Duynhoven Harry: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Duynhoven Harry: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1948] 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
: 
 I move  
That the Land Transport Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. The legislation this bill amends was passed to improve public safety so that those using passenger transport services often at night or alone could have a greater assurance that those working in a passenger service with whom they have direct contact pose no threat to them. However the mechanism is blunt. It leaves some individuals adversely affected in terms of their employment with no appreciable safety gain. The bill we now have strikes a better balance between the safety of the travelling public and the ability of those who have been convicted of offences at the minor end of the scale to continue to hold employment as a passenger service driver or to apply to have employment as a passenger service driver at some future time. The bill does not—I repeat it does not—automatically reissue passenger endorsements to those eligible to apply for them. It only allows applications to be made to the director. The reinstatement avenue is tightly prescribed and the criteria are strict. Indeed this amendment bill put up in my name tightens considerably the criteria that the director has to consider compared with the legislation the House passed under the previous Minister in 2005. 
 Upon the passage of this bill the director will inform those directly affected of the new reinstatement criteria. Some 158 people will I think be eligible—maybe 20 or so more but in that order—out of the 234 who were adversely affected by the original legislation. Decisions on whether a person qualifies for reinstatement will be made as quickly as possible. 
I want to comment on the performance of the National Party. I think that some of its members need to go home from this House tonight and look carefully at their reflection in the mirror. Some members in the National Party telephoned me over the Christmas holiday break to ask me to do something to help their constituents or someone who had been affected and had approached them for help. In some cases the member may not be aware of the penalty those constituents were given at the time of their offence. What is really galling for me is that I spent a considerable part of the Christmas holiday period on this issue. That is not a worry because it needed fixing and that is what I am paid to do. But I received assurances from several National MPs who voted tonight that they would support action to fix the problem for those who were on the minor end of the scale such as those who had had sex with a partner of a similar age but below 16 and were caught by what we know as the carnal knowledge provision—section 134 of the Crimes Act. 
I want to tell the public of New Zealand quite clearly what the National Party’s inconsistent position is. It is absolutely possible right now even before this amendment bill gets passed for there to be currently a taxi driver or a bus driver who is a former violent offender who has been convicted of for example a serious assault that might well have killed the person had he or she not been stopped who has served a prison sentence of perhaps 8 years in prison years ago but had been deemed either by the director or the courts to have reformed his or her life and to now not be a threat to the public. It is possible that that person a taxi driver or a bus driver—right now tonight in public—is carting women children and others around. 
National Party members are happy with that situation because in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee they did not object to—indeed they supported and in this House spoke about—such former violent offenders having the right after having served time for their crime to be taxi or bus drivers. But their position which in another venue I would describe with an “h” word of having two standards is such that they are happy for a sex offender who had no further crime recorded who got no penalty of imprisonment to be on the road quite happily as a taxi driver or a bus driver. 
But what they have offended against in my view is a principle of justice. Because if a person who was in such a sexual relationship with a similarly aged person but who was under 16 years of age and therefore got a sentence that was not a custodial sentence in a prison then he is OK. But if that very same person got a custodial sentence not in a borstal but in a prison because let us say the borstals were full then he may well have exactly the same penalty applied. National members may not be aware that some of the people on whose behalf they have asked me to intervene actually were imprisoned for a month or for 2 or 3 months. But they are not happy. They are happy to have on the road a violent offender who spent 8 years perhaps in prison but they are not happy to have on the road a person who had sex with his girlfriend and to whom he may have now been married for 40 years—a person who cannot be a taxi driver because he spent a month in prison. 
That is an absolute double standard. It is absolutely inconsistent. I know it is called by a different word in another place but I cannot use that word here. I urge National members to look carefully at their consciences. They should look at themselves in the mirror tonight and ask themselves whether they got it right. I know that someone will say: “Ah but it’s possible to have a rapist.” It is possible but there is no guarantee that such a person will get past the director. Indeed—[ 
Interruption 
] Yes the bill allows them to apply. The member is quite right and when he is quiet I will continue. The legislation that was reported back from the select committee last year allows violent offenders of any sort to apply. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Rapists could not apply. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: No no. Violent offenders who had been convicted of physical assault rather than rape could apply anyway. The member can dance up and down all he likes but the assurances given to me by several National members over the telephone when we discussed this issue were worthless. I say to members opposite that although this issue has not been easy for me or for this Parliament we approached it with goodwill to try to arrive at a solution. I want to thank the House the select committee the Taxi Federation the Bus and Coach Association and the Council of Trade Unions for finding the time to put in submissions and for working through this issue. Never have we seen such a difficult bill pass so quickly. Rarely has this Parliament acted so fast. I especially want to thank the officials of Land Transport and the Ministry of Transport who did so much to try to sort through the issues. This has not been an easy issue. Of course it is emotive but I guarantee I get a call from a National MP in the next week saying: “What about my bloke?”.