Mapp Wayne: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Mapp Wayne: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1906] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I thank the Minister for a careful and thorough exposition of the issues in the report back. I think it would be conceded that the select committee has had difficulty getting the balance of this issue right and there is no doubt that what the select committee has returned to Parliament is a good deal better than what the Government sent to the select committee. At the time the bill was introduced last month I indicated that the bill as introduced was far too wide and needed substantial narrowing down. That process has occurred. 
However National will be recording a vote against the report back and I want to make it very clear why National members are doing so. We fully understand the situation of taxi drivers and bus drivers who have had their licences suspended. To make it clear what that category is these are people already in the business and as a consequence of the mistakes that the select committee made last year—and I have to take a certain level of responsibility for that—there were a number which turned out to be in the hundreds 230 people who had their licences suspended. Clearly that had to be fixed. The proper way to fix that is broadly what the select committee has done. The balance in the select committee report for that group is right. I will briefly go through that for further elucidation. 
Persons convicted of murder cannot apply for reinstatement of licence. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: I’m not suggesting that. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I realise that I am just explaining a point. The second group—serious sexual offenders—also cannot reapply. That was the intent of the select committee last year and to that extent that was right. The third group in that category of sexual offenders was the persons covered by sections 134 and 135. That is where I believe the select committee got it wrong. We did not analyse properly the range of offences covered under “sexual offences of 7 years or more” and we made an error there and included those two offences. That is the area where the vast majority of the 230 who had their licences suspended come into. Certainly speaking for the National Party that was National’s intent. It may not have been New Zealand First’s intent but it certainly was National’s intent. The select committee has got that part right and if it was only that National would be voting for the report back. 
The second part and the cause of why National is voting against the report back is that we believe for persons who do not hold a licence and indeed have never held a P endorsement—taxi driver or bus driver—there should be a hard and fast rule. In common with other parties we say no murderers no serious violent offenders and indeed National members would say no sexual offenders of any category should be allowed and in that sense we differ from New Zealand First. I acknowledge that. We differ from the Government and I acknowledge that as well. That is the reason why we are recording a vote against. We think that there are essentially two separate rules. 
We have to fix the problem of existing taxi and bus drivers who were inadvertently caught in legislation that had an error in it. We do not believe however that the same rule should apply for people going forward. Frankly people who have never held a licence should be subject to a stricter rule. That is the distinction we make which the select committee does not make in its report. The select committee’s report treats the two groups as the same. In the select committee—as members of the select committee well know—National members were careful to point out our concerns around that and the reasons why we were not able to support the report within the select committee itself and why we are now voting against it. 
We acknowledge that we have to fix up a problem. We want to be part of the solution. The majority of the bill as reported back from the select committee actually does fix that problem and I acknowledge that. I might go so far as to say I acknowledge that the chair of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee the Hon Mark Gosche notwithstanding his speech last night chaired the select committee very well indeed and made sure that the issues were properly canvassed this time. I think it would be fair to say that the members of the select committee were at pains to make sure we did not make yet another error that we did not compound last year’s error with a fresh range of errors. 
Peter Brown 
: You’re making another one. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I want to turn to the point that Mr Brown has made by interjection. He said that we are making another error. I say to Mr Brown that in this instance however we are making a deliberative decision in possession of the facts. I know Mr Brown does not agree with the decision but I suggest that that is a different issue. The problem last year is that we made the error because we did not understand the facts properly. I suppose I have to concede that that issue was touched upon by Mr Brown—I guess I have to concede that point and I did note it in the select committee report last year. I say to Mr Brown that that is a fair point. 
But in this particular instance we fully understand the situation and we wish to draw a very particular distinction. I have already gone through the law and what our vote is so why do we do that? There is a reason why we do so: we believe that for the future passengers—particularly young women and girls in taxis late at night—should have an absolute guarantee that no person who has had a murder conviction a sexual conviction or a serious violent conviction can have a licence. By that I mean they will not even be able to apply for a licence. Those persons of course can get other jobs. They can get other jobs even in the driving industry. So it is very clear why we are doing that: we want an absolute assurance that those people cannot have a licence. But we recognise that there is an issue of the 230 people from the past that we need to fix so we support the part of the bill that deals with that particular issue.