Locke Keith: Land Transport Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Locke Keith: Land Transport Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1245] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will be supporting this bill and we do not want it to be watered down at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee in the way that other parties have proposed. The mistake that was made at the select committee was not an accident; it was the result of what happens too often with legislation in this House: that is a competition between parties—not the Greens—to see who can bash the criminals the hardest to see who can impose the longest sentences etc. and reason goes out the window as it did in the select committee consideration of this matter. However we heard from the previous speaker Peter Brown that New Zealand First had some qualms about the land transport legislation that it wrote into the report back. 
Our member on the select committee Mike Ward wrote some minority comments that indicate that we saw exactly what was coming. He said: “The Green Party strongly supports improving safety for taxi passengers and preventing unsuitable people from holding passenger endorsements. However the Green Party is concerned at the permanent and retrospective exclusions created by the new clause 29A. Under this clause someone who committed a serious offence in their teens served their time and has then led a blameless life for 20 or 30 years will lose their taxi licence with no possibility of reinstatement. The Green Party is uncomfortable with the potential for injustice especially when there is no evidence that such a blanket prohibition delivers a significant improvement in safety compared with alternatives. … The Green Party would prefer that clause 29A was qualified to allow such a person to hold a passenger endorsement where the Director is satisfied that there is no risk to public safety now or in the foreseeable future from the person concerned. This is a very high test and places heavy onus on the Director who would err on the side of caution. Failure to include even such a restrictive exemption provision means that we are elevating taxi-driving to a status well above such sensitive areas as early childhood education in terms of the standards we impose on those involved. In the Green Party’s view the main result will be to penalise a small number of individuals who have long since been rehabilitated while doing little to improve the safety of taxi passengers overall.” 
So the select committee would have known exactly if it had thought about it that what Mike Ward and the Green Party were saying was true and it has come to pass as we all know. We have all received letters from taxi-drivers and bus drivers who have been affected. I have received several. One letter that I received last night was from Dale McGhee who wanted it read out in Parliament. I will read part of it to give members an idea. “In 1965 I was 16 years old and had just left college and the girl I was with was 2 days away from her 15-year-old birthday. Consensual sex had taken place over a period of 6 months while we were together. On 27 January 1966 I was convicted at the District Court in Gisborne of having sex with a minor under 15.” 
 He went on to say that he has had no court convictions since then. “I have been happily married for 38 years with three children and two grandchildren. I am self-reliant on the income I was receiving from being an owner taxi-driver and have just purchased a new car and have pressing financial commitments to maintain. However as of 16 January 2006 I have no income coming in and have financial commitments to maintain like any other person owning their own business. I am sorely pressed financially and the stress is taking its toll on myself as well as on my marriage and family. I am in remission for cancer and have just had my clearance for the last 6 months. It has taken me 4 years to find the confidence to believe that I can beat this. I have the right to make a decent living for myself where I’m not dependent on the Government and a benefit to take care of me until I retire or otherwise.” He asked for prompt attention to address this matter for people such as him who paid their dues to the justice system back then and are now expected to pay again 40 years later for a misdemeanour that took place when fresh out of college. 
I think we have to look at that and apply what Mike Ward proposed which is in this amendment that discretion in the public interest and in the interests of public safety should be allowed by the Director of Land Transport. I think that this should apply to all offences. Of course the offence has to be taken into account which is what the bill proposes and also the time that has elapsed has to be taken into account which is in essence the other aspect of the Act that this bill is amending. For instance if it had a 10-year time period and 10 years have elapsed that should be taken into account. We do have to look at the overall situation. 
Of course we are not going to get a situation like Maurice Williamson referred to of Graham Capill coming out of jail and jumping into a taxi-driving job straight off. That is not what is envisaged by giving discretion to the director. The director can take all things into consideration. The offence could be murder; it could be anything. We have to look at it. That is the problem with the whole law and order criminal-bashing approach that goes on in this House. People can be rehabilitated. People who are guilty of any offence can be fully rehabilitated. Many are not rehabilitated of course. We have a high reoffending rate. As Mike Ward said discretion has to be exercised very conservatively and cautiously but we should not write off people. We have heard that 200 people have been affected by this. Many of those people might be good citizens. At least this bill is going some way to address the problem. 
I think the reason we made this mistake and similar mistakes in Parliament is that we have this law and order competition in the House which runs contrary to some of the things that have been said in the last few days in terms of our prison population such as how we have to focus on rehabilitation and that just having them all in jail might not be the best answer. We have to take into account things like the clean slate legislation that was passed by this Parliament which cleared the records of people who had committed minor offences more than 7 years ago. That was the good part of what this Parliament has done—trying to help people rehabilitate themselves and not penalise them for it. If we take as gospel particularly what some of the National members have said and what they will attempt to do no doubt in the select committee we are just balancing everything one way and one way only. 
Sure it may be that if it is applied to all offences now and again the Director of Land Transport in using that discretion will make a mistake and some crime might be committed by a bus driver or taxi-driver. We cannot guarantee perfection. It is the same with judges who decide on a sentence or a District Court judge who decides whether to convict. Mistakes are sometimes made; that is inherent in the justice system. We have to allow for mistakes to be made. But to penalise hundreds of people in case one mistake is made somewhere down the track as a result of exercising discretion is wrong. 
The way that MPs have responded to the publicity from many bus drivers and taxi-drivers around the country is very good and I really praise those people who have spoken out. It is often difficult if one had a court conviction many years ago. Many of one’s friends do not know about it and it is very brave of those people to come out at this stage and say they did have a conviction for carnal knowledge or whatever many years ago. 
The Green Party is very much on the side of using discretion and giving that power and authority to the Director of Land Transport. Of course Maurice Williamson cast aspersions on people in a similar job some years ago and he thought they could not be trusted to exercise discretion. But I think we do have to trust people in cases like this whether it be the Minister of Immigration exercising discretion in immigration matters ministerial discretion across a range of things or in this case the Director of Land Transport exercising discretion. We can even look at our own jobs as MPs. I am sure if we went back through the list of MPs who have sat in this House—I have not bothered to do so—we would find that many of them committed offences often serious offences but did rehabilitate themselves. 
Peter Brown 
: Make it confession time. Tell us what you have done. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: I do not have any criminal convictions and I can state that quite honestly but some of my colleagues have criminal convictions. 
Peter Brown 
: Tell us about them. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: Some have admitted them in the House. We have to look at our own role. We are in a very responsible position in making up the Parliament of this country. We do not ever have any restrictions on us in that way so I think we have to give discretion to public office holders to make those decisions. 
The Green Party will be supporting this bill in the select committee. We hope that the amendment goes through pretty much in its present form and that it is not made more restrictive.