Coddington Deborah: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Coddington Deborah: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21364] 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 Thank you Madam Chairperson for giving me that call because I would really like the Minister Pete Hodgson to take a call to explain this Supplementary Order Paper to us. There is another flaw in addition to the two that Wayne Mapp pointed out. I too am unhappy with the Director of Land Transport having the sole power to reinstate licences to those who already have convictions. I think it should go to the High Court first. 
Secondly I would really like the Minister to explain something about reinstatement. A licence cannot be reinstated if people have been convicted of a serious offence under section 29A(2)(a) or (b)—inserted by clause 13—which relate to murder or a sexual crime punishable by 7 years’ or more imprisonment. However if we look at section 29A(2)(d) inserted by clause 13 we see that it states: “an offence committed outside New Zealand that if committed in New Zealand would constitute an offence specified in paragraphs (a) to (c).” But when I look at the Supplementary Order Paper it does not seem to me—and I am not a lawyer—to include paragraph (d). Do we have an anomaly whereby if a person is convicted of murder or a serious sexual crime outside New Zealand he or she is not subject to the same barrier as those who were convicted of it inside New Zealand? In other words could a person slip through because it was a historical conviction and therefore the person would not have to apply or is it the other way round? I do not know. That is why I am asking the Minister to explain. For me committing a serious sexual offence with say a little girl in Thailand is just as bad as committing it with a little girl in New Zealand and it should be treated exactly the same. 
I know—and we discussed it at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—that with a lot of immigrants these days especially refugees it is very difficult to find out exactly what criminal history they have or whether they have one because we are dealing with different jurisdictions. The committee talked about that. But where possible I think the same laws should apply. If we are bringing in a law that totally prohibits—no ifs no buts no right of appeal—New Zealand people convicted under New Zealand legislation of murder or a serious sexual crime from going into the taxi industry or from getting back into it then I think we should apply that same legislation to those who have been convicted of comparable crimes in another jurisdiction when we know and can find out about those crimes. Let us face it: if people have been convicted of such crimes whether or not they are taxi-drivers they should not be in this country. It is a privilege to live in New Zealand not a right—but that is another debate and not one that relates to this legislation. 
So I ask the Minister to take a call to explain this Supplementary Order Paper. It is very important. The select committee members worked together very hard to arrive at a situation we could all be happy with. We will probably have a situation whereby people can go to the Director of Land Transport and if they are turned down they can go to the High Court but let us at least have a situation whereby the same rules apply to everyone whether he or she was convicted in New Zealand or overseas.