Land Transport Amendment Bill

I rise to speak to clauses 1 and 2, the title and commencement. The interesting part here is the commencement date itself. Under clause 2, there is a complex formula of which provisions come into force at which times. For instance, the legislation as a whole comes into force on 16 January 2006, which is basically 6 months from now, but certain parts of it can come into force on an earlier date. I ask the Minister of Transport why the special rules that we have now introduced relating to taxi-drivers, which are covered by clause 13, have to wait until 16 January to come into force, instead of coming into force at the time of the royal assent. That was the original proposal, but now it seems, as I read this, that clause 13 will come into force on 16 January 2006. It may be that it is intended, by Order in Council, to bring that portion into force at a different date, possibly an earlier date. I would like some assurance from the Minister that that would be the case.

For the moment, he has effectively created a loophole whereby those who have been convicted of serious offences would be able to continue driving over the following 6 months. I would have thought that on legislation of this nature, when the rules on this kind of issue are being changed, particularly with the very loose appeal procedure that is now being approved—well, it is actually not an appeal procedure, really; one just has to apply to the director and that will suffice—the public are exposed to unnecessary risk. This Parliament, based on the submissions that its committee received, wants to give a very clear signal that passengers in taxis, in particular, deserve special protection. Parliament has established what is, overall, apart from that review procedure, a rigorous test, an exemplary test even, whereby persons guilty of various serious offences ought not to be able to drive taxis. But, as I read the legislation, that does not come into force for another 6 months, and I have to ask why we would do that. Why would we allow someone convicted, literally, of murder, or of various serious sexual offences, to continue to drive over the next 6 months and, potentially, place people at risk? As a Parliament, we are saying that that is not possible, and that those people ought to have their licences removed. Presumably that means now, not 6 months from now. So I want some form of explanation as to why—and maybe I have misread clause 2, because it is relatively complexly constructed—that is not the case. I would be pleased if the Minister could give a direction on it.

Other parts of the legislation, I understand, have implementation processes involved in them, and new rules—logbook requirements, etc.—have to be developed. One would expect that to take some period of time. After all, it is not simply a question of people changing patterns; they also have to complete new logbooks, essentially, to comply with the legislation for the future, and, clearly, people need time to produce those logbooks, and so on and so forth. This is an area in which Parliament says, upon balancing public safety and the interests of the drivers, public safety takes priority. I believe if we are saying that as strictly and as seriously as we are—and it is a substantial test; I recognise that—then that part of the legislation ought to come into force at the time of the royal assent, or as soon as possible thereafter. I would appreciate an explanation from the Minister on that point.

Clause 1 agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 375 in the name of the Hon Pete Hodgson to clause 2 be agreed to.