Borrows Chester: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Borrows Chester: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1936] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I will speak for a couple of minutes on the Supplementary Order Paper presented by Mr Bennett. He made a couple of points—one of them around whether the legislation will prevent new applicants from being able to apply for and obtain a P-class licence. Mr Clayton Cosgrove also raised a few points earlier—one of them being the argument as to why one would not object to current licence holders yet object to those who seek to hold a licence in the future. The answer was pretty straightforward: because they do not currently hold a licence. Their livelihood or their ability to make a livelihood is not affected. If they can drive a bus or a cab then they can drive something else—for example a truck or a bulldozer. That is something that is affected in the future. As we have been told by the Government on several occasions there are jobs out there to burn. So it is about someone making a choice to try to enter an industry that they are not currently part of and it has a different impact than allowing those who are currently holders of P-class endorsements to apply for reinstatement of them. 
Another point made was about double jeopardy. I can sympathise with the arguments of double jeopardy and I accept of course that it is within the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act but we have a situation in this country and most other countries around the world where there are certain jobs that people cannot do if they have certain convictions or court awards have gone against them. For instance if someone wants to go on a racecourse but has been convicted of a crime punishable only by imprisonment he or she cannot go on. That person is barred from going on a racecourse. That is just the way it is; if people have those convictions they cannot go there. So if it is an old assault theft or sex complaint or anything else that person cannot go there. Double jeopardy rightly or wrongly exists in the law now—if that is what is known as double jeopardy. In fact it does not fall within the strict interpretation of the meaning or definition of a double jeopardy in any event. 
Within the House if for instance a court awarded costs against an MP but he or she could not pay then a notice of bankruptcy was filed against that MP and he or she still could not pay that person would not be able to be an MP any longer. I understand that there is a story around the presentation of the gold Mace that normally sits on the Table—that the MP who presented it was being proceeded against for bankruptcy. The Parliament at the time was so grateful for the fact that the donation was made that proceedings were withheld. By the time it decided to kick them off again the member at the time—years ago of course—was in a better position and so escaped them. But if he had been adjudicated bankrupt he could not have remained as a member of Parliament. The other example is liquor licences; one cannot hold a liquor licence if one has certain convictions. One cannot join the police with certain other convictions. That is just the way it is; that is life. 
I wanted to make those two points to counter points made earlier by the other side of the Chamber. I believe that the legislation is exactly consistent with what the select committee wanted in the first place.