Land Transport Amendment Bill

, on behalf of the Minister of Transport: I move, That the Land Transport Amendment Bill be now read a second time. I thank the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for its work on this bill; it has given it thorough consideration. I note that the committee is recommending a number of amendments, which the Minister supports.

I take this opportunity to remind the House briefly of what this bill contains, and to discuss some of the select committee’s recommended amendments. This bill is not the result of a single comprehensive review but of a series of specific reviews. The intention of the bill is to improve the safety and security of road users in line with the objectives contained in the Government’s New Zealand Transport Strategy.

The bill can be summarised under three headings: the improvement of road safety by the provision of better enforcement options, the better alignment of existing law and regulation governing commercial transport with other transport legislation, and the updating of general transport provisions to account for changing technology. The bill will improve the safety and security of road users by making the enforcement, operation, and administration of land transport safety law more efficient and effective.

The Government has identified a number of areas where the legislative framework that sets out the responsibilities of road users, traffic offences and penalties, and the driver’s-licence system needs improvement. In addition, the Government has identified a number of problems with land transport legislation that frustrate its spirit and make it difficult to administer and enforce. The bill fixes those problems.

With regard to serious traffic offenders, it is clear that alcohol and excessive speed are the two biggest contributing factors to road crashes in New Zealand, together accounting for about 40 percent of fatal crashes. Such crashes are unnecessary and come at enormous social and personal cost. The bill gets tough on the most serious traffic offenders by reducing the speed and alcohol thresholds imposed for immediate driver’s-licence suspension, and by increasing the range of penalties for repeat drink-driving, including immediate vehicle impoundment at the roadside.

The bill introduces a “three strikes and you’re out” approach for any drink-driving offences, whereby a first-time offender will face the current court-imposed penalties for a first drink-driving offence. A second offence committed within 4 years of the first offence will carry immediate licence suspension for 28 days on top of the court penalties, and a third or subsequent offence within 4 years of the first offence will result in immediate vehicle impoundment for 28 days and extended disqualification of licence, which will also include a requirement to resit and pass the theory and practical driving tests. That is on top of the court penalties.

The bill will make the law around driver licensing clearer and more user-friendly. It will do that by allowing a temporary driver’s licence to be issued when a person’s licence has expired or been revoked. That will allow a person to drive for assessment purposes. Secondly, the bill will require a driver’s licence to show the original issue date rather than the date that the licence was last issued. That will assist New Zealand driver’s-licence holders who wish to drive or hire a car in other countries.

The bill will allow for the immediate suspension of a driving instructor or a testing officer in the interests of public safety, and it will prohibit driving instruction for financial or commercial gain when the instructor does not have a current driving instructor endorsement. I note that the select committee is also recommending an amendment that would require the licences of suspended drivers to be surrendered. I welcome this amendment, as it will address concerns raised by the police and the hospitality industry that superseded learner and restricted licences are being used to assist minors to gain entry into licensed premises.

In 2001 the Government reviewed the transport operator licensing system. This bill contains amendments to transport operator licensing in line with that review. It simplifies and clarifies licensing requirements, thus helping to reduce compliance costs for transport operators. At the same time, it puts in place measures to improve commercial driver standards through the rules programme. Those include enhanced accountability of taxi organisations, and strengthened offences and penalties.

I note and endorse the select committee’s recommended amendment to require approved taxi organisations to provide company details in Braille inside taxis. That step should enhance the security of visually impaired taxi passengers, and their ability to bring any deficiencies in driving or service to the attention of the taxi company or of Land Transport New Zealand.

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. I support that amendment, but note that the select committee in its report unanimously suggested further consideration be given as to whether some individuals should be able to apply for reinstatement. My officials are currently examining how reinstatement could possibly work in very limited circumstances, whilst excluding the most serious offenders, and I expect to table amendments to address that issue.

With regard to driving hours and logbook reform, I tell the House that following consultation with the transport industry and the general public, and in line with the review of the driving hours and logbook system, the bill retains prescribed driving hours and logbooks for commercial drivers, in order to manage the risks to road safety from driver fatigue. However, the bill simplifies the driving hours and logbook system, and introduces a new, simpler definition of work time.

Additionally, it alters the current penalty system, in line with industry concerns, to a graduation of penalties according to the seriousness of the offence. It introduces a new “chain of responsibility” offence to ensure that employers and other industry participants are held accountable if they knowingly allow or cause driving-hour breaches. The select committee has recommended that “chain of responsibility” offences also be created for load security and overloading offences, and for speeding where commercial vehicles are involved. Those are positive measures, and by making the likes of consignees and consignors equally liable when they have knowingly contributed to an overloading or speeding offence, it will help to improve the safety of commercial transport services. The bill also provides for alternative fatigue management schemes to encourage operators to take greater responsibility for managing commercial driver fatigue.

There are currently defects in land transport legislation that frustrate its spirit and make it difficult to enforce or administer. The bill contains a number of common-sense amendments to address those concerns. They include: empowering police to serve at the roadside a notice of licence suspension on a driver with more than 100 demerit points, where the director has been unable to serve the notice; ensuring driving offences involving injury and death apply both on and off the road; and updating the definition of motor vehicle to exclude vehicles powered by very small motors. I support the select committee’s recommendation that the maximum power output for low-powered vehicles be increased from 200 watts to 300 watts, or higher for specified classes of vehicles, like electric bicycles for instance. That will better cater for small powered scooters and bicycles, which are increasingly being used by commuters and for recreation.

During the debate on this bill, United Future raised the issue of excessively noisy vehicles. Officials are looking at ways to strengthen existing sanctions and tools available to enforcement officers in order to deal with excessively noisy vehicles, including the possibility of assigning demerit points for vehicle noise offences, and an increase in fines. I also expect to table amendments on that matter.

This bill, as reported back from the select committee, proposes a large number of positive changes to the legislative framework underpinning land transport safety. Not only will the legislation improve safety and help save lives; it will also reduce unnecessary complication and business compliance costs. I thank the select committee and the officials for their work, and I commend the bill to the House.

I guess it is evidence that the Government has finally run out of steam when the only things it can bring before the House are the mundane, the ordinary, and, indeed, some might say, the dreary. The kind of legislation it is dealing with does not speak of any grand agenda for the country. Here is a Government that is looking for a third term. Does it have any sense of an agenda to put to the country, or is its greatest concern whether a bicycle could have a 200-watt electric motor or a 300-watt electric motor? Is that the only thing it can think of? Ms Lianne Dalziel’s great concern was stationary engines. We even had a video to that effect. So this is the sense we get of the agenda of the Government.

There actually is a big transport issue out there, and it is not addressed by this bill. The big transport issue is whether the motorway system in Auckland will be completed. Will the western motorway—the one that could run through the current Prime Minister’s electorate—be completed before 2020? That is the big issue. Does the Government have any sort of plan for a second crossing across the harbour? What plan do the Government members from Wellington—the junior whip, for instance—have for Transmission Gully? Has that member even thought about it? Has he told his voters what he thinks about it? Does he have a plan to do it? Is there any sort of plan for Tauranga, the issue of great concern to the leader and deputy leader of New Zealand First? Instead, the Government is presenting to us the minor, the trivial, and the technical, and that tells us everything we need to know.

This Government has run out of steam. The bill, after all, is all about technical amendments, and the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, which has not had before it the bills that deal with the big issues, spent months and months hearing evidence on things like bicycles—the electrical power of bicycles—and stationary engines. I guess one has to ask what sorts of priorities the Government has. What kind of agenda does it have for our country? If this is the best it can do and if the Evidence Bill is the best it can do, then, frankly, it is time for the Government to go so that the nation can have a Government with a real agenda. There are, however, a couple of particular technical points—well, one of them is not technical. One of them is quite big and important—it is a pity the Minister just glossed over it—and it is the protection of the public in relation to taxi drivers.

It is clear that the Minister had not actually read the report of the select committee, because if he had, he would understand that this is quite a significant issue, and I know that the leader of New Zealand First and, indeed, other members of the select committee, will be dealing with it. The question is whether members of the public should have an absolute assurance that taxi drivers today—those who currently have licences—have not previously committed violent offences. These include very serious sexual offences and offences like murder—literally—or manslaughter, at the serious end, aggravated assault, and a whole variety of sexual offences. Should the public be protected from such a person holding a P endorsement, as it is known, a bus driver’s licence, or a taxi licence? The select committee heard evidence on this. It was not in the bill that came before us.

💬 Lianne Dalziel: Yes it was.

It did not deal with current licensees who have committed those offences. We concluded by consensus—it was the unanimous view of the select committee—that the answer was yes. The Green Party would have allowed so many exceptions that its answer was effectively no, but for the rest of us the answer was yes.

The first issue is, of course, protecting the public. The second issue is this question: are there any people in that class who perhaps for 30 years have been safe, notwithstanding the violent offence, say, 30 years ago, and could nevertheless be permitted to drive? On balance we actually said no. There are too many examples of serious violent offenders assaulting women in particular. In a taxi one should be able to feel safe. One should be able to have an absolute assurance that the person in the vehicle does not have a prior serious conviction. There is one issue, however. Should there be any discretion—any system—that would enable a review of that proposition? Other parties in the House—and I will not speak on their behalf, because they will do so themselves—say yes. The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—and this is why I was a bit disappointed in the Minister—did not even refer to the issue. The select committee concluded that all members of the committee recommend that further consideration be given to the issue of whether there should be some form of appeal procedure. The Minister did not actually acknowledge that fact. So that was a little bit disappointing. I can understand that he was essentially standing in for the actual Minister, so I note that particular point.

💬 Lianne Dalziel: You weren’t listening, Wayne.

Well, if I missed it, then I did miss it.

So that is probably, in terms of this particular bill, the single most important issue. The other issues, as I said, are fundamentally technical. They will not materially change the land transport industry in New Zealand and, indeed, neither should they.

I have to come back to my initial proposition. For the last several weeks this House has not had before it any bills that speak of some large agenda that the Government might have—some indication of where it might take the country. So the only thing one can conclude is that the Government is going to say: “Trust us, because we’ve administered the country for the last 6 years.” That is, in essence, the Government’s claim to govern the country for the next 3 years; just on the basis of what it has done in the last 6 years. Well, we have news for the Government. We will actually deal with the big issues, especially around transport, and it is not about log books. It is about the roading system of our country—

💬 Darren Hughes: And the tunnel!

—and the tunnel. I will reply particularly to that point. I have this to say. There is a huge transport crisis on the North Shore. The motorway is jammed for hours and hours at a time. I have simply put to the country, and to the citizens of the North Shore, the proposal of Transit, which is for a harbour tunnel from the northern abutment of the bridge to the southern abutment of the bridge. There is a way to pay for it, and it would be self-funding, by an average of a $3 toll. Is there a way to do it? Is there a precedent? The answer is yes. In Australia—in Sydney and Melbourne—that is how they solved their problems. New Zealanders know the reality of that. Aucklanders know the reality of that. Citizens of the North Shore know the reality of that.

I have polled the residents of North Shore, and let me tell the interjectors on the other side of the House that 80 percent of all people polled are willing to pay a toll to solve their transport problems. That is a simple fact. Eighty percent are willing to pay a toll to solve the problems, to get a second crossing. What do I hear from the Government? Objection. Do I hear a solution from the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues? No. Do I hear complaints? Yes. That, I guess, says it all. Labour is the party of complaints, National is the party of solutions, and the public will be able to test that at the coming election.

I want to take a call on the second reading of this bill to record a tribute to the chair of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, the Hon Mark Gosche. I have to say that he is one of the most competent chairs of a select committee whom I have ever had the pleasure to work with. His determination to go through this bill with a fine-tooth comb ensured that all interests were able to be balanced fairly—that is, to meet the concerns of road safety; to deal with the issues of accountability through new chain of responsibility offences; to deal with professional drivers, both self-employed and employed, in terms of their hours of work and logs required to be kept; and to look also at the wider interests for those employed in the industry and at public confidence in the road transport and passenger transport industries. I want to place on the record how satisfying it is to work on a select committee under the leadership of someone who knows the issues and is not afraid to test advice.

I guess this is a good point at which to acknowledge the officials, who were set very challenging time frames but who always delivered to the select committee. We are very grateful to the officials for that.

I also want to place on the record my congratulations to all elements of the industry, both those representing the interests of the workforce and those representing the road transport industry and the passenger service industry. All of them were willing to work with us as a select committee, both through the submissions process and also directly with officials, as we progressed through this very important legislation. I think that this bill as introduced was a good bill; I now believe it is an excellent bill.

But there is an amendment, as Dr Wayne Mapp mentioned during the course of his speech. He did not listen to the Minister’s speech and completely overlooked the fact that the Minister said that officials were drafting an amendment as we speak. The committee said unanimously that we would welcome this amendment by way of a Supplementary Order Paper from the Minister—I repeat that we decided unanimously.

The amendment relates to the prohibition on passenger service drivers having convictions for serious violent and sexual offences. In that regard I want to put on the record my congratulations to Deborah Coddington, who came to the select committee to argue that particular position. It was readily adopted by the committee. I think that all members of the committee respect Deborah Coddington for the contribution she has made in that regard.

We did ask for advice on prohibiting people from being passenger service drivers based on their having obtained very serious sexual or other violent convictions in the past. Once we had received that advice, we were unanimous in our recommendation to alter the bill to include prior convictions. 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. The Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper will not extend any appeal rights to murderers or rapists.

However, as a committee we felt that there should be an opportunity to allow those who have been convicted in the long distant past of less serious sex offences to have a tightly framed appeal right. We could not do that as a committee in the time available to us. I take it from the Minister’s comments in his speech that such a provision is being drafted, and I welcome that.

In conclusion, I believe that this bill will make a real difference in terms of making the legislation more workable at an operational level and more effective in promoting road safety. I too commend the bill to the House.

I would like to comment on the last point that Lianne Dalziel made. If she reads the commentary on the bill, she will find it is quite different from what she has just said in the House. It states, and this refers to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee: “We gave serious consideration to whether those convicted of serious offences before the commencement of the bill should be able to appeal against the prohibition from holding a passenger endorsement. While a prohibition from carrying passengers rules out this form of employment, they will be allowed to undertake other employment involving driving.” There is no mention of an appeal there, thus far. The commentary then goes on to state: “The majority believes public safety is of such importance that it is essential that people convicted of very serious offences should not hold passenger endorsements.”

💬 Lianne Dalziel: Read the last two paragraphs.

If the member—who was once a Minister—just listens for a minute, I will get to that little bit.

💬 Lianne Dalziel: All members of the committee.

Yes. Further on, the commentary on the bill states: “New Zealand First is concerned there is no appeal provision whatsoever for current drivers including those who might have been driving for many years and have subsequently led a responsible life and their crime is known to the public.” When that was inserted, the members of the committee would not consider appeal rights at all. That part of the commentary concludes: “All members of the committee recommend that further consideration be given to this matter.”

💬 Lianne Dalziel: That’s right.

Well, that is quite different from the way the member explained the situation.

Let me just explain New Zealand First’s position on this aspect of the bill. We are not a party that wants to defend murderers, rapists, and other people who have committed serious crimes—not for one minute. But the officials told us we may be talking about as many as 200 people in this category, who have been driving for some time. We were told at the select committee that if this bill goes through as currently worded, the police could go along one night, stop a cab, and say to the driver that they are sorry, but cab driving is over for him or her. That could happen, whether or not the person had been driving cabs for 5 minutes, 15 years, or 30 years.

💬 Lianne Dalziel: Do you think rapists should be allowed to drive taxis?

Now the member has changed her mind.

💬 Lianne Dalziel: I have said no to murder, and no to rape.

Well, I have not seen a Supplementary Order Paper. The Government has not had the courtesy to show us even the glimmer of a Supplementary Order Paper.

💬 Lianne Dalziel: So New Zealand First thinks it’s OK for rapists and murderers to drive taxis?

If the member over there on the Government benches would take a deep breath and listen for a moment, it would be of some assistance. We say that an individual who may well have been driving a cab for a considerable number of years may, in his or her youth, have been guilty of one of the lesser of the serious offences, and should have the right of appeal. It is not right to take away a person’s livelihood. That individual—

💬 Lianne Dalziel: We have always agreed with that.

She agrees now. She did not agree at the select committee. Let me make that quite clear. Some individuals do turn their lives round.

💬 Lianne Dalziel: What about rape and murder? Answer the question.

I will answer any question the member wants to put to me, but I wish she would put it at a more appropriate time. I am trying to outline New Zealand First’s position.

💬 Lianne Dalziel: You agree with rapists and murderers?

No, I do not agree with rapists and murderers—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Order!

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I do not agree with rapists and murderers driving cabs, but the bill has it right in terms of rapists, murderers, and goodness knows what else being prohibited from getting a passenger endorsement if they go for one. But we are talking about a person who maybe 20 or 30 years ago committed a serious offence, and who has led a responsible, blameless life since. We are saying, not that that person should drive a cab or do anything else, but that he or she should have the right of an appeal. It is not right that nanny State comes along and just takes away his or her licence.

💬 Lianne Dalziel: We agree.

That member now agrees with me, and I am thankful for that. We have very persuasive powers in New Zealand First. Let me just say that such a cab driver may well, at this point in time, own several cabs. That person may be a successful business person in his or her own right, and may drive one cab and have drivers for other cabs. It is not right that we just withdraw that person’s livelihood, without a right of appeal. So New Zealand First is fighting for those individuals to have the right of appeal.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.