The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) Link to this
At the outset, I wish to advise and remind members that this bill is not drafted in parts, unlike other legislation; therefore, each clause will be debated separately in sequence. Members may have become used to having the latitude to sum up that is allowed in debate on primary clauses when they follow consideration of the parts of a bill. This latitude does not apply to the debates on clause 1 and clause 2 of this bill. These debates should be strictly relevant to the elements of the clauses—the bill’s title and its commencement date. Whether the title set out in clause 1 properly describes the bill is the issue under consideration in the debate on clause 1. When addressing that issue, members should speak purely to whether clause 1 describes the bill. The debates on clauses 1 and 2 are not an opportunity to debate the substantive provisions of the bill. That will come in the debates on clauses 3 and 4. The reason for that is there are four questions—four clauses. I just wished to advise members of that.
LINDSAY TISCH (Senior Whip—National) Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I understand there will be five debates, not four, because of a member’s Supplementary Order Paper 17.
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) Link to this
You are right, Mr Tisch. I understand that one member is putting forward a new clause. It will be provided for and debated separately. There will be five questions and five debates.
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) Link to this
I thank you, Mr Chairperson, for your guidance to members on the way we should conduct our debate. I am sure members will fairly strictly observe your injunctions.
The title is accurately described—it is a Land Transport Act that is being amended. In that discussion one has to consider why the Act was originally amended; otherwise, why would this bill have the title “Land Transport Amendment Bill”? It was amended due to circumstances about which I will not go into detail, because they have been canvassed in the previous debate. We are now having to deal with the consequential effect of the original amendment, with this amendment bill.
It is important that I put on record that National will vote for this clause. For the benefit of the Minister for Land Transport Safety I want to say why we will vote for this clause. We recognise that it is necessary to have an amendment provision. Therefore, we have to vote for a clause that reflects that the bill is an amendment; otherwise, why would we vote for this clause? We are voting for it because there is an injustice, most notably related to persons who already held taxi or bus driver licences and who were not intended to be caught by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee’s legislation from last year. I think even Mr Brown would concede that that was the general view of the select committee last year. We are now having to make an amendment, to fix that up. I also note the comments made by the chair of the committee, who said that this situation was not entirely the fault of the committee. I guess that is true, but the House does rely on the guidance of select committee members, and the truth is that they, along with the officials, did not take quite enough care.
I think it is perfectly reasonable that the debate be focused on the amendment and the reasons for this particular title. I do not think it is necessary to be vexatious or litigious in the way we conduct this debate. I conclude by saying that National will support this particular clause because we recognise the necessity to pass legislation to deal with the circumstances of the 230 bus and taxi drivers affected by the previous amendment, who ought to have a right to apply for reconsideration.
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) Link to this
It gives me great pleasure to follow our esteemed colleague Wayne Mapp in talking about the title of the Land Transport Amendment Bill. We find that this title has a number of problems. The biggest problem is that a Land Transport Amendment Bill was passed in 2005. It is very difficult for a novice to find this legislation. For example, we can go to the Land Transport Act 1998—get the book—but where is the 2005 amendment? We have to go right to the back of the book. Are we to have another Land Transport Amendment Bill of 2006? This really highlights that this title is not appropriate for what we need. We need a much better title to reflect this situation.
What, then, can we call the bill? We could try the “Land Transport P Endorsement Bill”, but I think P is not quite the word that we should be using at this time. It has a connotation that can be applied to criminal justice elements, so I do not think P is quite right. Would we want the “Land Transport Passenger Endorsement Bill”? That could be quite effective. It could be the “LTPE Bill”, which would be another start and could be something different as well. Then there could be the “Land Transport Passenger E Bill”.
“E” meaning endorsement. We could try that. Then we could look at something quite different—at the “LTA Passenger Endorsement Bill”. We could look at the “Land Transport Amendment Passenger Endorsement Bill”, or just the “Land Transport Bill”. We could have something like the “Passenger Endorsement Bill” or just the “Endorsement Bill”.
We need something that tells us what is going on today. We cannot quite work out what is going on today. If we look at the Land Transport Amendment Bill that was passed in 2005, for example, and at what some people said about it, and if we look at the Land Transport Amendment Bill 2006, we see that there are quite contrary arguments—especially from New Zealand First, Labour, and a number of the other parties—that have moved away from the initial intention of that Act. So we cannot call it the “Land Transport Amendment Bill 2006” because people are now talking about quite a different set of circumstances.
People have moved on, so the bill’s name needs to move to reflect that change in attitude and approach. We need to find something that is more reflective of what people want and what they are saying. We cannot see that under the Land Transport Amendment Bill 2006. There could be another possibility. We could be doing the “Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 2) 2007” if we followed the approach of the Labour - New Zealand First Government, because it is looking at drawing another line in the sand. What will happen next year if we find that that line is wrong and a lot of people come to the press in the Christmas holidays next year? We will have to do it again. So we will have the “Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 2) 2007”, and we will continue showing that we cannot have lines drawn in the sand just in grey areas.
We need conclusive legislation that puts a formula for the way forward, and the amendments on the Supplementary Order Paper achieve that. We need a new bill with a new name, to reflect a new vision. That vision will be based on what people looked at last year in the Land Transport Amendment Bill 2005, and rightly passed. It is a vision that has a stricter approach to this issue than we are encountering at this stage of the game.
It is my pleasure to debate the issue of the name for this legislation, and I look forward to the options being considered in full by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee later this year when we have to reconsider the Land Transport Amendment Bill 2006. We will find that the grey areas that have been put in by Labour and New Zealand First do not work and we will have to reconsider the name yet again.
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) Link to this
I understand that the commencement date is quite specific. However, there are some issues around that date that I think need to be noted at this time, for the purpose of informing those people who found themselves out of employment. Just prior to Christmas some 260 people found that they could no longer be employed. Here we are, passing a bill whose commencement date is upon its receiving the Royal assent, which will be some time after this urgency. We had 260-odd drivers who found that—
The number is 234; I stand corrected by the Minister for Land Transport Safety. Those 234 people had a long, cold Christmas, wondering about their future, and here we are now, starting to work our way through the Committee stage of this bill, and considering its commencement date, which is not until the Royal assent is given. I understand, also, that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee deliberated on this point throughout this year, and that raises the first point. There was still time, in my view, to expedite this whole matter much, much more quickly, given the uncertainty for the 234 people who had found themselves out of employment. The select committee deliberated, and completed its report last week. The House could have gone into urgency last week. I ask members to consider this: 234 drivers out there are wondering what is happening; they have no understanding of the—
Hon Clayton CosgroveThe member who is interrupting is also delaying the process. These points are relevant. I want it to be recorded in Hansard that there was a lack of concern and a lack of earnestness and speediness by the Government in dealing with a matter whereby people, because of a blemish, because of a lack of consideration for something having occurred in a past era—given that this clause is the commencement clause—had lost their jobs. This House has not moved as rapidly as I believe it should have.
So we await the Royal assent. The issue I would like to raise is that those people are out of pocket. The select committee should have been concerned about retrospectivity, in terms of people getting some compensation.
We cannot actually do that? [ Interruption] The issue, I think, is the matter of compensation for people who found themselves out of work. I am not sure that the date of the commencement of this bill—upon the Royal assent—allows for full consideration of that compensation aspect.
I guess it is a matter that will be negotiated between the employers and those who lost their jobs. I am not sure that the clarity around the commencement date is sufficient to allow those people to seek the best opportunity for compensation. I know that the Minister had no intention of creating this situation whereby those people lost their jobs, but it is a matter of taking responsibility.
I just want to say that we are in urgency now. This bill could have been resolved last week. It could now have been enacted, and those people could have been given the opportunity to get on with having themselves reclassified. There are 234 people to process.
I would like to canvass one or two points in summary of comments about the commencement date. The Land Transport Amendment Bill really sets out to correct some anomalies that occurred because of a retrospective piece of legislation. It impacted upon people who were in work. It impacted on them because of events that had occurred up to 40 years previously. As we talked about the commencement date, the Minister in the chair, the Hon Harry Duynhoven, became aware, prior to Christmas, of what the original legislation would do. That legislation came into force on 16 January. We have had time since then to correct it. I have to say that taxi drivers and bus drivers are not at the top of the wage tree. Over the dinner adjournment, I have been informed of a number of cases in which people have had to go to Work and Income to find support. They have been in real hardship. If this legislation corrects legislation that had a retrospective impact, the point I make to the Committee is that this commencement date should have a retrospective impact. That is the point I wish to make.
The Labour Government wants to champion the fact that it stands for the working person. As I said before, those people who are the drivers in these passenger services are not very far up the wage tree. The least we could do is give consideration to having a retrospective commencement date so that there can be a compensation element for the people who are able to pass through the hoops to be re-employed. I ask the Committee to consider that it is inappropriate to lock those people into a situation whereby they have been in hardship, without any consideration for a remedy to that. So I suggest making this date retrospective.
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) Link to this
I have a couple of questions for the Minister in the chair, Harry Duynhoven, in relation to the commencement date. We are all aware that Parliament is sitting in urgency to deal with this legislation. Both the country and Parliament are well aware of the reasons for that. Some people have been—let us be honest—unjustly deprived of their livelihoods, and need to be able to get back into business. Of course, they cannot do that until this law takes effect.
Parliament, I would imagine, will be passing this law tonight, and it comes into effect, under clause 2, on receiving the Royal assent. I presume the Governor-General is available—perhaps not tonight, but certainly tomorrow—to enable this bill to come into effect on her signature. I would like an assurance from the Minister that that is his intent. Perhaps the Minister might like to comment on that.
Hon Harry Duynhoven Link to this
I can give you that assurance—as soon as is possible. And if the Governor-General is here tonight, on Thursday we will be asking her to sign it.
I thank the Minister for that assurance. Therefore, I understand, people will be able to make their applications, say, as of next week. One would like to think that the Director of Land Transport would process the relevant ones expeditiously. As my colleague Eric Roy has made very clear, those people will have been without income from 16 January to, say, towards the end of March.
Yes; I say to the Minister that I understand that. One of the interesting issues Mr Roy raised was compensation for that 2-month period. Obviously, one cannot drive before one drives, so to speak—we cannot retroactively drive, because we cannot time travel. Having a retrospective provision could not conceivably change that. So the only way that people can be compensated, it seems to me—and it would be a relatively small number of cases; some people have had alternative work or taken a management role, etc.—is for the Government, in appropriate cases, to look at the question of ex gratia payments. That is a sovereign power that the Government has, and I realise that it is exercised sparingly, but from time to time it is actually exercised. I ask the Government to consider its powers and processes to pay an ex gratia payment in cases of real hardship due to what, to be honest, was an error of Parliament in passing the original law in the way it was passed. The basic intention of the law was right; there was one particular error, which we are now fixing today.
I want to make one point finally clear. National supports clause 2. We are supporting it because we do want the situation of the drivers who had their licences revoked, according to the effect of the law, to be fixed. That is our particular concern, and we will support the parts of the bill that deal with that particular concern. The parts of the bill that do not deal with that concern, we will not support. So I make it clear to the Minister that we will vote for this clause.
Clause 3 Persons convicted of specified serious offences prohibited from holding or applying for passenger endorsement
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) Link to this
First I would like to thank the members who have contributed to the debate so far. I take a brief call to talk about where the bill goes from here.
As members will be aware, there are some Supplementary Order Papers. There is a Supplementary Order Paper from the Hon Jim Anderton and another one from a National member that apply to clause 3. It is important that members, in looking at the bill as it has returned from the select committee, read the struck-out clauses, to learn what the original bill set out to do. I hope that members, as they consider the bill, look at what was proposed—remembering that the bill was to try to remedy the situation of the very people whom Dr Mapp talked about.
Also, I point out that I was a little surprised to hear a few speakers from the National Opposition talking about their wish not to allow anyone who was imprisoned to come back into the industry in the future. I am a little surprised at that, given that some of the National MPs who contacted me in the Christmas holiday period actually contacted me to ask me to do anything possible to help their constituents who, in one or two cases, had in fact been imprisoned. So although they are saying to those constituents that they will do everything they can to help them, it appears to me—and I hope they will reconsider their position on this—that, even in cases of minor sentences of a month or 3 months, they are now prepared to vote against the very people they have asked me to work to help. Over the Christmas holiday period I talked to each and every party—to National members, Labour members, and members of other parties. Indeed, I rang some myself after receiving messages from them. I hope the National members will reconsider their position, because if they go down the path they have proposed here this evening, on the one hand they are saying to those people that they will be in touch with the Minister and will do what they can to help them, and on the other hand they are voting against doing something for the very people whom they have asked the Minister to help. There is a double standard there that I sincerely hope does not get carried through. I beg the National MPs to think about their position on those issues.
I look forward to the debate, and hope we can have a constructive debate along the lines of the original bill. Sure, the select committee has come back with other ideas, but we should look carefully at what the bill was designed to do, and ensure that people actually do get some justice from this.
SUE MORONEY (Labour) Link to this
I rise to propose the amendment in the name of the Hon Jim Anderton set out on Supplementary Order Paper 14. I was a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that in the very short time given to it looked at this bill, which amends the Land Transport Act. The select committee found the issues very difficult to deal with in terms of trying to get a balance. Public safety was obviously paramount in our thoughts as we looked at the legislation. We were also thinking about consistency. That was at the forefront of our minds when we discussed the issues in the select committee. Workability, of course, is very important in this type of legislation. Mixed in with that is the reputation and the trust of the industry involved. Another issue we had to consider was for how long, and for what reasons, society continues to punish people who have already been dealt with by our justice system.
So, in talking to this amendment, I wish to say that it supports all of those concepts that the select committee was trying to deal with, and it brings some balance to them. The amendments set out on the Supplementary Order Paper allow people who have been convicted of an offence specified in section 29A of the Land Transport Act to apply for a passenger endorsement as long as they were not sentenced to imprisonment for a term exceeding 12 months for that offence. The bill as reported back allowed only those who were convicted under sections 134 and 135 of the Crimes Act, and who were not imprisoned, to apply.
The other thing that the Supplementary Order Paper does is to allow people convicted of a specified serious offence, and who had a passenger endorsement deemed expired by amendments to the Land Transport Act that came into effect on 16 January 2006, to apply to have their endorsement reinstated. If the offence was a sexual offence, an application can be made as long as the sentence for that offence was not a period of imprisonment of more than 12 months. So this amendment promotes consistency.
The question it raises is how long society actually continues to punish people and interfere with their rehabilitation. Some of the people who currently have been disadvantaged by the legislation the select committee was considering were handed down sentences of imprisonment for as little as 1 month. The particular individual to whom I refer was handed down a sentence of 1 month’s imprisonment in 1964.
That is right, and this person is not able to continue in his occupation because of the 1 month’s sentence of imprisonment that was handed down. Those are some of the examples of the people this amendment seeks to support. The justice system worked to ensure that offenders pay their debt; the job of this legislation is to ensure public safety. This amendment will achieve that through using the term of imprisonment handed down to offenders as a means of determining whether they can apply to the Director of Land Transport for passenger endorsement.
I acknowledge that the amendment deals with many of the issues raised by Keith Locke and the Green Party when Keith Locke spoke about the issue of double jeopardy. I also want to acknowledge that the amendment also deals with the issues raised by Hone Harawira and the Māori Party. Hone Harawira spoke of the concepts of restorative justice—he referred to it as justice that heals, not justice that hammers—and the willingness to look for the good in people. I believe that we can look for the good in people who have offended and received sentences of imprisonment of 1 or 2 months in some instances. We need to allow the Director of Land Transport to apply the criteria in deciding whether these people should be allowed to be part of the passenger transport industry. This amendment gives those people the right to apply. I would like to move that amendment.
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) Link to this
I want to make it clear to Ms Moroney that we will be opposing Mr Anderton’s amendment. We will also be opposing the Minister’s amendment in the same area, although I appreciate that his relates to clause 4. We do so because there was a very deliberate reason why the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee last year passed the legislation in the form it did. That is not to say it got it entirely right. It was intended that it deliver a very strict message, which was that sexual offenders should not be driving taxis. We are willing to concede that it was not intended that it cover those people convicted under section 134 of the Crimes Act. Virtually all of the cases that are relevant arise under that section. Essentially, they are the cases such as the one relating to the 17-year-old boy and his 15-year-old girlfriend. It was not intended that the legislation cover that situation. However, the bill that has come back from the select committee is intended to deal with this. Issues were raised with me, and I questioned the people carefully. They assured me that they had been only fined. In fact, some people had been convicted and discharged.
I want to turn to some of the facts here, because they are important. Two hundred and thirty-four people were affected by the legislation, which is quite a significant number. Two people had actually been convicted of murder. I recall one member of the select committee saying that perhaps those people should have a shot at having a taxi licence. He subsequently changed his mind. I will not name that person here. Those categories are no longer included—with the consent, I might add, of the relevant member, whom I will not name. The other offences included 13 for sexual violation. Do members know what that actually is? It is rape. Thirteen taxi drivers who had been rapists have been driving people around in taxis. Thirty of those 234 people had been convicted of having sex with children under 12. Eight of the people had been convicted of incest. I could go on. In short, these are serious offences, and I cannot believe that anyone would seriously suggest that any of those people should have the right even to apply for passenger endorsement reinstatement, because that is the effect, I might add, of Mr Anderton’s amendment.
The core of it is—and the Minister is obviously noting this; it is his particular concern, as it is the concern of the rest of Parliament—that 130 people have been convicted under section 134 of the Crimes Act and 45 persons under section 135. By and large the convictions relate to events a long time ago when the people were, by definition, very young—as in the case involving the 15-year-old and the 17-year-old. How do the penalties compare? We should bear in mind that 130 came under section 134 of the Crimes Act. Interestingly enough, 41 of the penalties involved fines. Suspended sentences, community service, probation, and borstal—handed out to people under 17, I might add, often for quite trivial things a long time ago—accounted for 139. That covers 180 people. Almost exactly the same number of people were convicted under section 134 as were convicted under section 135. One hundred and seventy were fined or had other minor punishments and 175 came under the minor offences. It is almost a perfect match. I do appreciate—and I am sure the Minister would wish to point this out—that in truth it is not a perfect match. Maybe some people who were imprisoned were covered by section 134. It was quite a small number, admittedly, but it is a vanishingly small number, I suggest.
We in the National Party are saying that we are taking a firm line on this. We are saying that we will consider and, indeed, vote for the ability to reapply, provided people have not had a term of imprisonment. I think that actually directly addresses the issues that have been raised by the vast majority of people who have contacted members right across Parliament. I know there will be some outside the parameter, but the vast majority, as is clear from the figures I have read out, are covered by the select committee report.
I want to make it perfectly clear that the members of the select committee were pretty firm on this, and the reason why the Minister is putting in a Supplementary Order Paper, which would allow imprisonment to be covered, is that the select committee did not think that imprisonment should be included. That was the view of the members of the select committee, and it is the Government, through the Minister, that has said: “We can be more liberal. We can allow people to drive taxis even though they have been in prison.”
I suggest to the Minister that that is in fact a misunderstanding of the law. If the rules are set down, then effectively no discretion is given to the director. If there was a judicial review, the judge would decide on the basis of the rules set down. Effectively, the director would not have discretion. I know the law reads the way the Minister feels it does, but in fact, it would not be applied that way in any event.
The select committee was very clear, by consensus, that imprisonment was the threshold. Someone who had been in prison could not apply; someone who had not been in prison could apply. An application in this circumstance was the same as having a re-grant. National is saying that we can deal with virtually every single one of the 175 out of 234 cases that matter because in virtually every one, all the offenders got was a fine or other punishment.
Government members have mentioned imprisonment. It is worth noting that imprisonment covers older people. Younger people got borstal. So where the victim, if one can call the person that, was 15, and the other person was 17, the offender was too young to be imprisoned. Where there is a broader age range or bigger gap between offender and victim then imprisonment tends to be levied. That is a proper distinction to make, and that is why the select committee specifically did not include borstal. We wanted to allow people who were effectively in custody in borstal to be able to apply—for the very reason that borstal covered young people, and that was our particular concern. I suggest to the Minister that that covers virtually all of the people who came to members of Parliament across the parties.
National members are voting for clause 3 on principle as it is in the select committee report, because we think that it gets the balance right. We are saying very clearly to those 175 people that if they apply they will get their licences back, if they have not had a term of imprisonment. I tell the Minister that that is effectively how it will happen—
Well, I know the Minister says that, but in truth it will not be applied that way in reality. Under a judicial review, a court would say that those are the criteria and if there is no reason not to give the licence, the licence must be given back. The criteria set by Parliament here today, I suggest, are, as a matter of interpretation of the law, equivalent to an application.
Simon PowerI think that is a reasonable interjection. I think the points have been well made as to why we have taken the position that we have. We will be supporting clause 3 in order to be able to provide the appropriate remedy to the people who have contacted various members of Parliament.
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) Link to this
I thank Wayne Mapp for that great exposition of what is actually happening here, but I think there is something that we tend to forget when we are looking at a clause from a Labour Government that tries to put in a term of imprisonment. The Labour Government has made it quite clear that it does not want to imprison people, so why does it need a clause about imprisonment? It is not going to put people in prison. People are going to be—
Yes, a catch and release policy. The clause that Mr Anderton is putting forward is quite redundant because it is not going to be the reality of the situation. There is also the situation that a lot of the crimes that have been committed—in the cases that came before the members of this Parliament—are actually cases where, in the past, there would be a conviction, but the evidence we had from the select committee was that in these cases there would now no longer be convictions in the courts for those offences, because they are not being prosecuted. There certainly will not be imprisonment, or borstal as it was in those days for the younger offenders, because they are just not being convicted for those kinds of offences. So it is quite redundant to put in a clause looking simply at imprisonment for a 12-month period.
In the select committee, we considered that 12-month threshold quite extensively. It was felt that there was no need for that kind of level. In fact, a lot of the Labour members felt that a 6-month level was more appropriate. When they were talking about a 6-month level, that was fine—they had a couple of cases in mind that fitted in with that 6 months—but it has now been extended to 12 months because they have thought of another couple of cases that they want to get covered.
What happens about the guy tomorrow who goes out and wants a P endorsement licence and who was sentenced to imprisonment for 13 months, 40 years ago? Are we then going to come back and do this all again and extend the time to 14 or 15 months? That is the problem when people try to make a line in the sand on the basis of retrospective cases. That is all they are trying to do in this case. It is not good law looking forward to people and circumstances of the future, it is trying to catch certain cases that have come before people in the last couple of months.
Labour members have brought up some other questions in their speeches. There is the question of consistency. I think National members are being totally consistent. We are saying that for people who were existing drivers with offences, we will provide a mechanism so there can be some kind of resolution to their problem. But we are also being totally consistent with the intention of the 2005 legislation. Its intention was to have a strict prohibition so that people had to go through a long and detailed process in order to keep the integrity of the profession and people involved in the industry.
On 10 May 2005, the honourable Minister said: “The bill also prohibits persons convicted of serious violence and sexual offences from being passenger service drivers. That will address the risk to public safety of having convicted sex offenders and other violent offenders in a one-on-one situation with passengers. I note that the select committee recommends that the scope of that provision be extended to cover offences committed prior to the commencement of this bill.”
That is the heart of the problem. The initial bill last year was looking at new drivers coming forward. Then under the guise of the select committee, it was decided to go back and look at existing drivers, as well. Concentration on existing drivers is the problem. The problem was not in looking at new drivers last year. It was a good piece of law. It knew what it wanted to achieve—it wanted to protect people hopping into taxis or on buses. That change can be remedied by having a Supplementary Order Paper passed tonight that makes a definition between existing and new drivers. That is totally consistent with what members wanted to achieve last year, with what the public wants to see happen, and with the public opinion expressed earlier this year when people felt they were in a situation where the law was not providing an opportunity to recognise their past for their industry now. That is why National is promoting the dual between the existing and the new. We think it is important that that break is made.
KEITH LOCKE (Green) Link to this
One of the problems with the National Party is that it is not placing sufficient trust in the Director of Land Transport to use his or her discretion in this matter.
Shane JonesYes. The Director of Land Transport will obviously be in the firing line if he or she gets it wrong, so he or she will spend a lot of time on each case. Wayne Mapp goes on about not trusting people who have committed serious offences, but I suggest that the director will go through the process by looking at the seriousness of the offence, the penalty applied, and the length of time that has passed since the offence was committed—and other factors will be taken into consideration.
In terms of the seriousness of offences, we have looked at the ones that are at the lower end of the scale. There has been a lot of talk about carnal knowledge offences, which are not deemed to be so serious these days, and about the penalty for those offences. Even in the past, when they were treated more seriously, the penalty was not great. So the director will have an easier road ahead in terms of granting an exemption in those cases. Then we go on to what we consider to be the more serious offences. In my second reading speech I mentioned a person who was convicted of aggravated robbery. Obviously, aggravated robbery is a serious offence, but one has to take into account the penalty. In the case I gave, the person convicted of aggravated robbery, who is in the taxi industry right now, received a penalty of 6 months’ periodic detention. So, clearly, the Director of Land Transport would say that that person was at the lighter end of that serious offence, given that he received only 6 months’ periodic detention, and other factors would be taken into consideration, as well.
Details I provided of another case involve somebody who was convicted of a crime—whose case would come under clause 3—and who wants to get into the industry and drive disabled people around. This person has a great aptitude in that direction—good empathy—but he had received a more serious sentence of 3 years in jail. Unfortunately, even under Jim Anderton’s amendment bill, that person would not get into the industry, although the Greens would like the director’s discretion to go further in order to allow that. If the Green approach had been adopted, the Director of Land Transport, again, would say: “It is a very serious offence. I will have to look at that case very closely. This person has a hard road—3 years’ imprisonment—to justify the circumstance.” The director would then go on to consider the third factor, which is how long ago the offence was committed. In the example I gave, the offence happened 25 years ago. When one talks about 25 years ago in terms of the aggravated robbery conviction with 3 years’ imprisonment, or the other example I provided, of aggravated robbery with 6 months’ periodic detention, both of those cases happened many years ago—one case was 30 years ago and the other case was 25 years ago. Presumably, the Director of Land Transport would have plenty of supporting evidence from people who had known those people over the years, and could make a fairly good judgment. I have no doubt that the director would err on the side of caution, given the concern in the community about taking too many risks with people driving others around—be it in a taxi or in a bus. It can be worked out if one trusts the Director of Land Transport. Somebody who committed a crime 25 or 30 years ago may even be a member of Parliament—who knows? In respect of this bill, people do not seem to need the same qualification to become a member of Parliament as they do to become a bus driver or a taxi driver.
I listened very closely to Hone Harawira’s very good speech in the second reading debate. One thing we have to bear in mind is that people often commit those crimes in their youth; they are often tearaways who get out of control due to bad parenting, or whatever the problem is, and they overcome that disadvantage later in life, come right, and really star in society. Those people should be given a chance. As we all know, a high proportion of those people—50 percent of our prison population—is Māori. So if someone goes ahead and says, as National does, that no one who has ever been in prison should be given any discretion, that person is being a bit discriminatory.
Hon TAU HENARE (National) Link to this
I want to talk briefly on clause 3 about an issue that has been bothering me. In 1960, and around that time, sexual abuse and indecent assault were not taken very seriously, either by the police, by the community, or by the nation. Now they are taken seriously, thank God.
I do not believe for one minute that I would want somebody who has had even a 1-month conviction in 1960 driving my daughter around in the dark of night, because I am not sure whether he would do it again. He did it once, so there is always a chance that he could do it again. Keith Locke says that carnal knowledge is not such an issue these days. Well, it is if one’s daughter is 14, it is if one’s daughter is 13, and it is if one’s daughter is 12. It does not matter whether the encounter was consensual. What we now know and believe in society is totally different from what we believed in 1960 and before. Speaking as a parent and as a dad, I say that it does not matter how old my daughter is; she could be 45 and I would still not want her to be driving around in the dead of night with some person who has been imprisoned—whether it was for a month or even for 5 days—for an offence that we now take to be serious. We might not have taken that offence seriously in 1960, but we do take it seriously these days.
I have heard a number of the speeches tonight and before the dinner break, and what strikes me is that we are talking about just taxi drivers or just bus drivers. What about women? What about all those people out there who actually think: “Well, hang on. I’m actually quite scared, because I am the one who has to take the cab. I am the one who has to take the bus home late at night after finishing my 12-hour shift at the Warehouse.” It is those people whom we should be thinking of. There are more of them out there than just those 230-odd people the law is being changed for. Four million people live in this country, and we are changing a law for 230-odd people. It is a bad law anyway, and I am glad I was not here in the last term, because it is not my fault that the legislation was passed; it is the fault of everybody who was here.
Hopeless members of Parliament, and I hear from my esteemed colleague Dr Wayne Mapp that he voted for it.
He was on the select committee, as well. At least he is trying to fix the thing up. There are 4 million people out there, and we are changing an anomaly for 230—[ Interruption] Mr Harawira butts in and says “Shut up.” We are changing the law for 230 people, and Hone Harawira is feeling good about himself only because Keith Locke tried to butter him up by saying that his speech was a good speech. Well, I wonder what the Greens want from the Māori Party—but that is not what we are here to talk about.
Out of the 230 people, only 175 actually matter, because those people got a fine, not an imprisonment. I ask Dr Mapp whether I am right.
Absolutely, thank you for that. So we are fixing up a law for 175 people. For goodness’ sake, have we not got anything better to do other than to fix up things for 175 people? We are worried about their careers—their livelihoods. Well, hang on, what about all the women out there? What about all the young girls out there?
Hon David ParkerMr Parker says that he does not care about all the women and girls out there. I want to know why we are allowing people who have already had a fine or even an imprisonment—
Steve Chadwick
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) Link to this
Well, I think that is the first time for about 8 years that I have listened to Tau Henare and have agreed in part with what he had to say. He has reflected—fair go to the guy—to some degree the public’s concern. But, as usual with Tau Henare, he has taken it one step too far. We are fixing up this law because—
—we did not do the job properly in the first place. It was not him; I will excuse the honourable member. We did not do the job properly, and now we are trying to fix it up.
It is not because 175 people or however many have missed out. That is the number of people who are affected by our botch-up directly, but those people might well have been driving their cabs for years and been perfectly safe and highly regarded by their communities. I have had letters and phone calls from people with regard to the case of at least one person, who is a decent, law-abiding guy. When he was 17 he had a sexual relationship with a girl who was just under 16, and now we are taking his livelihood away from him. That is why we are fixing up this law, and why we have to fix it up.
New Zealand First will be supporting the Minister’s amendment to clause 4. We will not be supporting the Jim Anderton amendment to clause 3. The simple reason is that we want to accommodate as best we can people who are of no real danger to public safety. They have been caught by this “young love” effect—I will use that term; people can use more basic terms if they like—caught by that sort of administration. Many of them went to borstal or detention centres, and one, two, or half a dozen went to prison. At the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—and I think the National Party members on the committee will recall this—I was opposed to supporting the part of the legislation relating to prison. I drew the line at what we might call youth punishment. But since that time the Minister has clarified exactly who is being affected, and we see merit in widening the net.
This bill is about where we draw the line. That is what we are arguing here. It is not if we will draw the line, but where we will draw the line. I notice that Wayne Mapp made reference to a member in his contribution a little while ago. I will own up to being, I think, that member, whom he implied had wanted to support a murderer. That is not true, at all. What I pointed out—in a fictitious case, I believe—was that a man came home and saw his wife in bed with his best mate. He assaulted his best mate and killed him, and was put in prison for murder. I was trying to point out to the honourable member that if he had not killed him—or in modern-day parlance, he probably would have been found guilty of manslaughter—it would have made a difference under this bill, as manslaughter is not specified. It is not regarded as a serious enough crime. There is no offence of assault in this bill. There is assault to rob, but not assault because it is not regarded as a serious crime under the bill. So I am trying to illustrate to the honourable member on the select committee the difference between a murder in those sorts of circumstances and what would have happened if he had not killed the guy. I was trying to illustrate how difficult it is to draw the line.
The underlying point is that we should draw the line on the court judgment. We are safer there if we draw the line on the court judgment rather than on what we see as the offence. I left the select committee and said that we would draw the line at youth punishment, which is covered by a new section 29A(4), to be inserted into the Land Transport Act 1998 by clause 3 of the bill. It states: “imprisonment excludes—(a) corrective training; or (b) borstal training; or (c) detention centre training”. That is where we drew the line. I accept the Hon Harry Duynhoven’s Supplementary Order Paper and I have taken it to my caucus. It said we should move the line that much further for the retrospective guys—the guys who are actually driving now or who have been driving until now—but not for the guys who will be in this position in the future. We keep the line at youth punishment for forward planning for people, but for the retrospective guys we would let in those who have been convicted of offences carrying a sentence of short-term imprisonment of under a year. We think that is quite reasonable and quite sensible. It lets through those people whom we, in Parliament, in haste, condemned.
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) Link to this
I am quite surprised at, and actually quite disappointed in, what we have just heard from the member from New Zealand First. I am surprised in the sense that New Zealand First members have changed their tune within an hour. It must have been something they ate for tea. Just before the dinner break, when National members proposed that we have a distinction between new and existing drivers to whom this legislation is applicable, we were told by New Zealand First that to do so would be inconsistent and we should not do it. We were told that we must have one rule, and it should apply to all. Now New Zealand First is coming back and saying that it would give existing drivers the 12-month criterion, but for new drivers there would be no 12-month criterion, and that New Zealand First would be tough on the new ones.
Well, that is what National is proposing in our Supplementary Order Paper 17. That was what was agreed on in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, and that was, I think, the essence of the legislation passed last year. I implore New Zealand First: we have another hour, so it should go all the way and go back to what it actually agreed on last year. It should give all people the certainty of knowing that they will be looked after, of knowing that they can trust that when they hop in a taxi or on a bus they will be looked after to the degree they expect. It is in your hands now. You have moved halfway; you can go all the way.
That is the essence of what National members are trying to do in our Supplementary Order Paper. We know that we cannot just draw a line in the sand and pick 12 months or 6 months out; we need to have a policy that is effective for the future. The only way we can do that is by having something—as we have provided—that defines the situations for new and existing drivers, and having different rules for people in each situation.
We have no problem with existing drivers. We understand the concerns of people who are in such an occupation, who have been hurt by the legislation going through, and who want to give some substance to their career. We are willing to give that substance and to provide that amendment. But we think the true intention of Parliament with the amendment Act of 2005 was to set up a new regime for all the people coming into the industry in the future. We think that the way we can give credit to the people who stood up in Parliament last year and promoted those ideals is to have separate criteria for new and existing drivers.
New Zealand First has shown that that can be done conceptually. Those members have no problem with having separate criteria for new and existing drivers. Their only problem now is the thresholds. Well, who will make the threshold decision now? Are we making it on the basis of 200 cases that have been put in front of us? What about the next 200 cases next year? What about the 200 cases after that? Will this threshold move just for the sake of it? Are people willing to get into cars or on to buses at night by themselves without the protection of a threshold, but knowing that there is a true concept that they will be looked after and protected through an industry-wide approach? That is the essence of the break between new and existing drivers.
I encourage people to look at the spirit of what we are doing here tonight and at the spirit of what members did last year. There was nothing wrong with that spirit. We have to refine that spirit to engage with cases that could come up potentially, but we need to keep that spirit there for the future. We need to have that break between new and existing drivers, and to put a tougher threshold on new people coming into the industry, because that supports what New Zealanders want to see in the future. When people hop into a taxi they are in a position of weakness, and they want to know that they will be looked after. That is the trust they put in that driver. The drivers want to have that respect, and we want to be able to give them that respect, as well. So I ask members to look at the spirit of what we are doing and vote for the amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 17, which distinguish between new and existing drivers. There can be no inconsistency issues. New Zealand First members have shown they are willing to move on that. All that they are debating now is the threshold that they want to apply to that distinction.
Hon TAU HENARE (National) Link to this
I will not speak for long. I thank Mr Brown for his gracious remarks. That is the most gracious he has ever been towards myself since 1993. I thank him for that—and it was only half gracious, but never mind. I want to ask a question, maybe not of the Minister—he is one of the few Ministers I have a bit of faith in—but of Mr Peter Brown. When he talks about murder and wanting to get the threshold right, and moving it this way and that way, the question for New Zealand First really is: are they going to support David Bennett’s Supplementary Order Paper?
I see—they are having it both ways. If they flipped over the Supplementary Order Paper, they would see that “specified serious offence” means “(a) murder;”, and that is what he was talking about. Nowhere in what they did last year, in 2005 when they got it wrong, and waited for the newbies to come along and fix it—
Oh, no. The member said, and everybody heard him, that murder was not in there. The member said—and I might be going deaf—
I might have a bit of dementia at the age of 44, or 45, or whatever it was, but the fact of the matter is that that member said that there was no mention of murder. That is what his words were, and I would love to see the Hansard. I apologise if I am wrong—it is highly unlikely, but I do. The only way we will make a line in the sand is by supporting the Supplementary Order Paper in the name of David Bennett. It sets it out quite clearly—new and old. The new ones cannot apply. Am I right?
Absolutely, and that is what we are trying to do. But the member from New Zealand First does not want a bar of it. He wants to support the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper. He wants to support the Labour Government because, I suppose, it is part of the baubles of power. I do not know.
Well, he will not support them on the new one either. I am trying to find out what Mr Brown’s position is.
OK. So it all depends on whether someone comes before New Zealand First. So New Zealand First is now not only the judge and the jury but also the head of some sort of committee of moralistic people—they will decide. That is what they want to do, rather than fixing up a piece of legislation—and it would be easy to fix it with the Supplementary Order Paper, and then vote for it. There is nothing in the Supplementary Order Paper from David Bennett that is going to make this law any worse—in fact, it will make it better—than it is now. So I cannot understand—
I have read it. I have read both pages of it. It is a great little Supplementary Order Paper. But the fact of the matter is that the Supplementary Order Paper allows people who have been in the industry for a long, long time and who have a minor infraction to carry on, so that we do not take their livelihood away. But it says to all the new people and the existing people that they cannot apply for it if they have done one of these things. That is all it says. So how can people be against it? That is all I ask.
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 17 in the name of David Bennett to insert new subclause (1AA) in clause 3 be agreed to.
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) Link to this
Can I just caution members about the taking of votes. No other comment at all is allowed. I ask members to look at Speaker’s ruling 63/2, made by Speaker Hunt, and also at Speaker’s ruling 63/5. It is highly disorderly to interject, because it can be taken as intimidation and could lead to a breach of privilege. So I am just cautioning members.
A party vote was called for on the question,
That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 46
Noes 70
Amendment not agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question,
That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 60
Noes 56
Amendment agreed to.
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 14 in the name of the Hon Jim Anderton to omit and substitute words in section 29(A)(3)(b) in clause 3 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question,
That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 60
Noes 56
Amendment agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 14 in the name of the Hon Jim Anderton to add words to section 29A(3)(b) in clause 3 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question,
That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 60
Noes 56
Amendment agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question,
That clause 3 as amended be agreed to.
Ayes 70
Noes 46
Clause 3 as amended agreed to.
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) Link to this
Clause 3A on Supplementary Order Paper 17 in my name reflects the insertion of a new clause for new persons. For the purposes of the clause, a new person is defined under subclause (2) as “a person applying for a passenger endorsement after the commencement of the Land Transport Amendment Act 2006.” In essence, a new person is someone who comes in after the legislation has been passed. So we are looking at someone who may apply in, say, a month’s time to come into the industry as the driver of either a taxi or a bus. That person would be a new person because he or she had come in after the legislation had been enacted.
The reason we broke it into new and existing people was to reflect the intention of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and also the original intention of the amendment Act in 2005. The break between new and existing people was seen as the easiest way to do that. There may be other ways to make that distinction, but the distinction between a new person who comes in and an existing driver is something that fulfils the requirements of the amendment Act in 2005. If we go back to the history of that amendment, we find it was supposed to be just for new persons who come into the industry. At the select committee stage, it was extended to include existing persons already in the industry. As a result of that, we are now in the situation we have arrived at today, with a number of cases that arose over the Christmas break attracting a lot of public opinion. Those cases are now being dealt with by this amendment bill. If we had kept the provision to new persons in the legislation in 2005, we would not have the problem that we do now.
The break between new and existing persons reflects the need to maintain a balance, and also to maintain the spirit of the 2005 amendment for the new people who come into the industry. We need that for new people, because we need the security that every time we hop into a taxi or a bus, we can trust the driver. The new distinction is a higher threshold than that for existing drivers. It builds the trust in the industry that enables drivers to go out there and feel comfortable in the jobs that they undertake, and it enables passengers to feel comfortable about getting the driver of a taxi to take them to a venue.
We believe that a distinction between new and existing drivers is appropriate and reflects the true intention of the legislation that was enacted last year. It also provides an opportunity for the balance and flexibility needed to look after people who have been caught, in the earlier period of this year, by the legislation from 2005.
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) Link to this
I will speak for a couple of minutes on the Supplementary Order Paper presented by Mr Bennett. He made a couple of points—one of them around whether the legislation will prevent new applicants from being able to apply for and obtain a P-class licence. Mr Clayton Cosgrove also raised a few points earlier—one of them being the argument as to why one would not object to current licence holders, yet object to those who seek to hold a licence in the future. The answer was pretty straightforward: because they do not currently hold a licence. Their livelihood or their ability to make a livelihood is not affected. If they can drive a bus or a cab, then they can drive something else—for example, a truck or a bulldozer. That is something that is affected in the future. As we have been told by the Government on several occasions, there are jobs out there to burn. So it is about someone making a choice to try to enter an industry that they are not currently part of, and it has a different impact than allowing those who are currently holders of P-class endorsements to apply for reinstatement of them.
Another point made was about double jeopardy. I can sympathise with the arguments of double jeopardy, and I accept, of course, that it is within the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act but we have a situation in this country, and most other countries around the world, where there are certain jobs that people cannot do if they have certain convictions or court awards have gone against them. For instance, if someone wants to go on a racecourse but has been convicted of a crime punishable only by imprisonment, he or she cannot go on. That person is barred from going on a racecourse. That is just the way it is; if people have those convictions, they cannot go there. So if it is an old assault, theft, or sex complaint, or anything else, that person cannot go there. Double jeopardy, rightly or wrongly, exists in the law now—if that is what is known as double jeopardy. In fact, it does not fall within the strict interpretation of the meaning or definition of a double jeopardy in any event.
Within the House, if, for instance, a court awarded costs against an MP but he or she could not pay, then a notice of bankruptcy was filed against that MP and he or she still could not pay, that person would not be able to be an MP any longer. I understand that there is a story around the presentation of the gold Mace that normally sits on the Table—that the MP who presented it was being proceeded against for bankruptcy. The Parliament at the time was so grateful for the fact that the donation was made that proceedings were withheld. By the time it decided to kick them off again, the member at the time—years ago, of course—was in a better position and so escaped them. But if he had been adjudicated bankrupt, he could not have remained as a member of Parliament. The other example is liquor licences; one cannot hold a liquor licence if one has certain convictions. One cannot join the police with certain other convictions. That is just the way it is; that is life.
I wanted to make those two points to counter points made earlier by the other side of the Chamber. I believe that the legislation is exactly consistent with what the select committee wanted in the first place.
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) Link to this
I was not going to take a call on this part, because we will vote it down. I draw the member who is promoting the Supplementary Order Paper to the fact that the “existing person” amendment he is referring to has already been voted down, and therefore it is questionable whether we want an amendment referring to a “new person”.
But I am taking the call because of the contribution made by Chester Borrows, who has just resumed his seat. He made some interesting statements—for example, he said that a person convicted of, presumably, any of the crimes listed on the back of the Supplementary Order Paper cannot go on to a racecourse, cannot come here, cannot join the police. I would like to ask the member—and maybe he can answer by way of interjection across the floor—whether it is possible that a young man of 16 or 17 who had sexual intercourse with a girl of 15, got picked up by police, fined, and put in borstal or somewhere else, could not go on a racecourse.
R Doug WoolertonI will get the Minister for Racing to check. I do not know much about how detailed the checks are, when going on a racecourse, but I do not know anybody—
I am not yielding my time. The member made an interesting point, and I think it is worth knowing the facts of the case. The truth is in the detail; the assertion was made, but the member is not fully au fait with the detail. But I suggest to the honourable members that many a person when young had a sexual relationship with a girl, or—under 16—[ Interruption]
Members might think that that is frivolous—as the member from Hamilton does. I know his parents are listening—Mr and Mrs Bennett are listening—so I will not name him. But they are listening to him.
He is taking it in a frivolous way. But, without underrating the seriousness of those crimes, the point I am making is that nowadays society is not policing them as adequately or effectively as it once did. There are many young people having sexual relationships with somebody under the age of 16, but they are not getting checked on, and they are not getting penalised, as perhaps has been alluded to. New Zealand First is saying—we have said it for people in the industry and we are saying it for new people coming into the industry—that that does not present a safety issue, as far as the public is concerned. The situation of a person who, maybe 15, 10, or a few years ago, had a sexual relationship with a younger person under the age of 16, is now—regrettably—being more accepted by society. As a crime it will not impact on public safety. It is more accepted. I can tell members—
Does the member want to question me? Because I think he should do that privately. I listened to his speech, and I clearly got the impression that he knows very little about this bill, although I recognise he has sat on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee now for several hours. This is important legislation, and we really want to get it fair and just. This Supplementary Order Paper produced by Mr Bennett is not worth the paper it is written on. I could make a suggestion of how to use it, but I can say it would be very, very uncomfortable.
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 17 in the name of David Bennett to insert new clause 3A be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question,
That new clause 3A be agreed to.
Ayes 46
Noes 70
New clause 3A not agreed to.
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) Link to this
I thank members for the strong interest in this debate at this time of night. It seems that some of the members involved in this debate, though, have no clue in the wide world how the current licensing system works for taxi and bus drivers. If, under the legislation we pass this evening, a bus or taxi driver is approved to apply again, that does not make that particular applicant automatically a driver. The first thing that any bus or taxi driver, who has what is called a P endorsement—that addition to his or her licence—has to pass is what is called a fit and proper person test. The Director of Land Transport is the person who is responsible for ensuring that the people entering the industry are rightfully in the industry.
There are people who have a criminal history from a previous time, and that is what this debate has been about. It has been about how Parliament, in the best efforts we can make, can try to tidy up the industry for the future. As part of a much larger piece of legislation, Parliament and the select committee inadvertently allowed a problem to go forward. When that problem was first identified to me late last year, I simply said: “Hang on, there is a mess here; how do we fix it?”. I got officials in, the Minister of Transport and I both asked for a report on the issue, and in the middle of December we got a report that said, yes, there was definitely an issue.
The reason that it was raised with me was that people were starting to get letters from Land Transport New Zealand saying they would need to take some legal advice because they were among the people affected by that legislation. Those people were all sexual offenders, but as we have since heard, in the media and elsewhere and in this House, some of those sexual offenders had no victim in that the partner in the sexual activity had been, usually, a girlfriend who was slightly younger, and below the age of 16 years. In some cases, that couple, 40 years later, are happily married, and have been in the bus industry or taxi industry for 30 or 40 years, and in some cases they are the owner and the wife of the owner, or the joint owners, of a bus or taxi company.
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN Link to this
The Opposition member Dr Wayne Mapp says, yes, National supports them—no problem. But I tell Dr Mapp that the problem is that this is about justice. It is not about some arcane sort of numbers thing; it is about justice for individuals, and about having an industry that is safe for the customers of that industry. [ Interruption] I say to members, if they are prepared to listen, that many members rang me after this issue got publicity, and when I got officials in late in December—one of the officials here will be able to tell me the date, but I think it was around the 20th or 21st of December—we looked at ways of trying to fix it. I suggested all sorts of ways to try to fix the issue for those considered worthy of remaining in the taxi or bus industries, and we found that, in the words of one of the officials, the legislation passed by Parliament last year was more watertight than a snapper. The end result was that the only way to fix it was by legislation. Having got that advice, I immediately wrote to the Prime Minister to say we had a problem and would need to fix it. The Minister of the day who put that legislation before the House, the select committee, and Parliament did not for a moment, I think, believe we would be in the position we are now in. What has happened—
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN Link to this
No, I can assure the member that members of the select committee whom I talked to over the January period said to me that this was unexpected.
We do not have a situation where whatever we do in the House tonight automatically sees those people become taxi or bus drivers; once they have applied to the Director of Land Transport they have to go through a process, and the very first consideration is the safety of the public. Nobody gets his or her P endorsement without that being the first consideration.
Whether the penalty was a fine, a prison sentence, time in borstal, or licence suspension because the under-age sex had occurred in the back of a car is a factor that seems to have been missed out of this argument. The National Party, apparently, supports an incompetent axe murderer who currently is in the industry, but who had a massive prison sentence for grievous bodily harm, attempted murder, or something else, remaining in the industry without censure, but says that a young man who, when he was aged 17 and his girlfriend was 15½, had a bit of a rush of blood to the head, got caught having under-age sex, and was penalised, should not be in the industry. A National member brought one case to me, asking for help. That particular person had had 1 month in prison. National members are saying that a failed axe murderer who is currently in the industry should be allowed to carry on, but a person who, with his consenting girlfriend, had under-age sex and wound up being convicted and sentenced to 1 month in prison should not be allowed to be in the industry.
That is illogical nonsense. That is precisely why I have put up a Supplementary Order Paper to sort this thing out. I hope members will agree to that Supplementary Order Paper, and I hope they will also consider Mr Anderton’s Supplementary Order Paper positively. It is important to look at what those Supplementary Order Papers do. The future application is important, because why should we allow certain people in an industry now, and say we will have a different standard for such people in the future? If we go ahead with the legislation as it currently sits, someone in the industry right now who had a significant prison term, but who is approved to drive because he or she has proven in his or her subsequent life to be a fit person, will be allowed to continue in the industry, but in the future a person with a prison sentence, no matter how small, will not be allowed into the industry, no matter what the crime was.
That is the position of the National Party. It is not logical in any way, shape, or form. I ask the National Party, especially the members who have brought cases to me—some of whom will not know what penalty was incurred by the person they have asked me to intervene on behalf of—to consider seriously what they are doing. They should put their party politics to one side and look at justice.
[... plus a further 31 contributions not shown here]