Mapp Wayne: Land Transport Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Mapp Wayne: Land Transport Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1242] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 In my call I want to address a couple of key points: why we are here today and how the select committee got it wrong and what the motivation initially of the select committee actually was. This part of the transport legislation had its origins with Deborah Coddington. There had been a whole swath of offences particularly in Wellington where taxi-drivers who had previous serious convictions who held a P endorsement had assaulted women passengers. That was the origin of the legislation. A whole bunch of people who should not have had P endorsements nevertheless got them; and that had occurred because of lax procedures in the Land Transport Safety Authority and in the courts. So the motivation of the select committee was to narrow down the discretion or in the words of my colleague Maurice Williamson to have a definitive blacklist. If someone was convicted of murder no way could that person get a P endorsement or an appeal and everyone in this House would logically agree with that. 
The second category which was hugely troubling was the whole range of sexual offences. We know as a general proposition that once someone is convicted there is likely to be a prospect of similar conduct in the future. We did not want people who had been convicted of serious sexual offences to ever hold a P endorsement—that is to drive a taxi or a bus ever again. There was to be no appeal for that group. 
Then there was a third category of violent offences under the Crimes Act. What happened was this. Land Transport advisers came along and gave us a list of sections. They just gave us a whole bunch of numbers such as section 153 section 177 and so forth and said that none of those people should be included. We said: “Let us describe those offences.” So we duly did that which is why in the legislation there are offences described such as attempts to murder conspiracy to murder and wounding with intent—all of those. All people convicted of those offences can also apply to have their P endorsements reconsidered if they have been convicted in the past. 
However the problem occurred with the middle band where the legislation states that in the situation of any sexual crime punishable by 7 years’ imprisonment or more there is a complete ban and no right of appeal. We asked the Land Transport officials whether they were sure that that was OK and they said that obviously everything with a penalty of 7 years’ imprisonment is a bad offence. That seemed a reasonable proposition. Surely anyone convicted of a sexual offence punishable with 7 years of imprisonment or more should not hold a taxi licence. But the trouble was that one or two offences were included in that category that probably should not have been or at least there should have been a review procedure. 
One is section 134 “Sexual intercourse or indecency with girl between 12 and 16”. Now we have all heard the facts—the 17-year-old and the 15-year-old 40 years ago where there would have been a small fine or even a discharge without conviction. In one situation the couple subsequently got married although I do not know whether they are still married. But clearly we would wonder whether that is really a situation where that offender should never be able to be a taxi-driver. I think everyone in this House would say that if that is how the law worked then clearly something has gone wrong in the lawmaking process and that the person in that situation should be able to hold a P licence. 
However the same section would also cover someone convicted in the last few years where the offender is 45 and the victim is 13. Would we want that person to hold a taxi licence? Surely the answer would be no. The problem with the bill presented by the Minister is that it allows everyone who has been convicted and has lost a P endorsement to be able to apply to the director for reinstatement. Why would we do that? Why would we allow a murderer to reapply for a P endorsement? That is ridiculous. Why would we allow a rapist to reapply for a P endorsement? That is also ridiculous. Frankly this legislation which has had a number of weeks’ worth of work done on it as it has been presented to the House is actually a pretty poor job. 
The select committee will once again have to work to get it right and to narrow it down to the particular area that I think the House is broadly agreed on. We want as minimal a level of discretion as possible. I guess we cannot remove it completely but we can certainly narrow it down—maybe for instance to an offence under section 134 where there was a discharge or a small fine because that would cover the class we are interested in. That is the group of people—and I have certainly had phone calls on it—with some of them having been convicted 40 years ago where for instance one party was aged 17 and the other was aged 15 and the offender was discharged without conviction. That sort of person should be able to hold a P endorsement. Unfortunately the bill presented to the House is too wide. It will have to be restructured by the select committee in order to narrow its focus to deal with genuine cases of injustice as opposed to murderers or rapists being able to reapply for their P endorsements. 
 So the National Party is put into the position of saying that we have a bad bill which fixes up what was actually a relatively narrow error by the select committee but this is the only opportunity we have to fix the problem. So we have to support a bill that is frankly poorly drafted—because it is the only way that we can look at the issue. I say to the Minister and to the House that National members will look at this very carefully indeed. We want it a lot narrower than in the bill as presented. We want it to be narrowed precisely to a few cases—and there are not actually very many given that there are only one or two offences in the Crimes Act that are relevant—and we want it to be targeted. We do not want the director to have some kind of sweeping discretion as the bill currently provides for to allow people to hold a P endorsement whom none of us would think it reasonable that they should do so. 
I say to my colleagues on the select committee that we have a pretty serious job of work ahead of us and we have a limited period of time to get it right. I suggest the bill will have to be significantly redrafted to achieve that outcome. We in this Parliament are pretty clear as to what the problem is. Unfortunately the way this bill is drafted at the moment is too broad. I believe that it can be fixed and then the group of people we are concerned about will be allowed to reapply for the P endorsement and in the right circumstances get it. The select committee made a particular error around section 134. That narrowly focused point can be fixed but this bill unfortunately has not got it right. The select committee will have the opportunity to get it right.