Land Transport Amendment Bill

Clause 3A on Supplementary Order Paper 17 in my name reflects the insertion of a new clause for new persons. For the purposes of the clause, a new person is defined under subclause (2) as “a person applying for a passenger endorsement after the commencement of the Land Transport Amendment Act 2006.” In essence, a new person is someone who comes in after the legislation has been passed. So we are looking at someone who may apply in, say, a month’s time to come into the industry as the driver of either a taxi or a bus. That person would be a new person because he or she had come in after the legislation had been enacted.

The reason we broke it into new and existing people was to reflect the intention of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and also the original intention of the amendment Act in 2005. The break between new and existing people was seen as the easiest way to do that. There may be other ways to make that distinction, but the distinction between a new person who comes in and an existing driver is something that fulfils the requirements of the amendment Act in 2005. If we go back to the history of that amendment, we find it was supposed to be just for new persons who come into the industry. At the select committee stage, it was extended to include existing persons already in the industry. As a result of that, we are now in the situation we have arrived at today, with a number of cases that arose over the Christmas break attracting a lot of public opinion. Those cases are now being dealt with by this amendment bill. If we had kept the provision to new persons in the legislation in 2005, we would not have the problem that we do now.

The break between new and existing persons reflects the need to maintain a balance, and also to maintain the spirit of the 2005 amendment for the new people who come into the industry. We need that for new people, because we need the security that every time we hop into a taxi or a bus, we can trust the driver. The new distinction is a higher threshold than that for existing drivers. It builds the trust in the industry that enables drivers to go out there and feel comfortable in the jobs that they undertake, and it enables passengers to feel comfortable about getting the driver of a taxi to take them to a venue.

We believe that a distinction between new and existing drivers is appropriate and reflects the true intention of the legislation that was enacted last year. It also provides an opportunity for the balance and flexibility needed to look after people who have been caught, in the earlier period of this year, by the legislation from 2005.

I will speak for a couple of minutes on the Supplementary Order Paper presented by Mr Bennett. He made a couple of points—one of them around whether the legislation will prevent new applicants from being able to apply for and obtain a P-class licence. Mr Clayton Cosgrove also raised a few points earlier—one of them being the argument as to why one would not object to current licence holders, yet object to those who seek to hold a licence in the future. The answer was pretty straightforward: because they do not currently hold a licence. Their livelihood or their ability to make a livelihood is not affected. If they can drive a bus or a cab, then they can drive something else—for example, a truck or a bulldozer. That is something that is affected in the future. As we have been told by the Government on several occasions, there are jobs out there to burn. So it is about someone making a choice to try to enter an industry that they are not currently part of, and it has a different impact than allowing those who are currently holders of P-class endorsements to apply for reinstatement of them.

Another point made was about double jeopardy. I can sympathise with the arguments of double jeopardy, and I accept, of course, that it is within the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act but we have a situation in this country, and most other countries around the world, where there are certain jobs that people cannot do if they have certain convictions or court awards have gone against them. For instance, if someone wants to go on a racecourse but has been convicted of a crime punishable only by imprisonment, he or she cannot go on. That person is barred from going on a racecourse. That is just the way it is; if people have those convictions, they cannot go there. So if it is an old assault, theft, or sex complaint, or anything else, that person cannot go there. Double jeopardy, rightly or wrongly, exists in the law now—if that is what is known as double jeopardy. In fact, it does not fall within the strict interpretation of the meaning or definition of a double jeopardy in any event.

Within the House, if, for instance, a court awarded costs against an MP but he or she could not pay, then a notice of bankruptcy was filed against that MP and he or she still could not pay, that person would not be able to be an MP any longer. I understand that there is a story around the presentation of the gold Mace that normally sits on the Table—that the MP who presented it was being proceeded against for bankruptcy. The Parliament at the time was so grateful for the fact that the donation was made that proceedings were withheld. By the time it decided to kick them off again, the member at the time—years ago, of course—was in a better position and so escaped them. But if he had been adjudicated bankrupt, he could not have remained as a member of Parliament. The other example is liquor licences; one cannot hold a liquor licence if one has certain convictions. One cannot join the police with certain other convictions. That is just the way it is; that is life.

I wanted to make those two points to counter points made earlier by the other side of the Chamber. I believe that the legislation is exactly consistent with what the select committee wanted in the first place.

I was not going to take a call on this part, because we will vote it down. I draw the member who is promoting the Supplementary Order Paper to the fact that the “existing person” amendment he is referring to has already been voted down, and therefore it is questionable whether we want an amendment referring to a “new person”.

But I am taking the call because of the contribution made by Chester Borrows, who has just resumed his seat. He made some interesting statements—for example, he said that a person convicted of, presumably, any of the crimes listed on the back of the Supplementary Order Paper cannot go on to a racecourse, cannot come here, cannot join the police. I would like to ask the member—and maybe he can answer by way of interjection across the floor—whether it is possible that a young man of 16 or 17 who had sexual intercourse with a girl of 15, got picked up by police, fined, and put in borstal or somewhere else, could not go on a racecourse.

R Doug Woolerton: I can’t remember!

There we are; there is the answer. Is the member telling me yes, or no, or that he does not know?

💬 Chester Borrows: I think that’s right.

Sorry? Who is checking?

💬 Chester Borrows: The racecourse inspector.

I do not know much about who—

💬 David Bennett: The Minister for Racing.

I will get the Minister for Racing to check. I do not know much about how detailed the checks are, when going on a racecourse, but I do not know anybody—

💬 Chester Borrows: You can’t be a stable hand.

Well, these guys think the member said something quite different, and now he is—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Is the member yielding his time?

I am not yielding my time. The member made an interesting point, and I think it is worth knowing the facts of the case. The truth is in the detail; the assertion was made, but the member is not fully au fait with the detail. But I suggest to the honourable members that many a person when young had a sexual relationship with a girl, or—under 16—[Interruption]

💬 David Bennett: Or what?

Members might think that that is frivolous—as the member from Hamilton does. I know his parents are listening—Mr and Mrs Bennett are listening—so I will not name him. But they are listening to him.

💬 David Bennett: Oh, I am afraid of you.

He is taking it in a frivolous way. But, without underrating the seriousness of those crimes, the point I am making is that nowadays society is not policing them as adequately or effectively as it once did. There are many young people having sexual relationships with somebody under the age of 16, but they are not getting checked on, and they are not getting penalised, as perhaps has been alluded to. New Zealand First is saying—we have said it for people in the industry and we are saying it for new people coming into the industry—that that does not present a safety issue, as far as the public is concerned. The situation of a person who, maybe 15, 10, or a few years ago, had a sexual relationship with a younger person under the age of 16, is now—regrettably—being more accepted by society. As a crime it will not impact on public safety. It is more accepted. I can tell members—

💬 David Bennett: Why can’t you have us thinking that?

Does the member want to question me? Because I think he should do that privately. I listened to his speech, and I clearly got the impression that he knows very little about this bill, although I recognise he has sat on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee now for several hours. This is important legislation, and we really want to get it fair and just. This Supplementary Order Paper produced by Mr Bennett is not worth the paper it is written on. I could make a suggestion of how to use it, but I can say it would be very, very uncomfortable.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 17 in the name of David Bennett to insert new clause 3A be agreed to.