Land Transport Amendment Bill

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) Link to this

I move, That the Land Transport Amendment Bill be now read a third time. The legislation this bill amends was passed to improve public safety so that those using passenger transport services, often at night or alone, could have a greater assurance that those working in a passenger service with whom they have direct contact pose no threat to them. However, the mechanism is blunt. It leaves some individuals adversely affected in terms of their employment, with no appreciable safety gain. The bill we now have strikes a better balance between the safety of the travelling public and the ability of those who have been convicted of offences at the minor end of the scale to continue to hold employment as a passenger service driver or to apply to have employment as a passenger service driver at some future time. The bill does not—I repeat, it does not—automatically reissue passenger endorsements to those eligible to apply for them. It only allows applications to be made to the director. The reinstatement avenue is tightly prescribed and the criteria are strict. Indeed, this amendment bill, put up in my name, tightens considerably the criteria that the director has to consider, compared with the legislation the House passed under the previous Minister in 2005.

Upon the passage of this bill, the director will inform those directly affected of the new reinstatement criteria. Some 158 people will, I think, be eligible—maybe 20 or so more, but in that order—out of the 234 who were adversely affected by the original legislation. Decisions on whether a person qualifies for reinstatement will be made as quickly as possible.

I want to comment on the performance of the National Party. I think that some of its members need to go home from this House tonight and look carefully at their reflection in the mirror. Some members in the National Party telephoned me over the Christmas holiday break to ask me to do something to help their constituents or someone who had been affected and had approached them for help. In some cases, the member may not be aware of the penalty those constituents were given at the time of their offence. What is really galling for me is that I spent a considerable part of the Christmas holiday period on this issue. That is not a worry, because it needed fixing, and that is what I am paid to do. But I received assurances from several National MPs who voted tonight that they would support action to fix the problem for those who were on the minor end of the scale, such as those who had had sex with a partner of a similar age but below 16 and were caught by what we know as the carnal knowledge provision—section 134 of the Crimes Act.

I want to tell the public of New Zealand quite clearly what the National Party’s inconsistent position is. It is absolutely possible, right now, even before this amendment bill gets passed, for there to be, currently, a taxi driver or a bus driver who is a former violent offender who has been convicted of, for example, a serious assault that might well have killed the person had he or she not been stopped, who has served a prison sentence of perhaps 8 years in prison, years ago, but had been deemed either by the director or the courts to have reformed his or her life and to now not be a threat to the public. It is possible that that person, a taxi driver or a bus driver—right now, tonight, in public—is carting women, children, and others around.

National Party members are happy with that situation, because in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee they did not object to—indeed, they supported, and in this House spoke about—such former violent offenders having the right, after having served time for their crime, to be taxi or bus drivers. But their position, which in another venue I would describe with an “h” word, of having two standards is such that they are happy for a sex offender who had no further crime recorded, who got no penalty of imprisonment, to be on the road quite happily as a taxi driver or a bus driver.

But what they have offended against, in my view, is a principle of justice. Because if a person who was in such a sexual relationship with a similarly aged person but who was under 16 years of age and therefore got a sentence that was not a custodial sentence in a prison, then he is OK. But if that very same person got a custodial sentence not in a borstal but in a prison because, let us say, the borstals were full, then he may well have exactly the same penalty applied. National members may not be aware that some of the people on whose behalf they have asked me to intervene actually were imprisoned for a month, or for 2 or 3 months. But they are not happy. They are happy to have on the road a violent offender who spent 8 years, perhaps, in prison, but they are not happy to have on the road a person who had sex with his girlfriend and to whom he may have now been married for 40 years—a person who cannot be a taxi driver because he spent a month in prison.

That is an absolute double standard. It is absolutely inconsistent. I know it is called by a different word in another place, but I cannot use that word here. I urge National members to look carefully at their consciences. They should look at themselves in the mirror tonight and ask themselves whether they got it right. I know that someone will say: “Ah, but it’s possible to have a rapist.” It is possible, but there is no guarantee that such a person will get past the director. Indeed—[Interruption] Yes, the bill allows them to apply. The member is quite right, and when he is quiet I will continue. The legislation that was reported back from the select committee last year allows violent offenders of any sort to apply.

Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) Link to this

For the benefit of listeners, that was the Hon Harry Duynhoven. If they want to know why he is not in Cabinet, that is the reason.

What the Minister for Transport Safety has done is allow rapists to apply for a taxi licence. That is what he has done. I want to make it perfectly clear that that happens. The Minister should have listened to Chester Borrows, who is an expert in this field, has huge experience in it, and knows that rapists have had sentences of less than 12 months. The truth is that those people do pose greater risks. [Interruption] The Minister Lianne Dalziel who interjected was actually on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee last year and said that rapists should not be able to apply for a taxi licence. In fact, she was really firm on that. She said that Deborah Coddington was absolutely right that rapists should have no prospect of getting a taxi licence. That is what she said then. I heard it myself, because I was on the select committee. What has she said today? She has said: “Oh well, they can apply. It doesn’t really matter very much.” Frankly, it is absurd.

I want to put on record that, yes, National has been concerned about the people who are affected by sections 134 and 135 of the Crimes Act. The Minister actually knows that. They are the vast majority of the people affected by last year’s amendment. Notwithstanding the concerns we had about the select committee’s report back, we would have voted for the reported-back legislation on its third reading. We would have done that because it essentially fixed the problem. The problem now is that there is not just the Minister’s amendment—I concede that Mr Duynhoven’s had a degree of restraint, because it was confined to sections 134 and 135—but the Minister foolishly has agreed to Mr Anderton’s amendment. I am being charitable in saying that clearly he did that in haste, because it was tabled very late, and he was possibly ignorant of its effects. [Interruption] Why has the Hon Lianne Dalziel, who was so firm in the select committee last year, so absolutely convinced that no rapist should ever have a taxi licence in any circumstance—the Minister cannot deny that, because she knows what I am saying is correct—flip-flopped today? I think that, frankly, is outrageous.

The Minister for Transport Safety asked about the distinction between a sexual offender and a serious violent offender, and that is a fair question. The evidence shows that people guilty of sexual offences—and I am sure Chester Borrows would affirm this—have a greater propensity to reoffend, committing the same type of offence, than do people who committed serious violent offences many years ago. I have heard Mr Chester Borrows say right now that that is so. The reason he can say it is that he is an expert in this field. He was a police officer of many years’ standing, including as a detective. No one else in this Parliament can actually make that claim. No one else in this Parliament has had that close experience in recent years of what actually happens.

Ignorant Supplementary Order Papers have been put forward, particularly the one from Mr Anderton, and it is, frankly, disgraceful that the Government allowed his Supplementary Order Paper to go forward and totally negate what the select committee did last year. I concede the select committee made a mistake. The recent report back from the select committee would have fixed that mistake. National members would have been prepared to vote for the third reading of the bill as reported back. We are absolutely adamant that we will not vote for rapists to be able to apply for a taxi licence. [Interruption]

I think this needs to be put on record. The person interjecting—for the benefit of listeners—is Mrs Jill Pettis. She is the previous member for Whanganui. She thinks it is OK for rapists to apply for taxi licences. I am not surprised that she was defeated by the very able and vastly more experienced current member for Whanganui, Mr Chester Borrows. The voters had a very clear and obvious choice to make, and it is hardly surprising that they voted for Mr Chester Borrows, because the member Jill Pettis has proven to be such a failure. The more she interjects, the more foolish she shows herself to be.

National members are outraged at the range of Supplementary Order Papers put forward by the Government. We are amazed that other parties voted for Mr Anderton’s amendment. It is a disgrace. I would like to see the Minister for Small Business defend rapists being able to apply for taxi licences. She must know that is unreasonable, because that is exactly what she said in the select committee last year. On the basis of trying to fix what is quite a narrow issue, the Government has completely gutted the intent of protecting the public. That is why National members cannot support this third reading. We are very clear on that. We are saying: “Clean up the taxi industry and reduce the level of discretion of the Secretary for Transport.” We are saying that murderers, rapists, and other serious sexual offenders should not be able to apply for taxi licences, and that if they have had them, they should not have them for the future. This Labour Government is so morally bankrupt that it is allowing those people to apply for licences. I find that appalling.

That was not what the concern of the public was. The concern of the public—and, indeed, the people affected—was real and genuine. I acknowledge that to the Minister, and I had some of those concerns. We could have fixed them by a narrowly focused amendment, and if we had done that—

Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) Link to this

The quality of debate has got down to a level that probably shows that it is 9.45 on a Thursday night when most members have normally gone home. I say to Dr Wayne Mapp that he should be flagellating himself for changing his position because he was on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee last time, and that select committee exempted no one. I invite David Bennett and Bob Clarkson—new National members—to tell him off in the way he has been telling off members on this side of the House. Why did he wimp out? Why did he change his view between then and now? It is totally illogical to stand there saying that it was wrong to have amended this law in the way in which it was amended, pretending that National had some high and mighty position—which it did not, of course, because the last time this law was changed, National members voted for no exemptions of the nature they have been talking about, as did every other member of the House.

The truth of the matter is that when the law was put to the test in the real world, it came up short. Tonight’s debate has been about where the line should be drawn. The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee tried to reach consensus—as I said earlier, in the second reading—and did not quite do so. What the House has done by 70 votes to 46 votes is to draw the line in a different place as it tries to seek some justice for people who no one in this House actually believes should be caught by this law.

However, I want to stress again that the avenue available to people is still a very, very narrow, tight, and difficult one—and so it should be. We all agree that people who drive taxis and buses should meet the highest tests. After this law is passed, I suppose we will have to rely on the officials who have to administer it and the judges who have to make decisions in court—if cases get that far. I hope that we do not have any decisions going to the court. I hope that people will have to be squeaky clean to get past the director and enter into the rest of it. Because, as the Hon Harry Duynhoven said earlier, there is a “fit and proper person” test to get through, as well as this criteria in the law. If people are true villains, if they are menaces, and if they are people whom one would not want to be driving taxis, then they will get caught by the “fit and proper person” test anyway. If they have continued to offend, they will not get licences, because the director has the power to turn them down on that category alone. So if we look at the bill in a sober and sensible manner, we will see that Parliament has improved the law tonight. The aim of the exercise, in order to improve the law, is for the safety of the public to be of paramount importance, and that is what the bill has done.

We heard a number of heart-rending stories from all sorts of Opposition members at the first reading debate. I remember that they clapped Harry Duynhoven on the back and said what a hero he was. How come that has changed tonight? Dr Wayne Mapp is now slagging off the Minister for doing his job, and I find that extraordinary.

Let us look at what the bill has achieved. It has widened the pathway in a very, very small way with the passing of the amendments on the Supplementary Order Papers. Seventy members of Parliament voted for the amendments and 46 members voted against them. Some votes are missing somewhere, and I will ask Deborah Coddington what she thinks about that, because she was a very strong member of the select committee on this issue. I think she will ask her former colleagues what happened to the ACT party members tonight. Where were they when they were needed to fight the good fight that Deborah Coddington fought so well in the select committee and in the House on behalf of those people whom she felt strongly about? That is an interesting little aside, but I am sure there will be legitimate parliamentary business that ACT members have been engaged in that has meant they could not speak in the debate, nor vote in the House tonight. That is extraordinary for the ACT party, which prides itself on being hard on law and order. So we will look to the ACT party for some answers when, at some stage, its members get a chance to speak in the House again.

I congratulate all the members of the other parties who have made some wise and considered decisions on the Supplementary Order Papers that look to balance the scales between justice for the people who are attempting to become drivers, and the passengers and the public whom they seek to serve. The bill probably does not go as far as some people would like. It probably goes too far for some people, as well, such as for Bob Clarkson and David Bennett, whose speeches were much more considered than the speech of their senior colleague, who was sitting opposite. They made their points very well. I like having a debate in which a couple of people who sat on the select committee with me actually say that the principle of what the Government is trying to do is correct, but that they do not agree with it in terms of where it draws the line. But that is where those members left it. They did not have to get all personal towards the honourable Minister, who has had to shepherd through this very difficult legislation. So I say well done to those two new members of the National Party. I am sure they will learn more on our select committee from this side of the House than they will from that fella over there. [Interruption] Well, I hope so, anyway.

This bill, I believe, should now put to rest a very difficult issue. Let us hope that we have given to the director the powers that are needed to clean up the industry, once and for all—because it does need to be cleaned up—and that we have given to the director the powers to make the decisions so that, hopefully, the judges in the court hardly ever have to think about it.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) Link to this

It feels like there is more love in this Chamber than in a Green Party conference! I would like to thank the Hon Mark Gosche. It has been a pleasure to work with him in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, and it has been a pleasure to debate the issue tonight. National came into the debate with a very firm and fixed approach. We believe that the bill is really an attempt to balance two competing interests. The first is the need for justice for existing drivers in retrospective cases. They need to be treated fairly. Nobody perceived that the legislation passed in the House last year would have had the effect that it did. Those drivers were innocent people going about their business who were caught out. Nobody has a problem with trying to find a solution that assists those people. That is fair, it is what the public wanted, and it is what the Government should deliver. Both parties have represented that interest well, and have shown the ability to make the right decision for the right circumstance.

The other competing interest—the one we have tried to stress throughout the debate—is that of the spirit of the amendment bill of 2005. The spirit of that amendment bill was one of creating a system that provided for the protection of passengers and for the protection of the industry. It is not just about the passengers. The taxi industry and the bus industry need to know that their drivers are protected and have the support of the public. That is the only way those industries can operate. I gave the example of a Hamilton firm that lost that support because of a rape case that took place just before Christmas. That firm went under. Hundreds of drivers in that company lost their jobs when that happened. That is the kind of situation we need to avoid by having a stringent control on the rules and regulations in regard to driver endorsement.

That was the spirit of the 2005 legislation. The members of the House who were there at that time should not forget the reasons that that legislation was passed. It was not a situation like the present one, in which cases have come before members, and people have felt aggrieved by legislation. It was a case where members were looking at public safety—those strong, emotive issues that people like Deborah Coddington promoted in the House. People like Lianne Dalziel also promoted this issue.

I quote Lianne Dalziel from Hansard on 10 May 2005: “We made the point that this is not only about passenger safety—it is about public confidence in the passenger service industry. Everyone is entitled to know that he or she is not getting into a taxi whose driver is a murderer or a rapist. Nothing will change that.” Those were the words that Lianne Dalziel used last year. What has changed that? Two months of public opinion when there have been very few stories in the newspapers have changed that. There is nothing wrong with changing a bill when one gets it wrong. But there is something wrong with changing a bill for the sake of changing it, and taking away the initial intent that was right. That is what National has been fighting for tonight.

We put forward an amendment tonight on a Supplementary Order Paper that would have created a category for new and a category for existing drivers. That amendment would have satisfied public opinion and the needs of our constituents. For the new drivers we could have satisfied the rights of justice and fairness, and had the emotive arguments that we need to have in this Parliament. That is what we were looking for tonight, and we have been disappointed that Labour and New Zealand First have shifted their positions. I have been very disappointed in New Zealand First; it has put its roots in the ground with the Government over the last 3 weeks and it showed that tonight. This is the New Zealand First - Labour Government, and it has made it quite clear that it is willing to work away from a principle just to look for votes.

Has Labour been polling this, or did it actually do this on purpose? This is a case where justice for New Zealanders has been sacrificed for the political expediency of two political parties. This is a case where consistency between bills passed has not been followed from one year to another. One year ago it was good enough for everyone in this House to stand up and say how great they were when they were out there protecting the rights of innocent people. But within a year they had changed that opinion, and now they are saying how great they are and that they have looked after people in their time of need. Well, what about the spirit of that imaginative legislation? That is what we should be debating in this House. That is what we came here for: to show the spirit to the people that we are there to deliver for all people—the people who get caught and the people who will be using those services. That is what being in Government is about, and that is what we want to see delivered.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) Link to this

I have to ask the member David Bennett—and I could feel his passion from here—what he really believes he achieves for the public, and for the taxi drivers who have been treated unfairly, by voting against this bill. What does he achieve? I would give National Party members more credence if they had raised the issue of a crime of manslaughter. It should have been considered in this bill. Why did the honourable member not bring it up?

KEITH LOCKE (Green) Link to this

I was interested when David Bennett criticised New Zealand First for shifting ground and voting for the last part and voting for the bill, and for just now supporting it quite enthusiastically. He said that New Zealand First shifted ground to get votes. I thought it was a good tribute to the bill that the National member is admitting that the stand we have taken tonight is a popular stand out there in the community and is a vote winner. I am very pleased that he said that.

The Green Party has been engaged with this issue to try to improve the legislation for some time, including last year at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. I would disagree with the way that my friend Mark Gosche put in his comment earlier. He said that last year nobody voted for the exceptions. In fact, I quoted my colleague Mike Ward, who was on the select committee. Although it might not have been a question of voting on amendments or whatever, it was quite clear from the section I read from the minority report in the report back on the bill, which came from that select committee in the middle of last year, that Mike Ward predicted exactly what would happen by not putting the exceptions in last year.

Sure, we did not put forward any amendments during the Committee stage, and we did not vote in that respect, but we made our position clear, just as tonight—and Mr Gosche rightly indicated this tonight—there are some parties, namely the Greens, that would have liked to go a little bit further in this current legislation in terms of the power of the director to grant exceptions. But we have not put our wishes in the form of an amendment, because we wanted to focus, with others in the House, on supporting Jim Anderton’s amendment. We made our point, as parties often do, without an amendment and without calling a vote on that. But the Green Party last year clearly signalled what would happen, and the reason we did that is that we do very strongly support safety and justice going hand in hand. I think that is where the National Party does not really understand things. They are counter-posing one against the other. Either it is safety for the passengers, or justice for some taxi drivers or bus drivers present or future. We say that the two things go hand in hand. The more that we have a society where we have justice for all and give everyone a fair go, including bus and taxi drivers, the more we have a society where people work together and where there is safety in the community. I agree with David Bennett that when we are talking about safety and justice we are also talking about the interests of the taxi industry and the bus industry. They want their drivers to be safe. That is very important.

I think, too, that one of the problems with the National Party approach is that they were bending to the industry situation in the present and saying: “Look, we might be able to keep the bus drivers and taxi drivers and their federations happy, and keep drivers now in the industry happy by just dealing a bit with their concerns.” But if we are to be responsible as parliamentarians, I think we have to look at our children, our grandchildren, our nieces, and our nephews. If they in the future commit crimes in their youth, or go a bit astray, but later in life come right and want to do things such as drive a bus or taxi, we have to look after them and not just look after a little section of the community right now. I think we have to give everyone, those existing in the industry now and those who might want to enter it in the future, the chance to put their case, in the way this bill has come out, before the Director of Land Transport, and get the support of friends, relations, and workmates to prove that they have rehabilitated after the crime they committed in their earlier days.

This comes back to a conceptual approach the Greens have. It was good to hear Hone Harawira mention restorative justice in his speech earlier. We support restorative justice, not what National supports, which is more retributive justice—just knocking people and not trying to restore them and rehabilitate them. We have to celebrate the fact when people are rehabilitated, when they become complete again and become good citizens. That is the sort of society that the Greens uphold and are working towards. That includes people who commit all kinds of crimes, including, I say to Mr Mapp, murder.

Often the circumstances are very varied in the case of murder. Many people in this House will have known murderers, and there are all sorts of circumstances. There are crimes of passion, there is the whole question of voluntary euthanasia, which Peter Brown has been dealing with, and whether people in those circumstances have committed murder, and indeed some people in those circumstances have been had up for committing murder. There are all sorts of categories of murder and those people are not essentially bad and evil for the rest of their days, and they can come right. They can be rehabilitated. We should celebrate that and not say that people are bad, bad forever, which is behind the National Party approach to this bill. The outcome of this bill, I think, for the Greens is a big step forward over the situation that existed prior to tonight. We welcome that. It is interesting that United Future and New Zealand First have not gone entirely the way the Greens, Labour, the Progressives, and the Māori Party have gone, but they have supported some parts of what we have achieved tonight, and that is very good. I think one thing this alignment tonight shows is a sort of natural alignment for progressive legislation such as this among Labour, the Progressives, the Greens, and the Māori Party, and I think we can celebrate that as we go forward.

GORDON COPELAND (United Future) Link to this

I would like to make a couple of further points during the third reading debate on the Land Transport Amendment Bill. First, I refer to the speech made by Dr Wayne Mapp, a senior National Party member of Parliament and National’s spokesperson on this bill. During his third reading speech, Dr Wayne Mapp told this House that the National Party was happy with this bill as reported back by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. He went on to say, however, that the National members will vote against this bill tonight, at its third reading, because of the amendments that have been made to it.

I just draw Dr Mapp’s attention, and the attention of the House, to the fact that the National Party voted against this bill at its second reading, prior to any of those amendments being made or even proposed. The people of this country call upon us all the time and ask us to please get rid of our hypocrisy and our cant from the parliamentary process. So I do not think I should just listen to Dr Wayne Mapp make those statements, without pointing out that his words do not match his actions. Words are cheap. He does not bother to walk the talk, and that is completely inconsistent.

The second thing I would like to allude to is this. Dr Wayne Mapp, as I have just said, made it very, very clear that the National Party members were prepared to support this bill as reported back from the select committee, but that they were opposed to amending it. Yet tonight a member—in fact, two members—of the National Party proposed amendments to the report back from the select committee. I do not know whether it is too late in the night for that guy—he has a lawyer’s brain and may be trying to be too tricky for his own good—but I think it needs to be put on the record that although those statements were made, the actions taken by the party itself contradict the words.

There is another thing I would like to mention in connection with this bill, because I think it is quite relevant. I sat on the select committee last year and the year before, when we were considering the bill to establish the Charities Commission. That bill had been drafted by the officials to exclude from the membership of charitable trusts anybody with a criminal conviction. That seems reasonable, does it not? Why should anyone with a criminal conviction be allowed to sit as a trustee on a charitable trust? That was the view until, of course, the Prisoners Aid and Rehabilitation Society, a charitable trust, came along and asked us to hang on a minute, suggesting it was actually a good outcome for society if a rehabilitated prisoner was allowed to participate in the direction of a trust. We took the point immediately, and said of course it was. We asked ourselves how we could come here as parliamentarians and say that our goal is to rehabilitate prisoners, harangue whoever happened to be the Minister of Corrections at the time about our failure to rehabilitate people, and then refuse to accept, by our actions, that they can in fact be rehabilitated.

That point is at the heart of this issue. What Parliament forgot about, when it got it wrong last year, was that people who committed a carnal knowledge type of offence—which today we would regard as a pretty minor matter—40 years ago can, in fact, be rehabilitated, and that it is fundamentally unjust to deny them that opportunity and take away their licences. We took licences—P endorsements; public transport endorsements—away from people who had that right. As a society, we had given them licences—we had approved of them having licences—and, as a Parliament, we turned around and said we were sorry, but their licences had gone because of something they did 40 years ago. That was absolutely and completely unjust, and that was what we set out to rectify in this bill.

Finally, I say that I am disappointed that the bill is not being agreed to by the House unanimously. I said in my first reading speech on the bill that we really make only one mistake in life, and that is one that we do not learn something from. I am disappointed that on this occasion the National Party—I think purely for political reasons of some sort—is not prepared to learn from the mistake that was made last year. We will, of course, vote in support of the bill.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) Link to this

I would like to be the first to congratulate our first gold medal winner in the Commonwealth Games. That is very good news.

I want to traverse the history of the bill—

ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) Link to this

In speaking to this third reading I start by acknowledging the work of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, and the Minister for Transport Safety, who led that work, in order to get this bill into shape and back into the House as soon as possible.

I also want to acknowledge the taxi drivers and bus drivers in my electorate who were forced out of their business and their jobs as a result of the Land Transport Amendment Act 2005, which took effect in January. I have several in my electorate who have suffered great financial hardship as a result.

But bad law is bad law, whether it was passed last year or is passed tonight, and I am positive that this House will be found guilty on both occasions. Last year Parliament passed the Land Transport Amendment Act, and when the then Minister of Transport, the Hon Pete Hodgson, introduced the third reading—which is about the final shape of the bill to be passed—he said: “The bill prohibits persons convicted of serious violent and sexual offences from being a passenger service driver. That will address the risk to public safety from having those with such convictions in a one-on-one situation with passengers.” That was the original intention of the amendment Act that was passed last year. It was passed to protect people such as women, young girls and boys, and other vulnerable citizens who, when they hop into a taxi or jump on to a bus, have the right to be safe and to feel safe.

But the 2005 amendment Act went off the rails. I quote again from the Minister: “The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee extended the scope of the provision in order to cover offences committed prior to the commencement of the bill, which means that the provision will apply to existing passenger service drivers with convictions for serious violent and sexual offences.” I wondered why the select committee had done that. If it had not done it, we would not be here tonight debating this amendment, because that was the problem. Earlier this afternoon my colleague Dr Mapp quite generously, I thought, acknowledged that the select committee did not, during that process, closely examine the list of sexual offences that it was excluding from even the right to appeal. I thought that was pretty generous of him, considering that it had wandered off the rails.

But when I looked at what actually happened—and I went back to the third reading of the amendment bill—I saw that it was because the one-time ACT member Deborah Coddington had sailed into the select committee and said that, as she said in her third reading speech, what was dear to her heart was “cleaning up the taxi industry by not allowing those who have convictions for serious sexual abuse crimes to hold a P endorsement on their licence and be able to drive taxis or buses.” She went on later to say: “I think this legislation does actually make New Zealand, in some small way, a better place.” Well, she was wrong, but she is not here to clean up the mess.

I am not a lawyer, but I had not been in this House for very long before it was very clear to me that one of the most dangerous things we can do in this House is pass retrospective legislation. We are here tonight debating this amendment because, driven by Deborah Coddington, that select committee and this House passed legislation that retrospectively judged people and took away their ability to earn a living, their ability to drive taxis or buses, which many of them had been doing quite adequately for 20 or 30 years. We cannot say we are actually dealing with the law of unintended consequences, because the select committee actually set out to do that. It might have been a matter of ignorance on the part of the one who drove the amendment, but I believe that it was actually based on a rather shallow perspective, and it did this House no credit, it did Deborah Coddington no credit, and it caused grief and economic hardship for some decent, hard-working New Zealanders.

If we have a look at what the changes last year did, we see that all taxi or bus drivers who had been convicted of murder, or of any sexual offence with a penalty of 7 years’ imprisonment or more, were banned from holding a licence with a P endorsement, and they could not apply for reinstatement. What the select committee actually recommended related to persons convicted of sex with a person aged 12 to 16—which are the cases we have been talking about—or convicted of indecent assault, who did not receive a sentence of imprisonment. Originally, letters that I had from both the Taxi Proprietors Federation and the bus association said that if we focused on the sentences that were given in the courts, we would actually see the seriousness of the crime. So many of those people who were affected by that retrospective law had, in fact, not been sent to jail or to borstal. They had received very minor punishment, and that reflected the seriousness of their crimes. That was a reasonable way to deal with it—if they had not gone to prison, they could apply to the Director of Land Transport for reinstatement. National was very happy with that. We believed that we should be looking back at the sentences of those guys, and that if they had not served a period of imprisonment, they were suitable to carry on.

The thing that concerned me about the select committee recommendation was that the rules for those with serious violent offences were not changed, and they could continue to apply for reinstatement. What we have done now, with the Anderton amendment, is open that wider. We have said that, right across the board, any person with a sentence of 12 months or less—whether it was for rape, a violent crime, or a violent sexual crime—can now apply for reinstatement, or for a P licence. I think that is appalling. When New Zealanders wake up tomorrow morning and realise that this law has been passed on the hoof tonight, they will not believe it. The select committee spent a lot of time dealing with what are difficult issues. I think everyone involved in this debate knows how difficult the issues have been. But, no, amendments have come into the House tonight, and at the last minute have been passed, that actually do far more damage to the original intention of the Land Transport Amendment Act that was passed last year than the small mistake that was made—driven by Deborah Coddington—did.

The temptation to wander off focus, when we start fiddling with legislation, has not been lost. We are here tonight trying to correct a glaring mistake that was made last year, and we are compounding it and making it much worse. We have completely walked away from the original intention of the Land Transport Amendment Act passed last year, and we have ensured that any young daughter, young son, or young grandchild of ours who gets into a taxi or on to a bus cannot know for sure that he or she is safe, because we cannot have confidence that the person at the wheel—particularly the wheel of a taxi, in a one-to-one situation late at night—does not have a conviction for a serious offence that could be as serious as rape.

I am appalled at this legislation. I believe that National’s position has been quite consistent all the way through. We are concerned, of course, about the retrospective injustice that was done last year by this House, and we are equally concerned about the terrible law that is being passed tonight that does away with the safety of individual New Zealand citizens using passenger transport.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour) Link to this

I am pleased to speak in the third reading of this bill. I sat on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, which considered the issue. It is a tough issue, and it is an emotional issue. I understand the feelings that have been expressed from members on all sides of the House about this matter. But the thing that struck me was how we should deal with the people who, many years ago, in their youth, committed a crime that was a relatively minor crime at the time and would be considered to be a minor crime today. For example, the one that stood out for me was somebody who, in 1964, received a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more and who would have been, under the National Party proposals, excluded from applying or reapplying for a P endorsement. That seemed to be incredibly unfair. Who of us can say that if we had done something in our past and have lived long enough for it to have been done as many years ago as that, we should not be able to be reconsidered if we have done nothing else since then?

We support this bill. I am pleased that it has got through to this stage. It corrects an injustice, and I commend the House for its progress.