Land Transport Amendment Bill

On some of the parts of this bill it will be a little bit difficult for us to get an exceedingly strong debate going on, because they are pretty mundane and run of the mill. But they are worthwhile. Part 1 has only one clause—clause 3, “Purpose”. I guess that every bill has to have a purpose, and if we are to stick to the very—

💬 Clayton Cosgrove: You’re having us on.

No. Clayton Cosgrove needs to learn a lot about how legislation works, and one of the things that legislation should always have is a purpose. The purpose of this bill is to “promote, and enhance provisions in that transport legislation relating to safe road user behaviour and vehicle safety;”. I would doubt that there would be a member in the Chamber who did not believe that that was an ongoing quest for us, and for years to come, I am sure, this Parliament will be looking at ways of improving them.

One of the ways in which change will occur over the years is in the technology used to record where vehicles travel and what they do. Already, in the heavy traffic fleet, a number of big trucks are recorded on the Global Positioning System. I imagine that paper logbooks will, one day, be an anachronism, and we will simply have everything on a Wi-Fi network running back to a base, with Land Transport New Zealand being able to look at any one truck at any one time, and with police enforcement officers being able to bring that truck up on their screens as they follow behind it, etc.

Paragraph (b) of clause 3(1) states that another aim is to “improve and enhance the enforcement provisions” of the land transport legislation. It is that provision that I am starting to get a bit nervous about. I say to members of the Government that there has been a distinct shift in the mood out there in the community with regard to enforcement. Let me talk about the commercial vehicle investigation units of the police. I think everybody who is interested in safe operations wants those bodies to work in a collaborative and cooperative way with representatives of the heavy vehicle industry, to ensure that heavy vehicles operate in a safe way—just as, say, in the civil aviation branch, people work with the industry to assist it and try to promote a safety culture. We will never actually get a safety culture if we do it only by punitive measures; we have to try to work in a collaborative and cooperative way.

But I tell the Minister for Transport Safety today that the more and more times I go out and talk with operators of heavy vehicles around the country, the more and more anger I hear being expressed. The commercial vehicle investigation units have turned into a far more punitive, “ping ’em, lock ’em up, throw away the key, deal to them” regime, even on some of the trivial logbook technicality issues, and they are putting unbelievably punitive fines in place. Instead of those units having the effect of, as clause 3 states, improving and enhancing the enforcement provisions of the transport legislation, instead of their achieving the aim of safe road-user behaviour and better vehicle safety, they are getting almost a negative reaction from the industry—“If that’s how we are going to be treated, then we’re going to pull down the shutters, ‘go to the mattresses’ ”—to use an expression from The Godfather—“and go to war with some of these things.” I do not think that is helpful. I hope the Minister takes that on board.

At the committee the other day I raised an example of a fairly large crane operator in Tauranga, Todd and Pollock Crane Hire and Haulage. I know that the owners do not mind my mentioning it; I think they are pretty responsible operators, and it is a good company. One of their cranes happened to go from their location to a building site less than 5 kilometres away. The driver forgot to remove the counterweight, which is supposed to travel on a separate truck, and that meant that the crane was 380 kilos overweight. There was a 400-kilo fuel tank on board, so if the crane had had a nearly empty fuel tank, it would have been within the limits. The fine was $35,000. The crane has been off the road, pink-stickered, for 2 months, and has been unable to generate revenue. Quite properly, the owners of that company are angry. Yes, they know they made a mistake, and, yes, they would be happy to pay the $800 fine for the crane being overweight, because it should not have been. Yes, they want to cooperate. They would rather the commercial vehicle investigation unit guys came in, sat down, and worked with the drivers, to try to make them understand the rules.

But I am saddened to say that this legislation does not do very much in the area of trying to promote people working together cooperatively to, as clause 3(1)(b) states, “improve and advance the enforcement provisions”. Well, enforcement will not work unless it is the final area of use. We should ping the bad operators, and the best thing, which I have heard suggested many times, is to get a risk rating system up and running. I know that Land Transport New Zealand applied for it in the Budget and was turned down. Treasury declined it. But let me say to the Minister that we cannot treat all the operators the same, because there are some really good ones, some average ones, and some bad ones.

I want to address Part 1, “Preliminary provision”, and, as I have said, ACT supports the bill. Part 1 deals with the bill’s purpose. I want to address an interesting issue that arises. Clause 3(2)(h) states one of the purposes of this bill is: “ensuring that a person whose conduct contributes to an operator’s or driver’s failure to comply with his or her duties under this Act is held accountable for that conduct;”. That deals with the chain of responsibility, in terms of breaching the law. Later on we will be looking at Part 2, in which clause 33A inserts new Part 6C into the Land Transport Act. Part 6C follows on from the offences relating mainly to logbooks, truck-drivers, etc. It was brought in because the people involved with this legislation believed that truck-drivers cannot be held to be solely responsible for breaching the law, and that their employers were urging them to work longer hours, not to take enough rest time, or, indeed, to break the speed limit. Part 6C includes new section 79T, which deals with someone who commits an offence being subject “to a fine not exceeding $25,000, who, by act or omission, directly or indirectly causes or requires a driver to—” break the speed limit.

What we will actually see in August will be very interesting. Will this legislation apply to cases that come to court where the speed limit has been broken and drivers have been urged to do so because they were, for instance, hurrying to get to a rugby match—or hurrying to get the passenger in the back of the car, who was working on papers, to a rugby match, when that passenger actually came out later and said she would rather be reading a book, anyway? Well, we all know whom I am talking about. I am talking about the Prime Minister. Of course, the Prime Minister will not appear as a witness in that court case.

💬 Phil Heatley: Why isn’t she?

Exactly—why is she not appearing? Why is the Prime Minister not appearing as a witness in that court case? With that new section being inserted, and with the purpose of this bill being to bring into the legislation the chain of responsibility, it raises the question of whether the law applies to everybody who, knowingly or unknowingly, causes someone to break the speed limit. Will that law apply to everyone, or is a Prime Minister—or, indeed, a member of Parliament, if that should come up—above the law? I think that is a very important matter to address in the debate at this Committee stage.

As far as I am concerned, I believe we did not have to have that measure in the bill, because I believe that people are responsible for their own actions and should be held accountable for them. They cannot say that someone else made them break the law. Human beings have the power of free will. Unlike animals, they can think for themselves. They do have choices. People cannot speed, fill out their logbooks incorrectly, or drive when they have already been driving too long and should have taken a rest, and then say that their employers made them do it. They cannot speed and say that someone else made them do it. But if we are to hold passengers accountable under the law for causing someone to break the speed limit—and we have heard that the Prime Minister did urge the drivers on in that speeding cavalcade to break the law and to, as my colleague Stephen Franks said, “speed through the countryside, scattering peasants by the wayside like some dictator in a Third World country”—and if we are to bring this sort of legislation into this Parliament, then we have to make sure that when people are reportedly subject to that legislation and have done things that the public believe could bring them under this provision, justice is not only done but is seen to be done.

I think that that is a very interesting issue, which should be looked at in the debate at this Committee stage.

One of the interesting things to be taken from the previous speaker’s comments is that the prosecution has apparently said that it will not be calling the Prime Minister. What we have not heard is whether any of those who are defendants will be seeking to call the Prime Minister, because it is certainly my understanding—and it has been noted by others—that they might find it very beneficial for their cases to do precisely that. So I suspect that we actually have not heard the end of that matter. It would certainly raise the question of what the Prime Minister said. What she did not say was whether people were acting, at least in some way, as a result of things that she might have said.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member needs to come back to the purpose of the bill.

So that would be a very interesting point that will come out, I might add, of Part 1, which contains clause 3(2)(h) concerning the accountability of people who give instructions. So although the Chair may be saying to come back to the bill, it is precisely why that issue is directly relevant.

One of the other issues I wish to deal with is a matter that will come up in one of the other provisions, which is referred to as “low-speed vehicle technology”.

💬 Darren Hughes: That’s in Part 2.

One would think that the Government would know that surely, by definition, when we have clause 3, “Purpose” in Part 1, everything else in the bill has to be related to the purpose of the bill. So, quite clearly, anything to do with the licensing of vehicles is covered by Part 1 of the bill. In fact, if it is not covered in Part 1, by definition it cannot be covered in subsequent parts, because it will not be fulfilling the purpose of the bill.

I want the Committee to have a brief discussion, mostly about vehicle technology, and will raise that later on. I just want to put this question to the Minister. I do not expect him to address it now, but I imagine he will later. We have given the Director of Land Transport discretion to exempt certain low-speed vehicles from the definition “motor vehicle”, if they have a maximum power output between 300 and 600 watts. Most electric power - assisted bicycles are between 300 and 600 watts, as opposed to being less than 300 watts.

I have a question that I will raise with the Minister when we get to Part 2, and I will ask him to take advice from his officials. In essence, what are the rules that the director will apply? It seems to me that too much discretion has been given to the director. Frankly, vehicles—or power-assisted bicycles, as we describe them now—with a power output between 300 and 600 watts should, by and large, be subject to blanket approval. It should be the exception rather than the rule that they not be approved, because the whole intent of those provisions is to allow such approval. So I appreciate that the Minister will not address that matter directly now, but will address it later.

The other provisions in Part 1 relate particularly to the regulation of drivers convicted of serious criminal offences, particularly those driving taxis. Having read the Supplementary Order Paper I do have some serious questions that I will be raising later about new section 29B, “Passenger endorsement may be reinstated in certain cases”. It seems to me that the way that is drafted currently is too open.

I move, That the question be now put.

I would have thought that the junior Labour whip would show a bit more interest in promoting road safety instead of trying to shut down the debate. I am very supportive of the objective of Part 1, which is to improve and enhance the enforcement provisions in the transport legislation. I am very interested in urging the Minister to take a call to reassure the New Zealand public that Land Transport New Zealand will exercise the provisions of the legislation.

In my second reading speech I spoke about my concerns. Indeed, many people talk to me about the slow process of investigating the conduct of other officers and driving instructors in that sector. We want to know how often an internal audit or an independent audit has been carried out. The public would not have confidence in enforcement of legislation if they perceive that Land Transport New Zealand would not take complaints seriously, or if the sentence handed out to a testing officer who sold drivers licences was only 280 hours community service. That tarnishes New Zealand’s reputation as a country that does not stand for corrupt practices.

I want to know what Land Transport New Zealand is doing in terms of working with the police or the Crown prosecutor. Are they working to review the light sentence that has been handed out? I understand that an investigation is under way in the same area about the conduct of testing officers or driving instructors. I think the Minister should take a call to reassure us, after the House has spent time and resources to pass legislation, that the enforcement agent will actually carry out the law, and to assure parliamentarians, such as myself, that it is serious in enforcing this legislation. Otherwise, why are we sitting here under urgency passing this legislation? Is it just to make politicians feel good?

💬 Hon Harry Duynhoven: The member knows that it’s not like that.

The signs are good. The Minister seems to be ready to leap to his feet to assure us, but I am not too sure why the Minister says he cannot. The Minister is paid to say he can, instead of screaming from his seat that he cannot. I am not sure what the Minister can do. All we want is for the Minister to give us an assurance that the provisions in this Land Transport Amendment Bill will be taken seriously by Land Transport New Zealand, because its past history of responding to complaints from the public has been very slow in coming forth.

So I tell the Minister that we will be on this case. I have amendments for the Committee stage, and I hope the Minister will take to them kindly. The signs are that other political parties would be supportive of my amendments, which I will go into more detail during Part 2. So, for me, as my very learned colleague the Hon Maurice Williamson says, who can argue against the purpose of promoting and enhancing road safety as well as enhancing the enforcement provisions? Surely the testing of that is in the actual implementation, and the public’s perception that Land Transport New Zealand is responsive to complaints, is diligent in carrying out independent audits, and is perceived to be transparent and even-handed in its handling of the legislation.

I move, That the question be now put.