Mapp Wayne: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Mapp Wayne: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1926] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I want to make it clear to Ms Moroney that we will be opposing Mr Anderton’s amendment. We will also be opposing the Minister’s amendment in the same area although I appreciate that his relates to clause 4. We do so because there was a very deliberate reason why the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee last year passed the legislation in the form it did. That is not to say it got it entirely right. It was intended that it deliver a very strict message which was that sexual offenders should not be driving taxis. We are willing to concede that it was not intended that it cover those people convicted under section 134 of the Crimes Act. Virtually all of the cases that are relevant arise under that section. Essentially they are the cases such as the one relating to the 17-year-old boy and his 15-year-old girlfriend. It was not intended that the legislation cover that situation. However the bill that has come back from the select committee is intended to deal with this. Issues were raised with me and I questioned the people carefully. They assured me that they had been only fined. In fact some people had been convicted and discharged. 
I want to turn to some of the facts here because they are important. Two hundred and thirty-four people were affected by the legislation which is quite a significant number. Two people had actually been convicted of murder. I recall one member of the select committee saying that perhaps those people should have a shot at having a taxi licence. He subsequently changed his mind. I will not name that person here. Those categories are no longer included—with the consent I might add of the relevant member whom I will not name. The other offences included 13 for sexual violation. Do members know what that actually is? It is rape. Thirteen taxi drivers who had been rapists have been driving people around in taxis. Thirty of those 234 people had been convicted of having sex with children under 12. Eight of the people had been convicted of incest. I could go on. In short these are serious offences and I cannot believe that anyone would seriously suggest that any of those people should have the right even to apply for passenger endorsement reinstatement because that is the effect I might add of Mr Anderton’s amendment. 
The core of it is—and the Minister is obviously noting this; it is his particular concern as it is the concern of the rest of Parliament—that 130 people have been convicted under section 134 of the Crimes Act and 45 persons under section 135. By and large the convictions relate to events a long time ago when the people were by definition very young—as in the case involving the 15-year-old and the 17-year-old. How do the penalties compare? We should bear in mind that 130 came under section 134 of the Crimes Act. Interestingly enough 41 of the penalties involved fines. Suspended sentences community service probation and borstal—handed out to people under 17 I might add often for quite trivial things a long time ago—accounted for 139. That covers 180 people. Almost exactly the same number of people were convicted under section 134 as were convicted under section 135. One hundred and seventy were fined or had other minor punishments and 175 came under the minor offences. It is almost a perfect match. I do appreciate—and I am sure the Minister would wish to point this out—that in truth it is not a perfect match. Maybe some people who were imprisoned were covered by section 134. It was quite a small number admittedly but it is a vanishingly small number I suggest. 
We in the National Party are saying that we are taking a firm line on this. We are saying that we will consider and indeed vote for the ability to reapply provided people have not had a term of imprisonment. I think that actually directly addresses the issues that have been raised by the vast majority of people who have contacted members right across Parliament. I know there will be some outside the parameter but the vast majority as is clear from the figures I have read out are covered by the select committee report. 
I want to make it perfectly clear that the members of the select committee were pretty firm on this and the reason why the Minister is putting in a Supplementary Order Paper which would allow imprisonment to be covered is that the select committee did not think that imprisonment should be included. That was the view of the members of the select committee and it is the Government through the Minister that has said: “We can be more liberal. We can allow people to drive taxis even though they have been in prison.” 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: No you can allow them to apply. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I suggest to the Minister that that is in fact a misunderstanding of the law. If the rules are set down then effectively no discretion is given to the director. If there was a judicial review the judge would decide on the basis of the rules set down. Effectively the director would not have discretion. I know the law reads the way the Minister feels it does but in fact it would not be applied that way in any event. 
The select committee was very clear by consensus that imprisonment was the threshold. Someone who had been in prison could not apply; someone who had not been in prison could apply. An application in this circumstance was the same as having a re-grant. National is saying that we can deal with virtually every single one of the 175 out of 234 cases that matter because in virtually every one all the offenders got was a fine or other punishment. 
Government members have mentioned imprisonment. It is worth noting that imprisonment covers older people. Younger people got borstal. So where the victim if one can call the person that was 15 and the other person was 17 the offender was too young to be imprisoned. Where there is a broader age range or bigger gap between offender and victim then imprisonment tends to be levied. That is a proper distinction to make and that is why the select committee specifically did not include borstal. We wanted to allow people who were effectively in custody in borstal to be able to apply—for the very reason that borstal covered young people and that was our particular concern. I suggest to the Minister that that covers virtually all of the people who came to members of Parliament across the parties. 
National members are voting for clause 3 on principle as it is in the select committee report because we think that it gets the balance right. We are saying very clearly to those 175 people that if they apply they will get their licences back if they have not had a term of imprisonment. I tell the Minister that that is effectively how it will happen— 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Apply for consideration not automatically. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Well I know the Minister says that but in truth it will not be applied that way in reality. Under a judicial review a court would say that those are the criteria and if there is no reason not to give the licence the licence must be given back. The criteria set by Parliament here today I suggest are as a matter of interpretation of the law equivalent to an application. 
Simon Power 
: Why doesn’t this member continue for another 5 minutes? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I think that is a reasonable interjection. I think the points have been well made as to why we have taken the position that we have. We will be supporting clause 3 in order to be able to provide the appropriate remedy to the people who have contacted various members of Parliament.