Tolley Anne: Land Transport Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Tolley Anne: Land Transport Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1255] 
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
: 
 I believe that we are in the House today—listening to some rather defensive speeches from the Government I have to say—as a result of some pretty poor lawmaking. It is poor because it was unjust retrospectively. I do not think we should get into the blame game in this House. 
In a press statement the Land Transport New Zealand spokesman a man named Andy Knackstedt said that the legislation had taken 3 years to put together and that any further change would not happen quickly. He said that Land Transport New Zealand sympathised with people like Mr Harrison whom the article was about but that: “we are simply administering the law on behalf of the Government”. I think that is an arrogant comment from one of the officials who is implementing the law and it shows no understanding of the difficulties that we have heard about in the House today. 
It took 3 years to put the legislation together. We have heard Transport and Industrial Relations Committee members talk about the difficulties they had in trying to find an equitable and just solution. Yet the Land Transport New Zealand spokesman said quite glibly that any changes would not happen quickly because it took so long to get it right—or wrong—in the first place. I understand absolutely the concerns for passenger safety and that the changes were sought to prevent undesirable people from holding licences. None of us wants murderers rapists and sexual predators driving taxis or school buses or driving the public at large but with 3 years’ work and the scrutiny of this Parliament how did we get it so wrong that on 16 January decent citizens were left with no job and no recourse in law? 
The problem for this House is that we are not talking about figures; we are talking about real people. I like other MPs have had visits from people in my electorate. I will not further embarrass them by mentioning names but I have a note here with details of a gentleman who was convicted in 1966. Since that date 40 years ago he has had no further conviction made against him. He has been happily married for 38 years and has two children and two grandchildren. He has been a taxi-driver for 20 years and every year he has renewed his P endorsement— 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Every 5 years. 
ANNE TOLLEY 
: Every fifth year he has had to go through the process again. All of a sudden he received a piece of paper that told him he could not drive his taxi any more. He wrote: “I am sorely pressed financially and the stress is taking its toll. I have no income coming in and I have financial commitments to maintain like any other person owning their own business.” 
 What happened in the 3 years it took to put that legislation together? I understand that 300 people with P endorsements were applying on a regular basis to be relicensed. Who spoke up for them when that legislation was being put together? Who raised the problem and said: “We need to deal with this; it’s a difficult issue.”? The appeal provisions were revoked under the legislation. Did that not ring any bells for those highly paid bureaucrats? 
A second case that I have in my electorate concerns a gentleman who said that he had committed a crime more than 40 years ago. He is now 65. He cannot even remember what happened as a consequence. He remembers getting into trouble he remembers police and courts but it is so long ago and he has moved on. He wrote: “This has affected my main source of income my marriage my family security and stability within the home as there are accounts to pay and a family to feed.” He is 65 years of age and he has suddenly found himself without an income to support his family. Unfortunately he is still awaiting a response from his local MP whom he contacted in January and he came to me even though he is not on the general roll. Knowing I was coming to Parliament he sent me an email that said: “Remind them we are now in the second month that I have had no income coming into my house.” 
I also have correspondence from the New Zealand Taxi Federation which says the same thing: “In some cases the people affected have led blame-free and highly productive lives for many decades. They are devastated and disbelieving that the retrospective provisions of an Act of Parliament could do this to them.” People have been coming through my colleagues’ offices with similar stories. The Bus and Coach Association talked about 30 drivers losing their P endorsements for convictions relating to section 134 of the Crimes Act. Those are real people whose families are suffering. The Minister in his introductory speech talked about “a few individuals” but those few individuals rely on this Parliament to ensure they have the ability to live their lives having served their time in a productive way. 
I had to recommend to one of those gentlemen who came to see me that he go to Work and Income in order to see whether he could receive income support. This is what he said to me about having to do that: “I wish to inform the powers that be that make these decisions as representatives of the people that for the amount of money they are paid to make sure people like myself do not sponge off the system they sure make it easy to sit back down and become a statistical leech again.” He does not want to be a Work and Income beneficiary. He wants to work as he has done in the taxi industry when he supported himself and his family for 20 years. Those people asked for a very simple amendment to the Act. The New Zealand Taxi Federation asked that we have a look at the changes that were made last time and perhaps make a small clarification to section 29A(3)(b) which has been talked about and which describes a sexual crime and that maybe we differentiate between the two or that we look at section 29B(1)(a) where it talks about either section 29A(3)(a) or section 29A(3)(b) which is the problem one and instead get rid of only the murderers and perhaps have all the rest—listed in paragraphs (b) and (c) of section 29A(3)­­­­—able to go back to the director. 
What did we get in response to the request from those people in the Taxi Federation and the Bus and Coach Association? We got the amendment that we are debating today which has gone way too far so that now we are throwing the baby out with the bathwater and we will now allow murderers rapists and sexual predators to ask the director to reinstate their P licenses. That is way over the top. National wants what the Taxi Federation asked for which is a small adjustment to take account of people who committed what was essentially a minor crime. We want Parliament to look at how the courts dealt with those crimes 30 and 40 years ago which was by giving a discharge or a very minor sentence to those who have lived exemplary lives ever since. 
This bill has to go to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee to be tidied up but I say to the Minister that this is taking place under his watch and he is responsible for ensuring that those people are able to get back to work. But I have to say that I am delighted to hear colleagues like Te Ururoa Flavell from the Bay of Plenty and ACT’s Heather Roy talking about recompense. In his press release about the legislation the Minister said: “We want to make sure the Act allows people to continue their employment as passenger service drivers.” Well I have news for the Minister. Some of those people have lost their jobs have had to sell their taxis and have had to move out of their business. It is too late for them and recompense should be considered for them and their families. 
Bill read a first time.