Copeland Gordon: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Copeland Gordon: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1941] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I want to take a call and speak to the Supplementary Order Paper in the name of the Hon Harry Duynhoven. United Future is delighted that the Minister has brought this Supplementary Order Paper to the House and also congratulates the Minister on circulating with the Supplementary Order Paper the actual details of individuals who would be affected. The Supplementary Order Paper of course changes the bill as reported back by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee to allow those who have committed offences under section 134 or 135 of the Crimes Act 1961—what we call the carnal knowledge sections—and who did go to jail but who were in jail for less than 12 months to reapply to have their P endorsement reinstated. 
I want to refer immediately to the table of people—we do not have their names—who are on that list. The first one is described as individual A. Individual A was convicted in 1964 at the age of 24 years and went to jail for 1 month. Now I am one of the people in Parliament like Bob Clarkson who was alive and well in 1964. Indeed 1964 was the year that I became a father for the first time. I can tell members that in those days  
Truth 
 used to write up carnal knowledge convictions in lurid detail. The whole country used to queue up at the local dairy to read about them. It was quite a big deal in those days. 
So here we are now talking about a person who is 65 years of age. Members should think about this. He was 24 in 1964; we are now in 2006 so he is at least 65 years of age. This person who has led a blameless life for the last 41 years and who has a P endorsement has had his licence removed. I agree with Minister Harry Duynhoven when he says that that is a completely unjust and unfair outcome. I do not want to go into the details of that because I think that if Tau Henare were really honest about this he would probably say: “There but for the grace of God go I.” and I think we should get really real about that. 
Let me take individual H on the same list. Individual H went to jail for 3 months in 1983. He was aged 40. Therefore he is now aged 62. He has also just lost his livelihood. Now let me ask the Committee this—I know that it is late at night but really some of the so-called humour going across this Chamber is quite disappointing because we are actually talking about real individuals here and we are talking about a matter of justice. Some members of the Committee might say: “Does it really matter Gordon if two men one aged 62 and one aged 65 lose their licence for the rest of their life?”. I say yes it does. If there was even one I would be prepared to be here any night of the week at 9 o’clock to say: “Let’s give these people justice.” Those people will not be able to find alternative employment at 62 or 65 years of age. That is their sole means of livelihood. They are working; they should be allowed to continue working. Parliament got it wrong. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
GORDON COPELAND 
: It put the bill through last time—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member. I ask new members to look at Speaker’s ruling 57/3 on interjections. I think they might learn something. 
GORDON COPELAND 
: I therefore express my deep disappointment. I am quite shocked that tonight the National Party intends to vote against this bill. I had hoped that we would acknowledge that Parliament got it wrong and got it wrong badly—that the legislation is unjust and unfair to the people concerned. As I said if it affects only one person it is still worth rectifying the injustice. National members are basically voting “No” tonight which means they are prepared to accept that situation. That is the only interpretation that the people of New Zealand will be able to put on their actions and National members should bear that in mind. I join my voice to that of Harry Duynhoven. I had genuinely expected tonight that this Parliament would have unanimity around this issue. I am disappointed that that is not the case and I ask National members to think again.