Copeland Gordon: Land Transport Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Copeland Gordon: Land Transport Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1250] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 In passing the Land Transport Act in June 2005 Parliament as is now clear passed an unjust law. Dr Wayne Mapp made the comment that only a small group of people have been penalised as a result of that law. But I want to say that when it comes to measuring an unjust law even if the result is a serious injustice for one person it is one person too many. On behalf of United Future I want to extend our thanks to the Hon Harry Duynhoven who came back from his summer recess to put this matter right for the prompt action he has taken in bringing this matter back to Parliament. We do need to face up as promptly as we can to the consequence of our actions and to put it right. As Alan Martin of L V Martin and Son was fond of saying on television: “It’s the putting right that counts.” 
Other speakers have already set out in graphic terms why the law we passed last year was unjust. We seem to have forgotten a few basic things about the justice system—for example that the punishment should fit the crime. Obviously if a man who was convicted as a teenager for carnal knowledge - type offences and who at that time took his punishment whatever it was like a man is unable 30 years later to continue his means of livelihood for himself and his family then we really have done something seriously wrong and unjust to those people. It is not just the loss of a licence of course that is a serious matter for these people but also there is the sheer embarrassment of having to own up after so many years to what we would regard in many cases as a fairly minor indiscretion and one about which probably the majority of New Zealanders would say: “The only difference between him and me is that I wasn’t caught.” But of course it is also having to break that news to a wife to children to friends and to neighbours. All of that I think has caused those people a lot of grief and a lot of sorrow. I was not a member of the select committee that considered this bill and I was not personally aware of this issue for that reason but I was a member of the Parliament and I would like to say at this stage that I am sorry for the difficulty we have placed these people in; I think we should say that. 
Of course when Parliament makes a mistake I have a philosophy in life that the only mistake we make is one we do not learn from. 
 We as a Parliament need to look at this exercise to see where the mistake was made. For example I think that this law breached the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act talks about double jeopardy and justice for New Zealand and for its citizens. There are people whose full-time job is to advise this Parliament whether it is about to breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. In the aftermath of this event we should ask what happened and where the safeguards broke down. I do not remember for example getting a note from the Attorney-General on this matter. There are some real questions to be asked about the process and about whether we should look at it. I specifically said the other day at the Business Committee that I would like the select committee to look at that issue because it seems to me that we need to be careful that we do not continue down that track and make the same mistake again. That truly would be tragic. There comes a point when it becomes almost unforgivable. We must learn to do better. 
I will also mention the distinction that others have drawn between people who as teenagers committed what in the old days—when I was a young person—were called crimes of carnal knowledge and the people involved in crimes between say a 45-year-old and a 13-year-old. In all the cases that have been mentioned it was surmised that the 45-year-old was a male and the 13-year-old was a female. There are two points that I will make. First here we are talking about paedophilia which is very different from carnal knowledge. Some of the speakers have made the point that one of the review criteria that should be in the Act—it is in the bill—is the sentence imposed by the court when that person was convicted of the original crime. The distinction between carnal knowledge for example and paedophilia will be reflected quite clearly in the kind of sentence that the court imposed in that situation. 
The member Steve Chadwick said that we need to protect the women and girls of this country who might be in taxis and in other situations where they could be vulnerable to people who have committed those sorts of crimes. She is right to make that point and I agree with her entirely. But I am also concerned about boys in that situation. When I look at the figures on paedophilia very often the victim is a boy. As far as I am concerned we need to protect all of our citizens regardless of whether they are male or female against people of that kind. 
With those remarks I think it is good that we as a Parliament are putting right the grave error we made. As I have said—and I would just like to summarise—let us also take the opportunity to learn from the experience and try to get it right next time. United Future will be supporting the first reading of this bill.