Bennett David: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Bennett David: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1928] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I thank Wayne Mapp for that great exposition of what is actually happening here but I think there is something that we tend to forget when we are looking at a clause from a Labour Government that tries to put in a term of imprisonment. The Labour Government has made it quite clear that it does not want to imprison people so why does it need a clause about imprisonment? It is not going to put people in prison. People are going to be— 
Hon Member 
: Catch and release. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Yes a catch and release policy. The clause that Mr Anderton is putting forward is quite redundant because it is not going to be the reality of the situation. There is also the situation that a lot of the crimes that have been committed—in the cases that came before the members of this Parliament—are actually cases where in the past there would be a conviction but the evidence we had from the select committee was that in these cases there would now no longer be convictions in the courts for those offences because they are not being prosecuted. There certainly will not be imprisonment or borstal as it was in those days for the younger offenders because they are just not being convicted for those kinds of offences. So it is quite redundant to put in a clause looking simply at imprisonment for a 12-month period. 
In the select committee we considered that 12-month threshold quite extensively. It was felt that there was no need for that kind of level. In fact a lot of the Labour members felt that a 6-month level was more appropriate. When they were talking about a 6-month level that was fine—they had a couple of cases in mind that fitted in with that 6 months—but it has now been extended to 12 months because they have thought of another couple of cases that they want to get covered. 
What happens about the guy tomorrow who goes out and wants a P endorsement licence and who was sentenced to imprisonment for 13 months 40 years ago? Are we then going to come back and do this all again and extend the time to 14 or 15 months? That is the problem when people try to make a line in the sand on the basis of retrospective cases. That is all they are trying to do in this case. It is not good law looking forward to people and circumstances of the future it is trying to catch certain cases that have come before people in the last couple of months. 
Labour members have brought up some other questions in their speeches. There is the question of consistency. I think National members are being totally consistent. We are saying that for people who were existing drivers with offences we will provide a mechanism so there can be some kind of resolution to their problem. But we are also being totally consistent with the intention of the 2005 legislation. Its intention was to have a strict prohibition so that people had to go through a long and detailed process in order to keep the integrity of the profession and people involved in the industry. 
On 10 May 2005 the honourable Minister said: “The bill also prohibits persons convicted of serious violence and sexual offences from being passenger service drivers. That will address the risk to public safety of having convicted sex offenders and other violent offenders in a one-on-one situation with passengers. I note that the select committee recommends that the scope of that provision be extended to cover offences committed prior to the commencement of this bill.” 
That is the heart of the problem. The initial bill last year was looking at new drivers coming forward. Then under the guise of the select committee it was decided to go back and look at existing drivers as well. Concentration on existing drivers is the problem. The problem was not in looking at new drivers last year. It was a good piece of law. It knew what it wanted to achieve—it wanted to protect people hopping into taxis or on buses. That change can be remedied by having a Supplementary Order Paper passed tonight that makes a definition between existing and new drivers. That is totally consistent with what members wanted to achieve last year with what the public wants to see happen and with the public opinion expressed earlier this year when people felt they were in a situation where the law was not providing an opportunity to recognise their past for their industry now. That is why National is promoting the dual between the existing and the new. We think it is important that that break is made.