Brown Peter: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Brown Peter: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1954] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I have to ask the member David Bennett—and I could feel his passion from here—what he really believes he achieves for the public and for the taxi drivers who have been treated unfairly by voting against this bill. What does he achieve? I would give National Party members more credence if they had raised the issue of a crime of manslaughter. It should have been considered in this bill. Why did the honourable member not bring it up? 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Why didn’t you put it in last year? 
PETER BROWN 
: I know the answer to the question I say to Mr Tau Henare. I am asking why you did not raise it. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I wasn’t here last year. 
PETER BROWN 
: That is right but you are here tonight just making a noise. Why did you not raise the crimes of assault and violent assault? You just left the issue alone. But what the National member is prepared to do—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I think we have had a bit of fun. Would members give Mr Brown a chance to speak and allow others to hear him please. 
PETER BROWN 
: Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. What the National Party is prepared to do— 
David Bennett 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I do not know quite what the rule is but before you came in we were told that we should not be asking other members questions like that and Mr Brown has been doing it constantly in his speech. We expected him to come here to make a speech not just to ask questions of the National Party. We would prefer him to make a speech. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: As I heard it the questions were rhetorical. 
PETER BROWN 
: Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. I just make the point that National Party members did not give one iota of thought to extending this list of serious crimes to include manslaughter assault or violent assault. I know the reasons why the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee looked at them and avoided them. But those guys in the National Party particularly the new members are prepared to condemn a person who when he was young had a sexual relationship with a young lady under the age of 16 and who now wants to become a taxi driver 10 or 15 years later. National members are prepared to condemn that person to the scrap heap. I say to them: “Go look in the mirror and see who you really stand for.” 
David Bennett 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Members know that when a member stands for a point of order the member is entitled to make that point of order. 
Hon Member 
: He’s not standing; he’s wobbling. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: This is the final warning. I am on my feet and nobody should be speaking. I am now calling the member for his point of order and I warn members not to speak while a member is giving his point of order. 
David Bennett 
: Mr Brown was using that “you” context again and I would ask that he stop that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is quite right; Mr Brown is bringing the Speaker into the debate. However I think a lot of people in this House at the moment need a lesson in that. I have been reluctant to—[ 
Interruption 
] Does the member want to leave because I have just given a warning on that—I am giving a ruling. A lot of people have been bringing the Speaker into the debate over the last few days. All the presiding officers have been commenting on it and we were just talking to some of the whips about it. The member is quite right: members are not to bring the Speaker into the debate. 
PETER BROWN 
: Speaking to the point of order if I might and if I am allowed to— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: No because I have ruled on it. 
PETER BROWN 
: OK. Well I will make the point that I said the member should go to his mirror in the morning and ask himself: “What do you stand for?”. That is what I said. He could hardly be talking about you Madam Assistant Speaker—as I certainly am not—because I do not in my wildest thoughts think he would be seeing you in his mirror in the morning. 
We must remember that what we are doing tonight is to allow current taxi drivers who have been captured by the earlier amendment Act the right to appeal. We have not determined in our own right in Parliament whether they are suitable to drive a taxi—fit and proper crime-free enough or whatever. We have just said that this category of person can appeal to the Director of Land Transport—it is as simple as that. We are not making the decision on an individual basis on who will become a taxi driver and who will not of the 234 who have been affected by the current legislation. It is equally so with new taxi drivers; we are not determining whether they are suitable taxi drivers despite their criminal history. We have simply widened and widened a little further than New Zealand First wanted to go the criteria when it comes to examining the criminal background of who can apply to become a taxi driver—or to have a passenger endorsement to be absolutely correct. We did not support the Jim Anderton amendments. We think they would go fractionally too far. But we do note that the House has widened only the ability to appeal—not the criteria for becoming a taxi driver. The director has that responsibility and that responsibility is firmly put into legislation and will be firmly understood by those who come before him with an appeal. It is on his shoulders what he takes into account and whether he does the job correctly. 
As I said we supported the Harry Duynhoven amendment when it came before the select committee. We looked very closely at that sort of amendment in the select committee. But in the end because I was unable to consult my caucus I was not prepared to go as far as the Harry Duynhoven amendment does which extends the list to include a person who has served a term of imprisonment of up to 12 months. But I respect that the Minister for Transport Safety has done his job and we were prepared to support that amendment. 
We were not prepared to support the Jim Anderton amendments and we certainly were not prepared to support the amendment from the new member whose name escapes me for the time being. I cannot remember his name but he wanted to divide new and existing persons. His qualification for an “existing person” was a most unusual qualification. To be an existing person one had to have a criminal conviction. I suggest that we are all existing persons here. I have never seen a Supplementary Order Paper that was so confused and that so distorted English words. 
I hope this bill passes with a significant majority so that we can say to those people who are currently driving taxis and have been captured by the legislation that we put through in 2005 that we made a mistake we have tidied it up and we have given people a fair go. For people who want to get into the industry I say that hopefully the director will take a fairly objective stance on their criminal background and make his decisions accordingly. I think this bill needs to go through tonight and I am hopeful that it will go through with a significant majority. I am disappointed that National Party members cannot see fit to support it because they know in their heart of hearts I am absolutely certain that this issue has to be addressed. This bill will address the issues of concern in some significant manner. New Zealand First supports this bill.