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:1952] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 It feels like there is more love in this Chamber than in a Green Party conference! I would like to thank the Hon Mark Gosche. It has been a pleasure to work with him in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and it has been a pleasure to debate the issue tonight. National came into the debate with a very firm and fixed approach. We believe that the bill is really an attempt to balance two competing interests. The first is the need for justice for existing drivers in retrospective cases. They need to be treated fairly. Nobody perceived that the legislation passed in the House last year would have had the effect that it did. Those drivers were innocent people going about their business who were caught out. Nobody has a problem with trying to find a solution that assists those people. That is fair it is what the public wanted and it is what the Government should deliver. Both parties have represented that interest well and have shown the ability to make the right decision for the right circumstance. 
The other competing interest—the one we have tried to stress throughout the debate—is that of the spirit of the amendment bill of 2005. The spirit of that amendment bill was one of creating a system that provided for the protection of passengers and for the protection of the industry. It is not just about the passengers. The taxi industry and the bus industry need to know that their drivers are protected and have the support of the public. That is the only way those industries can operate. I gave the example of a Hamilton firm that lost that support because of a rape case that took place just before Christmas. That firm went under. Hundreds of drivers in that company lost their jobs when that happened. That is the kind of situation we need to avoid by having a stringent control on the rules and regulations in regard to driver endorsement. 
That was the spirit of the 2005 legislation. The members of the House who were there at that time should not forget the reasons that that legislation was passed. It was not a situation like the present one in which cases have come before members and people have felt aggrieved by legislation. It was a case where members were looking at public safety—those strong emotive issues that people like Deborah Coddington promoted in the House. People like Lianne Dalziel also promoted this issue. 
I quote Lianne Dalziel from  
Hansard 
 on 10 May 2005: “We made the point that this is not only about passenger safety—it is about public confidence in the passenger service industry. Everyone is entitled to know that he or she is not getting into a taxi whose driver is a murderer or a rapist. Nothing will change that.” Those were the words that Lianne Dalziel used last year. What has changed that? Two months of public opinion when there have been very few stories in the newspapers have changed that. There is nothing wrong with changing a bill when one gets it wrong. But there is something wrong with changing a bill for the sake of changing it and taking away the initial intent that was right. That is what National has been fighting for tonight. 
We put forward an amendment tonight on a Supplementary Order Paper that would have created a category for new and a category for existing drivers. That amendment would have satisfied public opinion and the needs of our constituents. For the new drivers we could have satisfied the rights of justice and fairness and had the emotive arguments that we need to have in this Parliament. That is what we were looking for tonight and we have been disappointed that Labour and New Zealand First have shifted their positions. I have been very disappointed in New Zealand First; it has put its roots in the ground with the Government over the last 3 weeks and it showed that tonight. This is the New Zealand First - Labour Government and it has made it quite clear that it is willing to work away from a principle just to look for votes. 
Has Labour been polling this or did it actually do this on purpose? This is a case where justice for New Zealanders has been sacrificed for the political expediency of two political parties. This is a case where consistency between bills passed has not been followed from one year to another. One year ago it was good enough for everyone in this House to stand up and say how great they were when they were out there protecting the rights of innocent people. But within a year they had changed that opinion and now they are saying how great they are and that they have looked after people in their time of need. Well what about the spirit of that imaginative legislation? That is what we should be debating in this House. That is what we came here for: to show the spirit to the people that we are there to deliver for all people—the people who get caught and the people who will be using those services. That is what being in Government is about and that is what we want to see delivered.