Land Transport Amendment Bill

I guess the difficulty we strike now, as a Committee, is that this is a piece of legislation with lots and lots of bits in it. It has been cleverly constructed by the Minister so that it has Part 1, which has one clause called “Purpose”, and then we go to Part 2, and that part, by my calculations, has something like—let me get this right—87 clauses, and a lot of detail. I want to put in a reserve bid right from the outset that this is obviously where the rubber meets the road, where the hook meets the load on the crane, and where we need to start getting into some of the specifics.

As I said in my second reading speech, a lot of the bill is just tidying things up. It is to cope with some offences that have not been dealt with properly in the past, and it will do some log-book process tidying up. The two big ones that I am happy about, before I talk about a couple of the niggles in this part, are by far the prohibition of people with a conviction entering the taxi industry, or the P licence holder—people who have a conviction for a murder, a serious sexual offence, or a serious violent offence; we would like to exclude them, even if they are in the industry right now.

I know that the Minister has put forward Supplementary Order Paper 375, but in our view it misses the mark. I think that it will grant the right for people to appeal and the right for the director of Land Transport New Zealand—and I know that a number of speakers on our side, in particular Dr Mapp, is more versed in the law and will pick that up—but my view is that I am prepared to be hard and fast on it. If we were desperately short of taxi drivers I would suggest that we would have to find a way to accommodate them. But I have to say that convictions for murder, serious sexual offences, or serious violent offences are not just ordinary things. It is not just that a person has had a couple of small burglary convictions in his past when he was a young bloke with a few tattoos, and so on. They are dreadfully serious events.

My view on those people is: “Sorry, get another job. Go and drive a bus.”—because there are lots of people on a bus, so the one-to-one thing is not quite the same; or, more important: “Go and drive a tractor, a bulldozer, or a truck, or get into the construction industry. It is simply not acceptable that you were convicted for that, and then for you to say that it was a while ago.” The 10 years that is currently proposed in the Supplementary Order Paper is not good enough, either.

💬 Hon Mark Gosche: It’s not for murder.

No, the 10 years does apply to other offences that I do not accept. Therefore, I have to give notice that the National Party will certainly be voting against the Supplementary Order Paper, but we will support the rest of the legislation.

💬 Hon Mark Gosche: You rely on that legal advice from him?

Dr Mapp is a doctor of law. I tell the member that I am happy to put him against that party’s legal brain any day of the week.

Let us get back to things like chain of responsibility. The Minister in the chair now is different from the Minister who was here before, and I shall repeat a few of the things I mentioned before about this. The chain of responsibility in this bill is a good move. For too long it had been possible for some dodgy operators at the company, management, and ownership end to embark on practices that were unsafe, or were skirting their responsibilities for weight loads under the truck licences that operators had. Then when the poor old driver, who was the very sort of person of last resort on the side of the road, got caught, he or she would be the one getting pinged, getting the fines, and the demerit points.

The Road Transport Forum made a very good submission—Tony Friedlander’s team came along to the select committee and said they would like the chain of responsibility extended to include all appropriate transport offences where a third party has influence over the transport task. I am pleased to say that those changes look to be in the bill and look to be suitable. They cover not just things like speeding offences, but weight limits, load security, and a range of other issues.

When it gets down to the trivial, I have an issue to discuss with the Minister, and I hope he will think about letting the Government at least have a bit of leeway on one amendment I want to put up, and that is to do with the little tiddlers—the Go-Peds and the mopeds. As everyone will know, there is now a stunning level of little vehicles that mainly kids and some teenagers get around in. If one goes to the beach, one will see them with those little devices. The problem is that under the old Transport Act most of them were considered to be a motor vehicle; people had to get a licence and a number plate, pay for registration, and all of that. It was truly ridiculous.

However, the attempt to exempt the more trivial of these has missed the mark. I showed the select committee some photos of my little 7-year-old twins driving an electric scooter at the beach. It is not an unsafe vehicle. It is not one likely to be involved in accidents on the road, because they use it on little trailways and paths. It has a little 350-watt electric engine, and unfortunately that will still get caught up in the bureaucracy of the director of Land Transport New Zealand making decisions on it, and so on.

In relation to the minority report, I have to say that the National Party tried to be as cooperative as it could on this, as always. As members will see in the commentary on page 9 of the report, at the bottom, New Zealand National believes that 600 watts would be a more realistic cut-off point. I agree that if we get into the really big, powerful engines on some of the mopeds and Go-Peds—and there are now look-alike chopper bikes out there with much bigger engines—that would be foolish. But for a whole lot of the more kids’-end toys, I would like to see changes.

I look forward to taking more calls later on, after other colleagues, especially Dr Mapp and his legal mind, on this stuff about penalties. However, I do not want bad eggs driving taxis, under, any circumstances.

I shall talk about two things that are of concern to me. One is Supplementary Order Paper 375 in the name of the Hon Pete Hodgson, the Minister of Transport. I agree with the last speaker, the Hon Maurice Williamson, that the Supplementary Order Paper almost overturns all the good work we have done in terms of cleaning out the taxi industry. We actually agreed in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—the Labour members agreed to this, too—that if one was out, one was out. With this Supplementary Order Paper, a person can apply to be reinstated by the Director of Land Transport if that person’s offence was committed more than 10 years ago and he or she has not reoffended in the 10 years leading up to the time of the application.

Ten years is a very short time for those offences. We are dealing with a very high bar. The offences are crimes like murder or a sexual offence.

💬 Lianne Dalziel: Murder is not included.

I am not talking about the Supplementary Order Paper at the moment. I am talking about the actual bill as it stands, and what we agreed to. If a person’s licence has lapsed for 10 years, as it reads here—

💬 Lianne Dalziel: You can’t include murder.

I know that. The member should let me finish. The member should listen for a moment. Instead of getting so excited, she should just settle down. In relation to the specified offences, as Maurice Williamson said, if it is a sexual offence and a person got only 3 years or 2 years in jail, or did not even go to jail, it is still a sexual offence. The passengers who hire a cab, or who hire someone as a bus driver, have the right to know that that person does not have a conviction for such an offence. I do not care whether it happened 15 or 20 years ago. As Maurice Williamson said, people with such convictions should go and drive a bulldozer, but they should not drive something where they come into contact with passengers.

So we will not be supporting Supplementary Order Paper 375. It is actually the wrong way round. What we discussed in the select committee was that if someone with a conviction thought he or she was a fit, able, and proper person to be a taxi-driver, but had had his or her P-class licence application turned down, that person could go to the High Court for a review of that decision. This Supplementary Order Paper has turned that on its head. Instead of the burden of proof being on the applicant—the would-be driver—that person can now go to the High Court if the director turns down his or her application to be reinstated. That is not the way that we discussed it in the select committee. The provision is far too easy. We should look at the past record of the director of the then Land Transport Safety Authority. By that, I mean that when I asked the former Minister of Transport, Paul Swain, in 2003 how many of the then current taxi drivers had convictions for sex offences, I was advised by the Land Transport Safety Authority that it did not maintain a database of all taxi-drivers with criminal convictions, nor had it done so in the past. What sort of a gatekeeper is that? Now we are turning the measure back on its head with the amendment to insert new section 29B on Supplementary Order Paper 375, which, basically, will almost take us back to the days when the authority had no clue about what was happening.

The other good point Maurice Williamson made was that Part 2 and the schedules make up the rest of the bill. However, small parties like ACT get 10 minutes, if lucky, and 5 minutes, if unlucky, to debate this major legislation.

I note especially new Part 6C, “Offences relating to chain of responsibility”. It provides that a passenger can be held criminally liable or responsible in terms of the driver breaking the law, if the passenger knew or suspected the law was being broken. I have already mentioned a court case due to come before the court in August, involving a motorcade. I think five people have been charged. Two police officers who were passengers are accused of being parties to the offence. It is very difficult to understand why two police officers, who were passengers, are being prosecuted because it is suspected they knew the law was being broken, yet the Prime Minister, who heads up the highest court in the land, did not know that.

I would like to continue on from where Deborah Coddington left off, and to talk about new Part 6C, “Offences relating to chain of responsibility”. Labour members may like to wake up or put down their newspapers, and to flick through the bill. New section 79T, “Offence to cause or require driver to breach speed limits, maximum work time, or rest time requirements”, states: “Every person commits an offence, and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $25,000, who, by act or omission, directly or indirectly causes or requires a driver to—(a) exceed any applicable speed limit if that—(i) person knew, or should have known, that the speed limit would be, or would likely be, exceeded; and (ii) driver is a driver to whom … applies;”. I could easily slot other words into that provision—such as “the Prime Minister … directly or indirectly causes or requires a driver to—(a) exceed any applicable speed limit if that—(i) Prime Minister knew, or should have known, that the speed limit would be, or would likely be, exceeded;”.

I simply say that whether it is a young 17-year-old exceeding the speed limit in Clayton Cosgrove’s electorate—because he certainly does not have that issue under control—whether it is a 75-year-old exceeding the speed limit in Ponsonby, or whether it is a Prime Minister exceeding the speed limit over 200 kilometres of road in the South Island, the rules should remain the same. We say that no one in this country—unless the Labour members concede it is a corrupt country—should be above the law. National is asking questions in this Parliament, as people are asking questions in their homes throughout the country, about whether the Prime Minister should be accountable to the law, just like everyone else. I am not saying she is guilty or not guilty, but she should show up in court and give evidence on that matter, just as every other New Zealander would, young or old, and South Islander or North Islander.

New section 79T, inserted by clause 33A, is specifically about passengers who would encourage, or at least not discourage, “directly or indirectly” a driver to speed. There is shame in the Labour Party camp about the motorcade issue, because the Prime Minister was in a hurry over 10 or 50 or 200 kilometres, I think, of road in the South Island that the motorcade screamed over in order to attend important affairs of State—I have forgotten whom the All Blacks were playing that day! The motorcade was rushing through South Island towns in order to attend important affairs of State. The Prime Minister, we understand, allegedly—

💬 Deborah Coddington: They were playing the Wallabies.

The All Blacks were playing the Wallabies that day. The Prime Minister encouraged her driver to go over 140 kilometres an hour—that is our understanding of it. This bill addresses that sort of issue, and I hope members on the Government side of the Chamber will take a call in defence of the Prime Minister, to explain to us why she is not giving evidence in court voluntarily. Why is that the case, when this bill highlights that particular matter?

I would now like to touch on the issues that Maurice Williamson put forward to the Committee some minutes ago regarding the offence history of taxi-drivers or others who wish to drive people to various destinations around our cities or countryside. I find it appalling, as does Deborah Coddington, that those in the taxi industry who are supposed to be acting as “gatekeepers”—monitoring drivers—have no idea of the offences taxi-drivers may have committed before they took up the role of taxi-driver. The industry has never asked drivers about the offences they have committed or been convicted of, and does not appear to care whether drivers have committed or been convicted of offences. Certainly, the industry has no record of whether drivers have committed or been convicted of offences. Of course, serious violent or sexual offences should be known within the companies in the taxi industry, simply because no one would like to think that his or her mother, grandmother, daughter, or sister was being taken, at 12 midnight on a Saturday night, around seedy parts of Auckland by such drivers. There should be restrictions on that.

I appreciate that Supplementary Order Paper 375 in the name of the Hon Pete Hodgson specifically excludes some violent and sexual offences, but other offences are not excluded. All we ask is that there be some transparency in the employment of taxi-drivers around our cities and countryside, so that people are kept safe. People put tremendous trust in the people who drive them around. My understanding of criminal activities, and I have heard this on a number of occasions from police specialists, is that if anyone is ever approached—akiddie, a woman, or anybody—by someone in a motor vehicle who wants that person to get into the car, and who tries to make the person do so, either forcibly or otherwise, the best opportunity for escape is before the person gets in the car. Once people get into a motor vehicle, they are effectively captured and it is very difficult to escape. We willingly get into taxis—we pay to get into taxis—and we are, in effect, caught up in that taxi for as long as the driver would have us in there. If the driver is a criminal, has criminal offences, or has further criminal intent, it is a very dangerous position to be in, indeed. We challenge the Minister on his lax laws and softening of the legislation, whereby we are not able to monitor or gate-keep, as Deborah Coddington said, those taxi-drivers and would-be taxi-drivers who have those sorts of previous convictions.

It is interesting to think that taxi-drivers have a 10-year time frame—that somehow it is safe for people who have not offended for 10 years to drive New Zealand women around the streets of Auckland in the dark hours of the early morning. But those people might have been in jail for the whole of those 10 years, in which case they could not have offended over that time.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: That doesn’t stop them.

That is true. Under the current prison system, as we have seen throughout New Zealand, people can still deal drugs while they are in the prison system, they can still be involved in illicit sex while in the prison system, and on it goes. But the reality is that people may not have had a conviction for the last 10 years because they have been inside the slammer. I am interested to know whether Mark Gosche will promote taxi companies driving up to prisons, and saying to prisoners about to be released: “Jump aboard. You’re entering society. Here’s your job. Here’s a licence for 6 months. You go and drive the good people of Auckland around Manurewa for the next 6 months. You haven’t had any conviction in the last decade, because we’ve kept you locked up. Granted, you did have a sentence of 30 years and we’ve let you out in 10, but the reality is that you haven’t had an offence in the last 10 years, so you’re a safe person.”

We think that is absolutely absurd. There is enough concern in the taxi and cab industry as it is at the moment, with all sorts of people from around the world driving cabs, such as brain surgeons from Russia and dentists from Lithuania. All sorts of people are driving people up and down the wrong streets in Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch, and the last thing we need is for criminals and those who carry convictions to drive our people around, as well.

There is an old saying that “a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing”, and the member who has just resumed his seat has illustrated that absolutely 100 percent. I shall explain the taxi-driving conviction clause, for want of a better term.

💬 Clayton Cosgrove: Just take it slowly for him. Use small words.

I will speak slowly and use small words, because I am only a simple sailor myself. This bill puts anybody convicted of these crimes out. Those who are convicted and who have never been a taxi-driver will never get the chance—they are out, totally 100 percent. This bill also puts out those people who are currently driving taxis and who in earlier years have been convicted of these offences—totally out. Those who have been convicted of murder and serious sexual offences are out 100 percent, forever. But the other people are granted a right of appeal. They are, to some degree, granted an element of fairness.

New Zealand First does not want those people driving taxis, at all, but we do not believe that we are the people who should be removing justice from those people—neither is Maurice Williamson nor Wayne Mapp. In the first instance, we think that the director is in a much better position to do so, and, in the second instance, it should be the High Court. We think that is a reasonable approach. I caution members, before they embark on a wordy journey, that saying that we are letting murderers, rapists, and goodness knows who, drive our taxis with impunity will send a signal of alarm throughout the country. Those people are definitely excluded, and I am glad to see that National members have suddenly recognised that.

I want to speak briefly about courtesy coaches, because this matter is of some concern. I have just spoken to the Minister and the officials on the issue. A number of clubs in this country run courtesy buses, and they charge a fee. Some charge it by donation, but some have a set fee. Some give guidance about what sort of donation a person should make, but others charge a set fee. This bill will make the practice of charging a specific set fee illegal. In many instances, clubs have told me that they will remove their courtesy coaches. But, thankfully, I now know, after having spoken with the Minister and the officials, that these provisions will not come into force for some time, and therefore clubs will have time to make representations to the Government, or whoever, to have their case listened to.

A number of clubs have courtesy coaches, including Napier RSA, Kawerau Cosmopolitan Club, Stokes Valley Cosmopolitan Club, Levin Cosmopolitan Club, Alexandra District Club, Whangarei RSA, Wanganui RSA, Waitomo Club, Pētone Working Men’s Club, Onehunga Workingmen’s Club, Matamata Club, Wairoa Club, Mount Maunganui RSA, Tauranga RSA, Waihī Beach Memorial RSA, the Mt Maunganui Cosmopolitan Club, and last, but not least, the Ōtaki Memorial RSA. The member for Otaki said that the Ōtaki Memorial RSA was not concerned about this legislation, but it is. I have a letter written by the club to the Minister and copied to me. I am told that 350 of these clubs exist in the country, and as they have 220,000 voting members they are a voice to be listened to. Having spoken to the Minister and the officials, I am encouraged to believe that in the fullness of time their concerns will be identified and amended.

I emphasise that many of these clubs tell me that there is no competing taxi service at closing time and during the hours of darkness, and they want the ability to charge a modest fee to drop people off at their homes. One club I spoke with reminded me very strenuously that if Parliament removes this service, then it will be putting more drunks on the road. That sits very uncomfortably with New Zealand First. We want to get drunks off the road, but we do not want to destroy their liberty to go to their clubs, and if a courtesy service can be arranged, managed, and administered in a reasonable manner, with a modest fee attached, then New Zealand First is all for it. But after talking to the Minister and the officials, I understand the complications and I respect their view.

I stand to take a brief call to respond to my colleague from New Zealand First Peter Brown, to thank him for his quite careful remarks but also, because it is on the record, to correct him on one of his remarks, if I may. The member said this legislation makes charging a fee illegal, and I just want the Committee to be very clear that it already is. That is already the case. This law makes things no worse. What it does do is to provide a regulatory framework by which we can progressively make things better. As society changes, as attitudes towards drink-driving tighten up, as good RSAs and other service organisations around the country seek to take responsibility for their club membership, and as that becomes a more and more expensive thing for them to do, and therefore their desire to charge becomes greater, so too must the regulation keep up. That is why the passage of this legislation matters. We can then have the development of the regulatory framework to keep it abreast of the changing needs of society. I thank the member for his remarks, and correct him on just one of them. This bill does not make anything worse. It does the opposite. It lays the framework to make things progressively more flexible and more responsive to the needs of society.

I would like to take a call to address the Minister of Transport’s amendment on his Supplementary Order Paper to Part 5 of the schedule. It deals with the problem of people who operate a vehicle that creates excessive noise. I welcome the Minister’s cooperation on this, and thank him for it. The amendment proposes to add 10 demerit points to that offence.

Before I became a member of Parliament I was a member of the city council in Tauranga. At the time we had a particular problem in one of our best tourism areas, along the main beach, where there is a lot of high-rise apartment-style accommodation. For many years we have suffered the problem of young people coming to town in their cars and thinking it is fun to go round and round in a circle, making a noise. Sometimes this happens at 2 in the morning, making life miserable for both residents and visitors. In fact, I quite frequently see in the newspaper letters to the editor from people who had come for a nice relaxing holiday but have gone away very disappointed. They write to the newspaper that they will never come back, because their sleep was destroyed because of this nuisance.

Early on in my term in Parliament United Future saw the opportunity to give assistance to pass the boy racer legislation so that the police have more powers to deal with this issue, particularly where the drivers are doing doughnuts and other dangerous things.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: Has it made a difference?

It has made a difference in regard to that activity, but it has not addressed the issue of those who simply want to make a nuisance of themselves. People can do that regardless of whether they have a modified muffler on their car. They can use just a standard car and simply rev the engine at 2 o’clock in the morning and they will wake people up. They can use their car stereo and be a nuisance. When I spoke to police in the area about what suggestions they might have to deal with it, they said they wanted to be able to take the keys off the drivers, right there on the spot, so that they could immobilise the vehicle for the evening—the drivers could come back the next day and get the keys—and that would be the end of the problem for that night. That would soon send a message to those causing the disturbance that it will not be tolerated.

Unfortunately, it seems that step is a little bit too draconian in some people’s minds, so we have arrived at the compromise of putting on demerit points. I think that is a reasonable compromise. We will have to monitor how it goes over the next year, but at least it is better than simply issuing tickets to those young people, because they seem to take no regard of them, at all. In fact, some of them have a glovebox full of tickets. They do not pay them, or else they go home and somebody else digs deep into his or her pocket and pays for those tickets, which I cannot really understand. The effect is that those young people have disregard for the law. I hope this amendment to add 10 demerit points will send a very clear signal to those young people. We love young people. We think that stage of life is a great time. Sometimes young people do crazy things and sometimes they do not have regard for other people around them. We do not want to be too severe, but we do want to send a message that that sort of behaviour will not be tolerated.

Not only is it affecting the residents of the area; it is also hurting the economy, because great investments have been made in providing facilities for visitors. We value tourism in New Zealand and we have increasing numbers of tourists every year. It is not a problem just in the Mount Maunganui and Tauranga area; other very popular tourism sites around the country are at risk from that kind of behaviour. I am sure that visitors from overseas go away wondering why on earth we tolerate that behaviour. So I welcome this amendment. Hopefully, with the addition of 10 demerit points, if people are caught once, twice, or three times, they will realise they are very close to having their licence taken off them, and they will find some other useful activity in which to engage in the wee hours of the morning, particularly at the weekends, which is when this kind of activity occurs.

Of course, the problem will be addressed only if the police are adequately resourced so that they can go out at night and catch those engaging in this activity. We certainly hope that, as this new law comes into force, the police will take the initiative to undertake some campaigns during weekends, so that the message is sent very clearly, early on in the piece, to young people that they cannot continue that activity and drive everybody nuts. I hope the people of Tauranga and Mount Maunganui will finally get some relief and be able to have a good night’s sleep. One of the most important things we can have in life is a good night’s sleep, and I hope that will be the case.

I have proposed two amendments to Part 2 that I would like to explain to the Committee in detail, to enable members of the other political parties, including the Minister in the chair, the Hon Pete Hodgson, to consider them. I look forward to the Minister’s comments—hopefully they will be positive. I learnt from the Hon Harry Duynhoven that in relation to individuals who teach learner-drivers for monetary consideration, the offence of not having the “I” endorsement was previously omitted from legislation. Apparently that offence has been reinstated in this Land Transport Amendment Bill— and I welcome that—to make it clear that any individual who teaches learner-drivers for monetary consideration should obtain an “I” endorsement.

But what this legislation has not taken into consideration is how we can inform the public that people who want to learn to drive properly from a licensed driving instructor are getting that service. The Minister in his letter to me said that they would advertise in newspapers, etc. I think that a very smart move would be for an instructor who is properly authorised to do it for commercial purposes to display the “I” endorsement on the vehicle in which he or she teaches students, just like taxis do. Nowadays when we get into a taxi we know the name of the taxi-driver, which enables individuals to lodge a complaint or make inquiries. It also reminds the driving instructors that they have to have the “I” endorsement in order to carry out those commercial activities.

My second amendment proposes that the driving instructors who can obtain the “I” endorsement should be New Zealand citizens or holders of a permanent residence visa. That is to avoid visitors, or people holding student permits, teaching others for commercial gain. I do not believe that teaching others to drive on New Zealand roads can be entrusted to persons who have spent a short time in New Zealand. Even though they may be experienced drivers in their home country, we have our own rules.

If we look at the United States or China, we have the right-hand versus the left-hand driving habit. Also, New Zealand has a unique set of road conditions, particularly on the open road. So I believe that the “I” endorsement driving permit should be limited to New Zealand citizens, or people who are permanent resident visa-holders. I hope the Minister can take a call to indicate whether he is in favour of those changes to enhance road safety for New Zealand society.

I continue to bring up the theme of this legislation being about enhancing the enforcement regime. Just now my colleague Phil Heatley, who is a very robust debater, raised a very good question. He asked whether the Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Helen Clark, should be seen to be above the law. This legislation should send a stern signal and say that no matter who, if legislation to enhance road safety in New Zealand is infringed, that person should front up to the court to answer or defend the charges, otherwise we are making a mockery of having one standard of rule for all. It would be one standard for the Prime Minister and one standard for the rest of New Zealand’s citizens, which I do not think would be a desirable outcome of this legislation. The enforcement provision is one that National members want to see being properly enforced.

I wish to talk on Supplementary Order Paper 375 and to refer members to the commentary in the bill itself. There was concern about whether there ought to be some form of—and I noted this specifically—appeal provision for those who had been convicted of offences prior to the enactment of the legislation. The concern did not exist in relation to those who would be convicted post the enactment of the legislation. That relevant part of the commentary concludes: “All members of the committee recommend that further consideration be given to this matter.”

The first point to note is that it was intended to be an appeal. That normally involves, or envisages, going to either the District Court or the High Court—that kind of gravity, if you will. So even the process itself is intended quite specifically to be something of a deterrent. What does the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper have instead? All a person has to do is apply to the Director of Land Transport, which is a relatively simple, straightforward procedure, thus having a low threshold.

I note that it relates to convictions more than 10 years prior to the enactment of the legislation—at least that point was correctly noted—and, secondly, the person must have no convictions for offences punishable within the last 10 years.

Let us say this legislation will come into effect on 1 July this year. Essentially it applies to anyone with offences prior to July 1995. As has been noted, those offences do not include murder or serious sexual offences, but they do include some very serious offences indeed.

💬 Phil Heatley: What are they?

They include aggravated assault and a whole series of very serious offences. That is our particular concern. They include attempt to murder, conspiracy to murder, and—which is probably much more common—causing grievous bodily harm by injury, and aggravated wounding and injury; in other words, the classic “GBH”, as it was known. Those are offences for which a person invariably gets a sentence of imprisonment. So they are very serious, yet we are saying that such a person ought to be able to go through a relatively straightforward procedure, which is to apply to the Director of Land Transport and get a passenger endorsement to drive a taxi or, indeed, a bus.

We say that there are two problems. The first problem is that the process is to go to the director, as opposed to, for instance, applying to the District Court as being an appropriate venue. That would have been a much higher threshold, and the rules could have been more properly prescribed. That is the first flaw.

The second flaw is the 10-year period. It will hardly escape the notice of members that the clean-slate legislation also has a 10-year period. Surely we would want to draw a pretty significant distinction between wiping genuinely minor offences where there have been no further offences committed in the last 10 years, and these kinds of offences. A 20-year period might have been more appropriate because, as Mr Heatley quite rightly pointed out, in reality a large chunk of that 10 years will have been inside a jail. I am absolutely sure that the public should not have to be driven in a taxi by someone who has spent maybe 7 of the last 10 years—say, 1995 to 2002—in jail.

There are two flaws. The first flaw is the application to the director, and the second flaw is the 10 years. I believe that the Government has taken excessive licence from the views of the select committee. Yes, there was a problem, and I was one of those who said the Government needed to look at this issue. I assumed, I must say, that the Government would be thinking of an appeal to a court in order to deliberately raise the threshold so it would not be easy to get. What has been done instead is that people apply to the director and then, if the director turns the case down, there can be an appeal to the High Court. There is a double threshold. It is quite clearly intended that the first level of application will be lower and easier. Do we truly want to say to people who have committed serious offences and who may have been in jail for 7 years that they can simply apply to the director to get a passenger endorsement? Is that what the Government is seriously saying to the public of New Zealand? Apparently, it is. It says people should just write a brief letter—that will do, and they will get their passenger endorsement. It does not matter whether they have thrown acid or been convicted of grievous bodily harm and things of that nature. So we cannot support this Supplementary Order Paper in the way it has been drafted.

If there had been a different threshold—say, an application to the District Court with full evidence given either way—that might have been quite a different situation. It would have been clear on the face of it that the threshold—[Interruption] No, the first application is to the director. Only if the director refuses does one then go to the High Court. It is amazing, is it not? A member of the select committee, who is a lawyer, has apparently not even read the Supplementary Order Paper, because she thinks the way to do this is to go to the High Court. I say to that member that the High Court issue arises only if the director turns the case down. I say to the Minister that I do not believe that this Supplementary Order Paper meets the kinds of circumstances that members on this side of the Chamber envisaged by the specific reference to the concept of appeal. An application to the director is simply not an appeal. It is just that—an application. That is the first issue I wanted to deal with.

The second issue is one that was dealt with, but I bring it up again. It is the rules about vehicles between 300 watts and 600 watts, which are mentioned in the commentary, and in clauses 4 and 68A. We say that the Government has got this one wrong. Frankly, we believe that there should be general approval for vehicles—basically, bicycles—up to 600 watts, and then nothing further. I believe that this issue will have to be revisited by the Government. Part 2 is very long. It runs from page 7 of the bill to page 99. Virtually the entire bill is contained within that part, and I hope that we will have proper opportunities to consider all the issues.

I suggest to the Minister that the provisions in relation to the definition of “vehicle” contained in clause 4, and the further provisions, clause 68A on that very question, are flawed. There is an absolute exemption for vehicles under 300 watts. That is fair enough. Then the director has discretion for vehicles between 300 and 600 watts, and that is inadequate

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you, Madam Chairperson, for giving me that call, because I would really like the Minister, Pete Hodgson, to take a call to explain this Supplementary Order Paper to us. There is another flaw in addition to the two that Wayne Mapp pointed out. I too am unhappy with the Director of Land Transport having the sole power to reinstate licences to those who already have convictions. I think it should go to the High Court first.

Secondly, I would really like the Minister to explain something about reinstatement. A licence cannot be reinstated if people have been convicted of a serious offence under section 29A(2)(a) or (b)—inserted by clause 13—which relate to murder or a sexual crime punishable by 7 years’ or more imprisonment. However, if we look at section 29A(2)(d), inserted by clause 13, we see that it states: “an offence committed outside New Zealand that, if committed in New Zealand, would constitute an offence specified in paragraphs (a) to (c).” But when I look at the Supplementary Order Paper, it does not seem to me—and I am not a lawyer—to include paragraph (d). Do we have an anomaly whereby if a person is convicted of murder or a serious sexual crime outside New Zealand, he or she is not subject to the same barrier as those who were convicted of it inside New Zealand? In other words, could a person slip through because it was a historical conviction, and, therefore, the person would not have to apply, or is it the other way round? I do not know. That is why I am asking the Minister to explain. For me, committing a serious sexual offence with, say, a little girl in Thailand is just as bad as committing it with a little girl in New Zealand, and it should be treated exactly the same.

I know—and we discussed it at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—that with a lot of immigrants these days, especially refugees, it is very difficult to find out exactly what criminal history they have, or whether they have one, because we are dealing with different jurisdictions. The committee talked about that. But, where possible, I think the same laws should apply. If we are bringing in a law that totally prohibits—no ifs, no buts, no right of appeal—New Zealand people convicted under New Zealand legislation of murder or a serious sexual crime from going into the taxi industry or from getting back into it, then I think we should apply that same legislation to those who have been convicted of comparable crimes in another jurisdiction, when we know and can find out about those crimes. Let us face it: if people have been convicted of such crimes, whether or not they are taxi-drivers, they should not be in this country. It is a privilege to live in New Zealand, not a right—but that is another debate, and not one that relates to this legislation.

So I ask the Minister to take a call to explain this Supplementary Order Paper. It is very important. The select committee members worked together very hard to arrive at a situation we could all be happy with. We will probably have a situation whereby people can go to the Director of Land Transport, and if they are turned down they can go to the High Court, but let us at least have a situation whereby the same rules apply to everyone, whether he or she was convicted in New Zealand or overseas.

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you, Madam Chairperson, for giving me the chance to raise another matter about Part 2. It relates to clause 15 and the issue of work time and logbooks. I was approached by a very nice couple in Tauranga—I am sorry to raise matters relating to Tauranga all the time, but somebody in this Chamber has to raise the concerns of the good people of Tauranga. That nice couple operate a dial-a-driver business as a part-time operation. The husband works full time and the wife works part time, because they see their priority as making a living that is sufficient to enable them to raise their family. They want the mother to be able to stay home in the afternoons so that she is there when the children come home from school, and I think that that is laudable. They are concerned that this legislation will affect their business. I appreciate the discussion I have been able to have with the Minister and the officials to see whether the situation could be resolved, but they have informed me that it is not possible in this legislation to find a way to exempt that couple. I have been informed that there is some hope, because this legislation will not take effect for a year. There will be another process of submissions before the rules come into force, so we may be able to find a way forward for the couple in that time.

In this debate I simply want to put on record what the couple’s concern is, so that we will remember that we need to work through this issue in the year ahead. The couple work, as I said, but they come home in the evening. The husband goes to bed. It is probably best for me to read from his submission to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, so that the issue will be nice and clear for everybody. The husband wrote that he arrives home shortly after 5 o’clock, eats his dinner, and then goes to bed for approximately 4 to 5 hours of rest. He is then ready for when, at around 10.30, the couple start to get calls from people who wish to be driven home because they have had a little too much to drink. Since the overarching concern of this bill is safety, I think it is important that we keep services like that operating so that people can find a way to get home if they have had too much to drink. So at around 10.30 the phone may go, and the couple may begin to respond to some calls. They do not take calls after midnight during the week, but on Saturday night—their busiest night—they go through until 3 in the morning. They are taking care not to overwork and make themselves too tired. They do not drive long distances when they pick people up and drive them home. They believe that they are operating in a very safe manner.

The problem is that the legislation, in establishing the 13-hour period in which a person can continue to work, will affect them. It will not take into account the fact that although the husband works during the day, he comes home and has several hours of very good sleep, is probably as alert as anybody else, and can provide the service. He wrote: “We understand the concerns regarding driver fatigue, and accidents that are related to this, but feel that dial-a-driver services in smaller centres do not pose a threat to our clients in this regard.” I agree with him. Just how many accidents can be attributed to safe drivers who are getting drunk clients home? There is no evidence that there is a problem. I think that someone who has worked driving for 13 hours will be far more tired than that gentleman, who has worked an 8-hour day, gone home, had a sleep, and then gone out to work again for a few hours in the night, accompanied by his wife and sometimes, apparently, by the children, who the couple say enjoy being involved as a family in the business. I think we should applaud a family that is committed to working together like that in order to provide an income so that they can meet their needs.

The husband wrote: “It seems ridiculous to me that a man can drive a truck for 11 hours out of 13 in a day, and then go out and drive as many hours as he likes in his private vehicle, and there isn’t a law against that.” His comment makes pretty good sense, really. He also makes the point that it is not fair to judge all people as needing the same amount of sleep each night. He wrote that many people exist quite happily on only 5 to 6 hours of sleep in a 24-hour period, and I am sure that all members in this Chamber would have to agree with him. The husband wrote: “Both myself and my wife are people who do not need 8 hours every night and manage very well on the regime that we have put in place. We do not drive great distances here in Tauranga. Probably the furthest area we have transported clients home to is Te Puke, which is only 26 kilometres from central Tauranga. Our driving is start-stop stuff along streets we have got to know very well, and we are always careful to keep to the speed limits and take no risks.”

I want to put on the record of Parliament that there is something that has not been resolved through this legislation. I support the legislation for trying to improve safety, but we do not want to exclude the small dial-a-driver businesses, which I believe exist not only in Tauranga but in other areas, from operating. It is in the best interests of the safety of all of us that people who have been drinking can find a way to get home. Sometimes taxi companies will provide that service, but when taxis are very busy they prefer to take one person home and not to tie up two drivers.

I want to speak about the two amendments put forward by National Party members.

The first is in the name of Pansy Wong. It seems to me to make quite a degree of sense. She states: “Driving instructors who teach driving for hire or reward must display the I endorsement in a visible manner during driving courses.” I would have thought that was a pretty sound sort of requirement in legislation—that a driving instructor displays the endorsement in a visible manner so that when one gets in the instructor’s car one knows that he or she is the genuine article, so to speak. The amendment goes on: “Driving instructors who teach driving for hire or reward with an I endorsement must be New Zealand citizens or permanent residents.” I cannot read her last words, to be honest, but that requirement, too, makes sense. Should our driving instructors not have learnt their trade in this country?

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: It seems sensible.

It seems quite sensible to me, and it seems to be an oversight that the legislation does not recognise this sort of thing. So I think I can say that New Zealand First will support Pansy Wong’s amendment. We believe that driving instructors should advertise who they are, how they are qualified, etc., and we believe that they should have learnt their trade in this country and be fully au fait with our rules. Some of our rules are slightly different from rules elsewhere. One example is the right-hand turn rule, which came in 20-odd years ago; I am sure it was devised by panel beaters! I thought the Hon Mark Gosche was going to look at that rule a year or so back, with a view to amending it, because in some areas it causes a lot of confusion. I think it is important that driving instructors are permanent residents or New Zealand citizens. We will support that.

The Hon Maurice Williamson has put forward another amendment that we believe has quite a lot of merit. Its purpose is to combine, in relation to appendix 2 of the commentary, vehicles with a power output of less than 300 watts and vehicles with a power output of between 300 watts and 600 watts. The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee has just looked at this matter pretty carefully. I thought we did a pretty darn good job on it, but Maurice Williamson made some valid points a few moments ago. He pointed out that a vehicle with a power output of between 300 watts and 600 watts may be determined by the director not to be a motor vehicle. That seems to add, possibly, an awful lot of unnecessary bureaucracy on to the director. There is a little picture of the type of vehicle; it helps us on this side of the House immensely.

💬 Phil Heatley: Ha, ha!

The member laughs, but it does make things very clear. They are very straightforward-looking vehicles, and all the other requirements—driver requirements and vehicle requirements—have to be adhered to. So we think the Hon Maurice Williamson on this occasion has got it spot on, and we will support the amendment in his name.

On the issue just raised by Larry Baldock, I wonder whether he is actually serious. Is the member suggesting that it will be compulsory for a fellow to go home after doing his 8 hours and have a 5-hour sleep? For all we know, he could go and play football. We need to have some rules and regulations governing driving on a commercial basis for income. I think the bill pretty well has it right. I accept the anomaly—I myself am aware of it—that a truck-driver after driving a truck for 11 hours can then go and drive his car from here to the other end of New Zealand if he so wishes. That is a loophole that we may have to look at in the fullness of time. But when it comes to commercial driving, it is only right and proper to have some restrictions.

I think this bill goes a long way towards addressing some of the concerns, and certainly the concerns around logbooks. Some drivers and company managers have told me how drivers have been fined excessively for very minor logbook offences. This bill takes care of that.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Pansy Wong to Part 2 be agreed to:

to insert the following new clause 10A:

10A New Section 26A inserted

26A Display

(1) driving instructors who teach driving for hire or reward must display “I” endorsement in a visible manner during driving courses.

(2) driving instructors who teach driving for hire or reward with “I” endorsement must be New Zealand citizens or permanent resident visa holders.