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:1932] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I am quite surprised at and actually quite disappointed in what we have just heard from the member from New Zealand First. I am surprised in the sense that New Zealand First members have changed their tune within an hour. It must have been something they ate for tea. Just before the dinner break when National members proposed that we have a distinction between new and existing drivers to whom this legislation is applicable we were told by New Zealand First that to do so would be inconsistent and we should not do it. We were told that we must have one rule and it should apply to all. Now New Zealand First is coming back and saying that it would give existing drivers the 12-month criterion but for new drivers there would be no 12-month criterion and that New Zealand First would be tough on the new ones. 
Well that is what National is proposing in our Supplementary Order Paper 17. That was what was agreed on in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and that was I think the essence of the legislation passed last year. I implore New Zealand First: we have another hour so it should go all the way and go back to what it actually agreed on last year. It should give all people the certainty of knowing that they will be looked after of knowing that they can trust that when they hop in a taxi or on a bus they will be looked after to the degree they expect. It is in your hands now. You have moved halfway; you can go all the way. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is bringing the Chair into the debate. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: That is the essence of what National members are trying to do in our Supplementary Order Paper. We know that we cannot just draw a line in the sand and pick 12 months or 6 months out; we need to have a policy that is effective for the future. The only way we can do that is by having something—as we have provided—that defines the situations for new and existing drivers and having different rules for people in each situation. 
We have no problem with existing drivers. We understand the concerns of people who are in such an occupation who have been hurt by the legislation going through and who want to give some substance to their career. We are willing to give that substance and to provide that amendment. But we think the true intention of Parliament with the amendment Act of 2005 was to set up a new regime for all the people coming into the industry in the future. We think that the way we can give credit to the people who stood up in Parliament last year and promoted those ideals is to have separate criteria for new and existing drivers. 
New Zealand First has shown that that can be done conceptually. Those members have no problem with having separate criteria for new and existing drivers. Their only problem now is the thresholds. Well who will make the threshold decision now? Are we making it on the basis of 200 cases that have been put in front of us? What about the next 200 cases next year? What about the 200 cases after that? Will this threshold move just for the sake of it? Are people willing to get into cars or on to buses at night by themselves without the protection of a threshold but knowing that there is a true concept that they will be looked after and protected through an industry-wide approach? That is the essence of the break between new and existing drivers. 
I encourage people to look at the spirit of what we are doing here tonight and at the spirit of what members did last year. There was nothing wrong with that spirit. We have to refine that spirit to engage with cases that could come up potentially but we need to keep that spirit there for the future. We need to have that break between new and existing drivers and to put a tougher threshold on new people coming into the industry because that supports what New Zealanders want to see in the future. When people hop into a taxi they are in a position of weakness and they want to know that they will be looked after. That is the trust they put in that driver. The drivers want to have that respect and we want to be able to give them that respect as well. So I ask members to look at the spirit of what we are doing and vote for the amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 17 which distinguish between new and existing drivers. There can be no inconsistency issues. New Zealand First members have shown they are willing to move on that. All that they are debating now is the threshold that they want to apply to that distinction.