space just with that one caveat—we'll see how that plays out. Obviously we can come back and address that in time if necessary. But at this point I'd just like to thank my fellow members on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee for their work in this particularly the officials for all of the work that they did as well and of course the Minister for bringing this forward unfortunately triggered in those particular regulatory aspects by an unfortunate incident. I do want to acknowledge that man's family as well. Having said that we support this bill and I look forward to it passing through.