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:1937] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 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! 
PETER BROWN 
: 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. 
PETER BROWN 
: Sorry? Who is checking? 
Chester Borrows 
: The racecourse inspector. 
PETER BROWN 
: I do not know much about who— 
David Bennett 
: The Minister for Racing. 
PETER BROWN 
: 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. 
PETER BROWN 
: 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? 
PETER BROWN 
: 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? 
PETER BROWN 
: 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. 
PETER BROWN 
: 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? 
PETER BROWN 
: 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.