Bennett David: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Bennett David: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1910] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 The Land Transport Amendment Bill is an attempt to meet the needs of the community while at the same time being a signal to all New Zealanders of the standard of conduct expected from people in positions of such trust. 
In reviewing this bill some situations need to be considered. In Hamilton before Christmas we had an example where a local female student was raped on a taxi ride home after a night out. The driver was never arrested. However the description of the driver led to major innuendo regarding one of the taxi firms in the city. The taxi firm in question had a large number of migrants as drivers. With the public concerns over safety that taxi firm found it had a major drop-off in business. Simply speaking people were afraid to use the taxis from that firm. Needless to say the firm soon folded and it is no longer in business in Hamilton. 
A second example is that of the local taxi driver who drove me to Parliament on Tuesday morning. We discussed what drivers think of their industry and the legislation that governs their activities. Jignesh has been driving for over a year and has a good understanding of the rules that govern his industry. He was adamant that anyone who has the position of trust that a taxi driver has should not have such a criminal record. He was proud of his history of having a clean slate. That pride in his own history is a measure of the high standard of care he expects from other taxi drivers. He believed that drivers with criminal convictions should not be granted an endorsement. 
Those examples illustrate public opinion. New Zealanders place great trust in their taxi and bus drivers and as a result passengers expect certain levels of conduct. The criminal history of the driver is a relevant factor for passengers. 
A third example is that of the well-documented cases of drivers who have had convictions many years ago for certain offences and who have now been denied an endorsement. Those drivers have been unable to undertake their normal business and employment opportunities since the passing of the 2005 amendment Act. The two most widely discussed cases are first the one of the Dunedin driver who lost his licence because 34 years ago at the age of 16 he slept with his 15-year-old girlfriend 2 days short of her 16th birthday. The second case is that of a Kaiapoi driver. It is important to note that many of the cases in the public arena have involved sexual relationship convictions. The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee was advised that such convictions are very rare these days so going forward there will be substantially fewer people in that situation. 
The examples I have given show the two key elements that the legislation needs to achieve. First a group of drivers has been caught out by the reforms of late 2005. Those drivers have gained public prominence and support for their case. Many constituents have expressed their desire for leniency for those drivers. New Zealanders agreed with the policy of the 2005 amendment Act but they also wanted there to be a degree of discretion for those who were caught out in their current employment or business positions. Second the public and drivers in particular have a general perception that certain levels of trust are placed in drivers and therefore certain standards are to be expected. The generally accepted standard as enacted last year is for all drivers to fulfil strict criteria. This bill fails to achieve the second of those fundamental concepts. 
In June last year members of the Government passed the restrictive legislation. The arguments of public safety and passenger rights were given prominence. But as a result of public opinion on certain cases there has been a major rethink in policy. The 2005 amendment Act was intended to show a signal to drivers as to the standard of conduct required. If a driver wants to undertake that career he or she needs to meet the standards of the industry. That is the only way we can retain trust in the industry. It is appropriate to make some change to the 2005 amendment Act but let us not go so far to the other extreme that the original intention of that amendment is lost. We need to incorporate the concerns of existing drivers but we should not remove the spirit of the high standards required of new drivers. We need to take a balanced approach. 
This bill in its current form goes too far. The changes proposed in it are to the overall detriment of the industry and of New Zealand as a whole. The bill is in the interests of neither drivers nor passengers. The bill removes the intention of strengthening the drivers in their industry and removes security from passengers. It makes no distinction between existing and new drivers and we need such a distinction in order to enact strict criteria for new drivers. 
For those reasons we propose the following amendments. For existing drivers namely those drivers currently undertaking such activity an avenue for endorsement may be offered as is proposed in this bill. However for new drivers we propose an amendment that will mean the strict rules and enforcement that were the essence of the 2005 amendment Act shall apply. These amendments will mean first that we can achieve the goal of assisting those caught in a situation that had not been envisaged and second that the amendments will retain the ultimate goals of the 2005 amendment Act. Passengers and drivers can then have confidence in the industry. The amendments will mean that we can accommodate public opinion and also keep alive the spirit and intent of the 2005 amendment Act. It is a win-win situation as existing drivers are satisfied and we also endorse the high standards expected of the industry. 
Let us not forget that when the bill that was to become the 2005 amendment Act first came before the House in May and June last year Lianne Dalziel and Lynne Pillay backed Deborah Coddington’s moves to extend that legislation from new drivers to existing drivers. The reasons given for the 2005 amendment Act were that it was required in order to maintain public safety and public confidence in the industry. The extension of its provisions now requires refinement but we should not lose sight of the original intent of that amendment. The original intent was that the higher standards are required and expected of new drivers. The same emotion and strength of argument that extended the 2005 amendment Act to existing drivers can be achieved only through distinguishing new from existing drivers. The difference between new and existing drivers needs to be enshrined in law. 
In the select committee we originally came to that conclusion albeit with some debate over the actual thresholds to be used to determine the level of leniency for existing drivers. All parties on the select committee initially concluded that new drivers should be treated differently from existing drivers. I ask Peter Brown from New Zealand First to adhere to his comments in  
Hansard 
 on 16 February 2006: “From now on sure no murderers and nobody who has committed those serious crimes will be eligible for a licence but people who have a passenger licence and have driven for some time and who have been law abiding are entitled to have consideration.” Peter Brown goes on to say: “We should treat them as individuals and get the legislation right from now on.” Similarly Te Ururoa Flavell said on the same day: “The Maori Party in supporting this bill nevertheless retains its position that people convicted of specified serious offences such as murder or sexual and violent offences should be prohibited from carrying passengers.” 
I believe that our initial gut feelings at the select committee were proper. I ask all the parties to consider this legislation in terms of what is right and just. It is not a matter of trying to cover specific cases in the future. Any attempt to second-guess future circumstances will lead to the same problems that we are trying to correct today. The only fair and just approach is to send a signal to new entrants of the standard required of them. That is what these amendments will achieve. The Land Transport Amendment Bill needs to have some discretion for those caught out in the 2005 amendment Act while retaining the original intention of that amendment which was to improve public safety and public confidence in the industry. The amendments now proposed achieve both these goals. Let us go back to first principles and enact those amendments so as to confirm the original intent of the 2005 amendment Act. Let us take a reasoned approach to cases caught in the 2005 amendment Act. Let us also send the right signals to future drivers and passengers. To do both those things shows a flexible and listening Parliament and also a Parliament that is willing to provide direction and a clear vision for the future. 
Mark Gosche said two things that I think we need to focus on. He said that now we have the facts. That is right—now we have the facts to deal with the existing drivers. We have the facts for those cases. That should not deter us from the original intention of the legislation which was so good that everyone voted for it last term.