Brown Peter: Land Transport Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Brown Peter: Land Transport Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1243] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Sometimes one has to be big enough ugly enough and strong enough to say that one has stuffed up. The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on that particular issue stuffed up—and stuffed up big time absolutely big time. Genuine people out there are hurting hugely as a result of what that select committee did or did not do. 
People might be wondering how the bill got through. I have to say that if we had been dealing with just this issue in the last bill New Zealand First would not have supported the bill at all. But it was just a small part of a clause of a major and important bill that had to get overall support so New Zealand First supported the bill overall and as a consequence it went through. 
I listened intently to Dr Wayne Mapp. I think he suffers a little bit from amnesia. He should check his facts. I have the bill as it was reported back from the select committee right here in my little hot hand and there is no appeal process in it no recommendation nothing. Let me say that New Zealand First—and I recognise the Greens particularly Mike Ward—said that that clause would cause problems. I will read the paragraph that was put in the commentary by myself on behalf of New Zealand First: “New Zealand First is concerned there is no appeal provision whatsoever for current drivers including those who might have been driving for many years and have subsequently led a responsible life and their crime is known to the public.” That was a huge concern that we tried to get the select committee members to pick up. I will give Wayne Mapp a little bit of credit because towards the end—I suppose I am out of order making reference to what goes on in select committee—Wayne said— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
PETER BROWN 
: Dr Wayne Mapp said— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Brown. 
PETER BROWN 
: He is a good friend of mine. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sure he is. 
PETER BROWN 
: He said: “I can hear Peter standing on the election platform saying: ‘Those two tired old parties … da dee da dee da …’ about this issue.” So he did come onside to a degree and said that we had to look at it. There is a little sentence in there that says: “All members of the committee recommend that further consideration be given to this matter.” Wayne Mapp backed up New Zealand First and Mike Ward of the Greens on that to that end and that meant the appeal process was put into the Act by a Supplementary Order Paper as I recall. It did not do the job as we now know. 
I understand from the Minister that something like 200 people are affected by that provision. They are not all employed; 160-plus are employed and I ask the Minister whether that is correct. Nevertheless I know personally of a man and wife who are hurting. I shall outline his circumstances as he told me to feel free to tell the House what had happened to him but I will not use his name for good reasons. At 19 years of age he had a girlfriend who was 15¾ years old and they had a sexual relationship. Somebody potted them—I think a rival or someone—and he was taken to court and dealt with but not very harshly to be honest from what he told me. Twenty years later he wanted to be a bus driver a taxi-driver or some such driver and he went and got his P endorsement. That was 20 years after the offence. Ten years after that we took it away. Would Dr Mapp tell me that we did a good job? 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: No that has to be fixed. 
PETER BROWN 
: I know another case that my colleague in Christchurch has acquainted me with in quite some detail. If we were fair if we wanted to treat New Zealanders like genuine people we should recognise that some of those 200 people are law-abiding citizens. They might have committed some of those serious crimes in the past but by and large most of them will now be law-abiding citizens. What we should have done was acquaint them personally—as we have now—with a letter stating what we would do. They were entitled to know the legislation we were going to pass in a retrospective manner but we did not let them know. I think we should have made more of an effort along those lines. We have to start treating people like people. 
I understand that among those 200 people there were two murderers. I do not know whom they murdered and I do not know exactly the circumstances. But it might well be that one of those murders—I am not going to say it is acceptable—is understandable. It might well be that one of those people came home and for example found somebody in bed with his wife. Those could well be the circumstances and that person could now have a passenger licence and be driving a cab. In my view that person should be treated as an individual. 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. It is very very tough to have the rights of an appeal process removed retrospectively. That is something fundamentally wrong. 
Ron Mark 
: It’s not right. 
PETER BROWN 
: Yes I know my colleague is interested in that. The Minister of Corrections has been talking about rehabilitation but in this instance we are saying that people might well have been rehabilitated but we are still going to rob them of their livelihood without giving them any right to state their case whatsoever. Let me appeal to members’ inner feelings: is that fair? Does that reflect positively on our justice system? Never mind the crime—is it fair simply to wipe away people’s livelihoods when they might have been behaving in a law-abiding manner for years? 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Murderers and rapists? 
PETER BROWN 
: I have given members an example of a murderer who would do no more harm to a passenger than I would. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: But the great irony is that if they had not actually quite killed him they would have got the right of appeal. 
PETER BROWN 
: The Minister makes a very good point. That is why I am saying we should treat those 200 people fairly. The number will not increase. We will not get more people than we have now in terms of retrospectivity. We should treat them as individuals and get the legislation right from now on. 
I should comment briefly on the bill itself. We are only too glad to see the issue go back to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee because it is really hurting some people and it is making Parliament in some ways look quite ridiculous. But I do not think that the Minister has got it right. I recommend that we look at sentence-based assessment. In other words we want to restrict the P licence so that an older guy who has had a relationship with a 15-year-old has a different punishment from a 16-year-old and a 15-year-old who have had a relationship. There is quite a difference in those categories. We have to look at how seriously judges take the crime and we have to word the legislation so that we stop the real baddies and leave the moderates. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Are you then suggesting that something like a custodial sentence might be the requirement? 
PETER BROWN 
: I think a custodial sentence should be a starting point for working out where the dividing line is. On behalf of New Zealand First I say that we are delighted that this legislation will be reassessed. I say to my colleagues on the select committee that I know they will apply themselves with a good deal more conscientiousness than we perhaps did last time—do it once and do it right.