Hughes GarethGARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora Mr Deputy Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I rise to support this bill to the select committee the Land Transport Amendment Bill 2016.It is the day after we saw the final funding agreement for the Auckland central business district City Rail Link one of the most important pieces of infrastructure in terms of our largest city in terms of the national economy and it is fantastic to finally see that happen. I do not know whether members are aware but for the Green Party it has been a campaign for an awfully long time. There are actually Hansard records from this House from the 1880s that reference that rail line linking up the current rail network. It was Mayor Robbie in the 1970s who really pushed it. There are some wonderful 1970s orange - style concept designs of what it could have looked like. At least when we finally get it in the 2020s it will probably look a little bit more modern than that beautiful 1970s sort of decor that it would have had. It is fantastic to see that project going ahead.Another area where the Green Party has won when it comes to transport is in terms of cycleways. I note the Government's investment in this area. We have worked with it in terms of rolling out the national cycleway network. So when it comes to public transport better transport options for all New Zealanders I think it is fair to say without a bit of gloating that the Greens have been ahead of the curve. It has been great to see the other parties play catch-up.When you look at this legislation we are grappling with some of those impacts of new technologies—for example Uber—the opportunities of new technologies when you look at alcohol interlocks and how that comes to this House. So although we are debating the Land Transport Amendment Bill dealing with some more sort of regulatory and administrative features of transport let us not take our eye off the prize which is that we can have high-quality modern ways that people can get around.People want more choice to get their kids to school to get to work and to go and have fun and enjoyment and they want a variety of options. People want to take a modern fast train in downtown Auckland. They want to have faster and more frequent trains from the west. They want to get to the airport and catch a train when it comes to Auckland. In Wellington we want to have light rail that links up our railway station with our airport through our city. We want to have better more affordable buses. We want to have more affordable fares for groups such as students. So that is our vision and this is what we are going to be clearly articulating—a positive fully costed transport plan for this country. This is what Kiwis want to see—these tangible projects. We have been at the forefront; we will continue to do it.When it comes to the six provisions in this law—I want to touch on a few in this first reading debate. The first is around Uber. The Green Party takes the position that the proposed amendments are pretty reasonable. We are basically amending the taxi regulations relating to Uber and taking a less bureaucratic approach. I understand the arguments of Uber and some of its drivers that the current consent conditions can cost up to $2000. That does seem incredibly high particularly when you have got most of the information available via your smartphone. You can track the driver you can see the driver's photograph—all those sorts of things. But I would note that all the drivers have been flouting the law when it comes to the existing law which never can be on.The amendments do look pretty reasonable—for example drivers not having to have tests on their driver knowledge in terms of the cities they are going around. It does not really make sense in 2016 when you have got all the information on Google Maps or Uber's files. So we support it. We want to hear from both the parties in the select committee and we are going to welcome that discussion.When it comes to alcohol interlocks this is a good clause to be progressing. I remember sitting in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee hearings many years back when the Government was refusing to move the blood-alcohol level from 0.8 which was out of line with the rest of the world to 0.5. I am glad that common sense has prevailed and we have gone more into line in terms of a safer blood-alcohol level but the key message I heard from police officers and experts back then is that alcohol interlocks are the surest safest way to get those repeat drink drivers off the roads. The existing law says that a court can mandate it but this amendment will make sure that repeat offenders do have alcohol interlocks applied.When you look overseas the efficacy of them is in the order of 35 to 90 percent. The AA I note estimates that currently we have only a couple of hundred alcohol interlocks installed in New Zealand. We could be seeing 100 repeat drink drivers not on our roads. As someone who drives my kids around our cities and towns it is a terrifying thought that a drunk driver could come screaming down the road through no fault of my own or my wife or any other person on our roads. It is a terrible thought that we could have these repeat drunk drivers who continue to get behind the wheel. Alcohol interlocks make sure that it is massively reduced in the order of 90 percent.When it comes to the third substantive section which is increasing penalties for fleeing drivers I would note on the record that the Green Party does have some concerns in this area. I note that the Attorney-General in his New Zealand Bill of Rights Act report also had some concerns. These changes are increasing the provisions the Government has for penalties when it comes to those fleeing drivers. I know that the Government claims there are about 2300 people fleeing police every year resulting in 460 crashes. I know it is an incredibly concerning phenomenon that innocent victims including our police officers are in many tragic cases killed or injured when it comes to fleeing drivers. I support the intent of it but we do note those New Zealand Bill of Rights Act concerns. The Attorney-General has suggested some drafting amendments and we will pick that up at the select committee. But I would also note the comments of Victoria University criminologist Professor John Pratt who has questioned the logic behind it in his comments which are I don't think it'll 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." Let us have that debate in the select committee. We really welcome that.There are some changes around public transport fare evasion. In Auckland it is estimated to cost between $1.4 million and $2 million. As a party that has put out a huge volume of public transport policy has delivered those wins in the past—for example the electrification of Auckland's public transport network the CBD City Rail Link and national cycleways. We want to see appropriate funding. When you are seeing maybe 6 percent of the network not being funded through fare evasion we do have some concerns. We are going to be interested to explore how these new powers are actually going to work. We think a balance needs to be struck.Then fifthly is the regulation of heavy vehicles and sixthly are the miscellaneous changes. There in particular we are going to be looking at the clause that says "clarifying the powers of Police to take certain actions including forbidding driving and immobilising vehicles in the interests of public safety." This is something we want to delve down into in a little bit more depth talk to the experts on and find out exactly what that means. We do have to strike a good balance between our civil rights as New Zealanders and the rights that the police need to protect our public safety.All in all it is a pretty good bill. We will be supporting it to select committee. We will be hearing the debate there before deciding our final position. But let us keep our eyes on the prize if I can make that key point in this contribution. There are so many public transport better transport and active transport opportunities New Zealand has. It is all about making sure the Government with its scarce funding resources is investing in the best infrastructure projects that deliver the best economic best social benefits for New Zealand. We have questioned some of the very unwise spending decisions—for example the more than $10 billion being spent on these roads of national significance at a time when road volumes are flat. Many people are delaying getting their licence or refusing to at all because they would rather sit on a high-quality train. They have been overseas; they have seen what is happening in Singapore or London or New York. They want to be on Snapchat and playing Pokémon GO as they speed through the city not stuck in congestion.So let us make sure we focus on the big picture which is that we have got some great opportunities and big decisions ahead of us. It is good to be dealing with the regulatory administrative stuff but let us focus on the big picture too."