Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21340] 
Land Transport Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed from 10 May. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Let me say— 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Don’t use it. 
PETER BROWN 
: Members over there are telling me not to use the 4 minutes 30 seconds I have left to speak. But between my last contribution and this one the Government has seen fit—and it is right and proper that it has—to listen to New Zealand First and has produced a Supplementary Order Paper that will in fact ease the burden of some taxi-drivers who have in the distant past been guilty of some crime. I am told in the information the Government has sent me—and it has been very cooperative which might please Clayton Cosgrove; it has sent me quite a lot of information—that this legislation could affect 600 current taxi-drivers or people with passenger licences of which 200 will get the right of appeal. We think that is fair. I point out to Government members that if they want justice in this country and I am sure they do then it has to be embraced with fairness. 
But an area that I do not think the Government has yet taken on board in terms of this bill—and I emphasise that New Zealand First is going to support the bill—is one that we are concerned about. It is the courtesy buses that are run by clubs. The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee I recall was informed that clubs seek donations to run these buses but I have since found out that some of the major clubs in this country would not be able to provide this service on the basis of donations alone and therefore have a minimum charge. From what I can gather the clubs provide a very very good service. The courtesy buses pick up their clients at their homes charge them something like $2 or $3 and bring them to their clubs. The people enjoy their evenings in the clubs then for another $2 or $3 they are taken home. 
This bill will make that illegal because it provides only for courtesy buses run on the basis of donations. The manager of the Cosmopolitan Club in Mount Maunganui which I believe is one of the largest clubs in New Zealand told me that the service could well be in jeopardy if he is not allowed to charge a fee albeit a very modest one. I understand that many other clubs are also in the same circumstances. I spoke with the Minister of Transport on this and he asked me to get some letters from the clubs. 
In very short order I have had this amount of letters from clubs which illustrates the depth of concern. They come from all over the place. 
Obviously there is one from the Cosmopolitan Club in Mount Maunganui. I have a couple from cosmopolitan clubs. I have one from the Alexandra District Club in the South Island—the message has got around pretty well. I have other letters from Matamata from the Petone Workingmans Club the Napier Returned Services Association and the Whangarei Returned Services Association. So this is a widespread problem. If we do not allow these clubs to put on a minimal charge—if the Supplementary Order Paper does not come into being when the bill goes through the Committee stage—there is a real risk that this service will disappear or it will be run illegally. 
I can see that some Government members are listening—the Minister for Transport Safety is listening. I ask honourable members whether that is what we want. Should we not be facing reality what is happening out there in the real world? Should the laws not reflect what is happening as long as it is legal? We are turning a perfectly legal sound operating activity into an illegal activity. The argument will be that those people should get passenger licences. That is not always possible or practical. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 I apologise to the House but in my haste this morning I grabbed the wrong glasses and I am visually impaired this morning. We support this legislation. To those people who are listening to the debate this morning it may be of some comfort to know that to me this was a bill that showed how select committees and Parliament should work in terms of the way the members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee put aside political point-scoring and worked together to achieve a result that most people supported and were happy with. The bill dealt with some very serious issues too. It dealt with a number of things as the commentary sets out. The serious issue for me especially was transport service licensing. This was known as the legislation that was going to clean up the taxi industry. 
When the legislation first came to the select committee many of us did not think it was tough enough on the taxi industry in two areas. One area was the signage for taxis and the other concerned the drivers of taxis and buses who had convictions for serious offences—in particular sexual offences. There is one such case before the courts at the moment. When the bill came to the select committee it caught only those people who wanted to go into the taxi industry and who therefore would be applying for a licence. Lianne Dalziel from Labour and I in particular felt that that was not strong enough and that for the taxi industry to enjoy a good reputation overall we needed to clean out the people already in the industry who have a serious conviction. I stress here that the bar is very high. We have made the provision retrospective but the bar is still quite high. We are not prohibiting people who have a minor conviction from driving a taxi or a bus. From memory—and as I say I cannot read the bill properly at the moment but my glasses are on their way—it relates to people who have been convicted of a crime that carries a sentence of 7 years’ imprisonment as a minimum. People do not have to be sentenced to that but the offence carries that sentence. One has to be convicted of quite a serious crime to receive a sentence like that. 
It was very disappointing that the member from the Green Party felt that that was too hard that it went back too far that people could have something dragged up from their past and that people may have rehabilitated themselves and could drive a taxi again. I have nothing against rehabilitation but people who get in a taxi are entitled to know that the person driving that taxi has been cleared and that it is safe. I have heard the Taxi Proprietors Federation pulled up about this issue in interviews and the head of that federation has been asked why the federation did not clean out the industry and why it granted licences to those drivers. Of course the federation does not control that; it is not the gatekeeper. The Land Transport Safety Authority as it was then was the gatekeeper for people getting a licence to drive a taxi. From replies to written questions that I have put to the Minister I have found the Land Transport Safety Authority did not have a list of all the people granted a licence to drive a taxi who had a conviction for a sexual offence. 
Hopefully this legislation will go some way towards improving the reputation of the taxi industry. There are some very good taxi-drivers who take pride in their profession. Their reputations are being brought down all the time by people going into the industry who have no knowledge of—yes I will say it—New Zealand culture. Just because a woman who gets into a cab may have had too much to drink or may be wearing revealing clothing that does not mean she is asking to be sexually abused or sexually molested. That is not an excuse any more than we would say that a man who gets into a taxi wearing a Hugo Boss suit with a wallet bulging in his back pocket is asking to be robbed. I do not care how much women who get into taxis have had to drink. That is the reason they get a taxi—to get safely home. They do not get into a taxi to be forced to commit indecencies on the taxi-driver. 
The other issue was that of signage. The ACT party disagreed with the National Party over that. We believe that signage is a safety issue. I can understand exactly how people feel when they look along a cab rank and cannot distinguish one cab from another because in Wellington the cabs are all white and they all have yellow and black signage. If like me people only use Wellington Combined Taxis because they know those taxis are safe and reliable but they have grabbed a cab got into it and started on their way before they realise the cab does not belong to the taxi company they rely on but to another company that is passing off and trading on the good reputation of Wellington Combined Taxis by copying its signage for me that is a safety issue. Yes there is competition and commercial legislation that deals with that but as the industry owners who appeared before the select committee said to us it is very expensive and time consuming for them to take a case to the Commerce Commission under the Fair Trading Act. They may win it but so what? It is very difficult for them to enforce a decision once a taxi company has copied all the signage. So those are the two main issues that we dealt with. 
We also dealt with the issue of whether the drivers of courtesy vehicles should be subject to the same stringent barriers as apply to those who drive for remuneration or reward. The report back to the House excludes them from the legislation because they provide an important service in terms of getting people home safely from clubs or wherever they are and including them would be too difficult and punitive and would disadvantage a lot of the people who rely on courtesy vehicles to get around. However I do hope that when this legislation is passed—and it will be passed under urgency—the people who operate courtesy vehicles do not just sit back and heave a sigh of relief that they have been excluded from the legislation. As we said in the select committee we would encourage the providers of courtesy vehicles to develop in-house policies to screen their drivers. I cannot emphasise that enough. Whether they should be included in the legislation has been considered by Parliament. The providers of courtesy vehicles should be on notice that although they have been excluded from the legislation this time if they do not voluntarily set up in-house practices and codes to screen their drivers and make sure they are safe then they will run the risk of being regulated by Parliament. It is not too hard for them to do that. There are very good organisations like Safe Network in Auckland run by John McCarthy which deals with trying to rehabilitate and run programmes for recidivist sex offenders. He has been there long enough to recognise the signs of potential recidivism and he is more than happy to provide guidelines for organisations that may run courtesy vehicles for kids’ sports teams for Cubs and Brownies and for all those sorts of organisations. 
I am proud that this legislation will be passed while I am still in the House and I look forward to it having a positive effect especially on the taxi industry. 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future which will also support the Land Transport Amendment Bill. I also was able to sit at various meetings of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee as it was considering the bill under the able chairmanship of Mark Gosche. It was pleasing as other members have already said that there was unity across all the parties that the issues we were dealing with in the legislation were important. It was great to see the cooperation as the members discussed rationally issues that were sometimes fairly hot and contentious. 
One of the first things to be touched on was the provisions with regard to drink-driving—the “three strikes and you’re out” approach. First-time offenders face just the current court-imposed penalties but the legislation recognises the challenges we face with drunken drivers on the road. 
It is ironic that we want to get drunk drivers off the road and we are also dealing with the taxi industry. Taxis are often the very method used by people who have the common sense to realise that they have had a little bit too much to drink. As Deborah Coddington said that especially applies to young ladies. We are putting into place measures that mean that hopefully the taxi company will be interested only in taking them from their point of pickup to their home. Unfortunately even recently we have seen examples again on our roads where the taxi industry has failed in its choice of drivers and there has been inappropriate behaviour from some taxi-drivers. This legislation will go a long way—hopefully all the way—to rectify those problems. At one stage the select committee looked at putting a blanket ban on drivers who had serious convictions but I see the bill has been amended so that in certain cases there will be a right of appeal for those with minor convictions. I think that is fair. We have to accept that after a period of 10 years some people have definitely turned their lives round. So there will be a way that they can appeal if they have behaved well over a long period of years. 
I know that the disabilities industry welcomes the recommendation to put Braille identification in taxis for blind people. Of course as Deborah Coddington said one cannot necessarily pick up from the colours of the car which taxi company the car one is hopping into belongs to. That is even worse for blind people; they have no idea what company it is. Now all the companies will have to have Braille identification and blind people will be able to pick up which taxi company they are with the name of the driver and what the cab number is. I think that is a step forward. It is definitely a progressive step indeed. 
Another part of the legislation that has been altered is that police are now able to serve at the roadside a notice of licence suspension. I had thought they were always able to do so and was surprised to learn that they could not. Previously they had to try to catch people at home if their demerit points had got over 100; they had to find those people who had often moved flats or were not at home. But now if someone is picked up on the road for any offence—it may just be that the brake lights are not working—and the police discover that the person has exceeded 100 demerit points they will be able to serve a notice of licence suspension on the roadside and that driver will be taken off the road. 
 United Future raised the issue of excessively noisy vehicles. That is a particular problem in some of our tourism spots. For example in Larry Baldock’s area Tauranga there is a problem with people who in the later hours of night when tourists who have arrived in the country are trying to sleep use excessively noisy vehicles. It may not necessarily be the vehicle itself that is noisy; maybe the noise is from the tyres the stereo or whatever. But people are being kept awake at night and tourists are in some cases avoiding certain spots because of the noise level. I welcome discussion in the Committee stage about demerit points now being able to be issued to people who offend in such cases. 
Another point that has been discussed relates to the passenger service licence for courtesy buses. That is an interesting issue to talk through. Yes service industries use courtesy buses—we think of RSAs and those types of institutions that have courtesy vehicles that take people home or pick them up to bring them to the club for a few drinks—but it is more wide ranging than that. Sports clubs use them. There are groups that care for children after school that have courtesy vehicles to pick up children and bring them to after-school care clubs or to places where they can do their homework etc. They are providing a service. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Pick it up you’re losing the audience. 
PAUL ADAMS 
: I am sorry. Maurice Williamson is really wanting to wind everything up. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Get a bit of excitement. 
PAUL ADAMS 
: I ask Mr Williamson how we can be excited about courtesy buses. These sorts of things need to be worked through. At the moment as Deborah Coddington said such groups will be exempted. 
I also welcome the improvement—and I say to Maurice Williamson that I think it is the major one—to the logbook system. I think logbooks are essential; they have done a lot to bring safety to the industry. Now as we move into the electronic age we find that a lot of the more modern taxi companies run electronic logbooks that cannot be fiddled like a manual logbook can yet drivers have had to run the two in conjunction with each other. Now we have released the courier industry in relation to lighter vehicles from having to have a logbook. That will stop a lot of paperwork and effort. It will be interesting to see whether the industry handles that responsibly or whether we run into challenges with an industry that has been given the freedom to run without logbooks. Only time will tell. 
United Future supports this legislation and I have no doubt that my colleague Larry Baldock who is our transport spokesperson will add additional stuff as we go into the Committee stage. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is supporting this bill. It makes a lot of good amendments to the land transport regulations. The issue of taxi-drivers has come up in the debate so far and it did exercise the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. Members will note from the commentary on the bill that although the Green Party supports improved safety for taxi passengers in terms of preventing unsuitable people from holding licences that allow them to carry passengers we did criticise the permanent character of the exclusion of certain people who have committed serious offences. That view is in line with the Green Party approach that we cannot hold somebody’s transgressions against them forever. 
We are in favour of rehabilitation. That is the essence of the clean slate legislation that was initiated by my Green colleague Nandor Tanczos and then became a Government bill under the name of Phil Goff and passed through Parliament. The concept behind that legislation is that we do not punish people forever. It is true that the clean slate legislation is about less serious offences—the concept is that after 7 years a minor conviction can be scrubbed from a person’s record instead of it affecting his or her whole life. In terms of serious offences our general approach to rehabilitation is that as much as possible people should be given chances in life to really make amends contribute to society and have a fulfilling life even if they have done time for committing very serious crimes. We should not hold it against them forever. 
The Greens propose that there be a discretion to allow the Director of Land Transport to issue a passenger endorsement to someone who has committed a serious crime according to the list provided in the bill if the director is satisfied that there is no risk to public safety now or in the foreseeable future. That would be a very high test but it would mean that the offence was not held against the person forever. Not to do that would in some ways elevate taxi-driving above some other professions in which there is danger such as the sensitive area of early childhood education. We should not have a totally forever prescriptive sort of approach to the exclusion of people from that particular profession. Sure the offences listed in the bill are serious—attempt to murder conspiracy to murder wounding with intent causing grievous bodily harm aggravated wounding or injury kidnapping aggravated robbery firearms offences etc. 
It is true that there should be an exclusion for such people but the Greens are saying that years later when such people have rehabilitated themselves—and a number of people in our society who have committed murders or done very serious things have later contributed in a very effective way to our society—there has to be room for discretion. The Green Party will support giving the director a discretion in that respect. 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call in this debate and to congratulate the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on some extremely good work in bringing this bill back to the House. 
I want to comment briefly on the taxi-driver issue. A whole bunch of issues around taxi-drivers cause concern. Recently I was in Auckland to do a couple of things and I caught a cab off the rank to get back to where I was staying. As I hopped in the driver said: “This is my second day.” and I suddenly realised that I would have enormous difficulty getting anywhere much less to my destination. Indeed it proved to be that way. I had to tell the driver where I was going and I was more confused than she was. I despair at what the Parliamentary Service has to pay out in taxi chits on occasions like that. It took us an extraordinary amount of time to get from the centre of Auckland out to Mount Wellington. I shuddered—I nearly wrote out two taxi chits I was so embarrassed about the size of the amount to get back from the city. [ 
Interruption 
] I must say that that crossed my mind. 
I note that Peter Brown has made some good comments this morning about work that has been done in the interim since the commencement of this debate. I do think it is right that we take a strong line on who can and who cannot be a taxi-driver particularly in relation to violent sexual offenders. There is one cab company in this city that I simply will not use. There is a history of reasons why I will not use that cab company. It goes back a long way to a time when the company treated a rape complaint frivolously. I simply will not use that company at all. Indeed if the company I do use suggests to me that it will send a cab from another company I tell it not to bother. Even to this day I would rather walk than use a company that took a complaint of that sort frivolously. 
These are not frivolous issues and it is good to see that they are now being tidied up in this bill. It is good legislation. I am delighted to see that we have perhaps managed to sort out an issue that concerned New Zealand First. So there will be rather widespread support for this bill and I am just sorry for Maurice Williamson that his radio audience is no longer listening. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I am very happy to take a call on the Land Transport Amendment Bill on its report back from the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee because in the case of this legislation the select committee worked exceedingly well. There was pretty much broad agreement on the objectives that needed to be achieved. Obviously there was some niggling about little bits and pieces of detail and I want to get off my chest one of my niggles. This has more to do with the officials than with the Government. It relates to the fact that when the photo driver’s licence first came in I wanted it to include—and I thought that as the then Minister I should have had at least some say—a field to show when one had first obtained a licence. In my case it was when I turned 15 back in— 
Darren Hughes 
: 1945. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: No it was before the First World War as Darren Hughes will remember. I wanted to have that date on my licence and the officials said no. They told me that the licences were to comply with a European Union standard layout with the flag and the fields in certain areas and in a certain order. I remember having quite an argument about that. I was finally beaten into submission because officials always ruled the roost when I was around. [ 
Interruption 
] All right—sometimes. The officials said that we had to stick with the layout so that when one went to a European Union country or elsewhere one would be carrying a licence in a standard format. 
I am just staggered to learn that the advice to the Government has now changed. I think that is good. I am delighted that the licence is changing and I think that will be great. I have a question for the Minister for Transport Safety. When we get another licence after this legislation comes in will the new licences go back to showing the date when one obtained one’s original licence or will they show the date when one first obtained a photo driver’s licence? I do not know whether the database now records that I first got my driver’s licence in 1966. That is a really important point because I would like my licence to show the date as 1966 and that I have been driving for that length of time. 
I am pleased that the committee dealt with some quite central issues in this legislation. I am happy to say that one of those issues—I know it is of serious concern to people like Deborah Coddington and it should be of serious concern to everybody in this House—concerns the people who drive our passenger service vehicles mainly taxis. I am not so strident about the requirements for those who drive a big bus because unless it is very late at night and on a very long thin sparse route where there may be only one passenger a bus driver has a lot less ability than a taxi-driver to do dreadful things to the passengers. In a taxi there is quite often especially late at night in a lot of parts of the city a one-on-one relationship. I think the passenger has an absolute right to know that the person who holds a P endorsement and is driving the taxi meets a number of qualifications. Passengers have a right to know that the person is a good and safe driver has knowledge of the area and will not try to go from the city out to Mount Wellington via Albany—as happened to Mark Peck—and more important than any of that does not have serious past convictions. 
I am prepared to be really hard-nosed on this issue. I am happy that the committee has reported back that as one of its changes to the bill this measure will affect not only people who apply for a P licence from now on but also people who may even be in the industry right now. I am sorry if those people get upset about that. I do not actually care whether they do. Anyone who has been convicted of murder of a serious sexual offence or of a serious violent offence even if it was 20 years ago should get another job. Those people should go and drive a truck a bulldozer a carrier or a grader. I am sorry but if they have been convicted of an offence like that the taxi industry is the one industry I do not think they should be in—on a one-to-one basis with a female passenger late at night—even if they have had a clean slate for a while. That may be punitive to one or two taxi drivers who like Steve Maharey have led a life of blameless excellence for the last 20 years and would like to stay in the industry. I am sorry but if this legislation picks on two people that is bad luck. Hard cases make bad law. This legislation is the way to go. 
It is not as though we have a shortage of taxi drivers. It is not as though we are saying that if we exclude the murderers and rapists no one will be left to drive taxis—quite the opposite of that. If anything in Auckland we have a most serious abundance of people driving taxis. We have Russian brain surgeons who have come to New Zealand and are taxi drivers. I have to say to the credit of the Government that that is better than it would be if it were the other way round—Russian taxi drivers coming here and being brain surgeons. Yes it is better than that. [ 
Interruption 
] Mr Duynhoven is referring to my earlier question. The issue of the date of the licence is fixed in the bill but will the date shown be the date when one obtained one’s original licence? 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Yes. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Good there we are. The Minister for Transport Safety has earned his morning’s pay already by giving me an answer to that. I am happy to say that I do not want serious offenders of the nature of those on the list to drive taxis. I am pleased that the bill not only excludes such people from coming into the industry but also applies to those who are already in it. 
There is a lot of detail in the bill but I want to talk about just a couple more things. The first is the issue of the chain of responsibility. I am happy to see that the legislation will be amended to allow for measures whereby in let us say a trucking operation instead of pinging just the driver who may have committed an overweight offence or an unsafe driving offence— 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: It’s like Rodney. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: No no. Mr Cosgrove thinks that “overweight” applies to the driver himself personally. I am talking about the vehicle that is being driven. It is a shame that Mr Cosgrove does not keep up with these things as he should. In the past drivers would get pinged for things that they were literally squeezed into doing. 
When I was at university I used to drive for Refrigerated Freight Lines a frozen pea and frozen bean trucking company. The company told us when we came out of Napier at a certain time of the night that we had to be at the bulk frozen stores in Auckland by 7 a.m. We would say that we simply could not do that without speeding. The bosses used to say that that did not matter and that if we were caught speeding they would pay the fines. They told us that we had to just do it so we did. All the drivers broke the speed limit and I ended up being pulled over a number of times. I just gave my name the name of my company and so on and off I went. The fines were all paid. Fortunately there were no demerit points around in those days. 
Simon Power 
: Those were the days. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Those were the days. The company had to do things in that way. I kept thinking that it was a bit unfair that I was copping it. [ 
Interruption 
] There were not demerit points. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Who did that? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Demerit points came in under National. Yes I think demerit points are good; I am not arguing against them. One of the drivers—and I will not name him—racked up 18 speeding tickets within 12 months but that did not matter because Refrigerated Freight Lines picked up the tab and paid the speeding tickets and so on. 
This bill brings in what is called the chain of responsibility. It states that if a company makes a driver carry an unsafe load if a direction comes from the boss that a driver is to take a container even though it is known to be overweight or if a direction is given that a driver is to drive at a speed that exceeds the speed limit it is now possible to extend the chain of responsibility to include all appropriate transport offences where a third party has influence over the transport task. We have done that. I know that was done at the request of the Road Transport Forum. The chief executive officer of the Road Transport Forum Tony Friedlander gives our committee a lot of very very good advice. We are very lucky to have the services of those people. I look forward to dealing with some of the issues regarding this matter in the Committee stage. 
I want now to pick up on my next little niggle. I want members to think about this because it is not a big political issue and I would hope that Government members may be prepared to support a slight amendment to the bill. It is to do with the little moped Go-Ped motorised scooters. My little kids have graduated to a nice little electric scooter from the little scooter they used to stand on and use their own foot to push themselves along with. I have worked it out that the little electric motor on the scooter is 350 watts. This legislation will cover say someone who gets on one of those little scooters which little kids can flick around on in parks. We are providing in this legislation that the director of Land Transport New Zealand—and I really shudder at the thought of the power that could go to his head on this—is able to allow those vehicles to be exempt or not exempt. I suggest a more realistic level—and National members put it in our minority report—of say 600 watts which would cover nearly everything. In case anyone is interested there is a table in the bill. I will cover this issue in more detail when we get into the Committee stage on the bill. 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call in support of the second reading of the Land Transport Amendment Bill. When I read through the report I thought the members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee had done a great job on a whole range of different areas that a number of members will have had raised with them in their constituency clinics. 
A number of people have come to see me about chartered clubs like the “cossie club” the RSA and the workingmen’s club which run a courtesy vehicle normally on Friday and Saturday nights to take members home. There has been some issue—[ 
Interruption 
] Never this member! There has been some issue around whether there could be a fee for that service and whether a courtesy coach should be included as a passenger transport service. Of course if that were the case that would mean that the drivers were required to comply with a whole lot of extra regulation. I am very pleased that the select committee has provided for the exclusion of those courtesy vehicles from the passenger transport service definition provided that the service is not done on a hire or reward basis. If members of the club just make a donation for the use of the van it will be excluded from the official definition. I think that will make things a lot easier for those chartered clubs which do a lot of work in our communities and provide a very good service for their members. 
In addition to all the other very good features of the bill I particularly wanted to highlight that one because I have had representations from clubs in the Otaki electorate. I am very happy to be able to support that provision of the bill. 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 I am really glad to have the opportunity to participate in the second reading of the Land Transport Amendment Bill. I understand that the National Party is supportive of the bill. 
I challenge the self-proclaimed hard-working Minister for Transport Safety Harry Duynhoven to take into account my proposed amendments during the Committee stage that will further improve the objective of the bill. This bill’s purpose is meant to be to “promote and enhance provisions in that transport legislation relating to safe road user behaviour” and also to “improve and enhance the enforcement provisions of that transport legislation.” 
As I have previously raised in Parliament in 2003 a group of Chinese New Zealanders who were driving instructors raised a whole series of concerns with regard to other driving instructors with or without licences and their practices. I see that after 2 years one of those concerns has been taken up in this legislation. But there are other concerns that I would like to take this opportunity to raise so that we can consider amendments during the Committee stage. 
Amongst the concerns raised by those driving instructors was one about driving instructors who are allowed to teach driving in exchange for reward or money currently having to have an I endorsement licence. I am assured that this legislation includes an offence provision which was previously for some reason omitted from the Land Transport Act 1998. But the bill does not require that those I licences be displayed. So there is no way for an enforcement officer to check whether a person is entitled to teach in exchange for monetary reward. So I will move an amendment and I hope that all parties see fit to support it at the Committee stage. 
I will move another amendment relating to people who are allowed to teach in exchange for monetary reward. I would like to think they are currently New Zealand citizens or holders of permanent residence visas. I allude to the fact that overseas students can obtain an I endorsement in order to teach others to drive. I do not think that is safe. For me it is important that people who teach others in a commercial manner should at least have been resident in New Zealand for a considerable period of time. Those people should understand the road conditions and the safety measures that go with that. 
I also want to raise concerns which I have written to the Minister about in terms of the lack of monitoring of some of the outrageous advertisements that say learners can choose their own testing officer. The Minister has written to me and assured me that Land Transport New Zealand has now taken the issue seriously and will monitor those advertisements. But I hasten to point out that the  
Mandarin Times 
 a Chinese newspaper dated 10 June—last Friday—included a driving school’s advertisement that said learners could choose their own testing officer the testing route and also to have weekend testing. In response to my query the Minister stated that the special test to be carried out on weekends is meant to facilitate a group of people who seek their licence at the same time. If that is the case why are there at least eight advertisements on the same day in which every one of those driving schools or instructors offers people the option of sitting the driving test at weekends? I imagine that people want to sit it at the weekend because the traffic tends to be slightly lighter then but that is no way to improve driving safety on New Zealand roads. 
The other concern raised with me by some of the driving instructors was about the 6-month minimum requirement before the holder of a learner’s licence can convert it to a full licence. I would like the Minister later on to share with us whether there is actually discretion for a testing officer to grant dispensations for migrants in some situations. If migrants have had a long period of driving experience in their home countries and can demonstrate once they have passed the written test that they are capable drivers can they then convert a learner’s licence into a full licence? On some occasions migrants who have had sufficient driving experience find it inconvenient to have to wait 6 months. That may lead to their resorting to acquiring a licence without sitting the practical test which they are not allowed to sit. We should discuss that issue. 
All in all given that the bill’s purpose is to promote and enhance enforcement provisions I have been wondering what Land Transport New Zealand has done with regard to the latest sentencing handed out to a driver’s licence testing officer. He got only 280 hours’ community service for selling about 100 fake licences—genuine licences in one sense but fake in the sense that the people who had acquired those licences had never sat the practical driving test. I want to know whether Land Transport New Zealand is serious about enforcing safety on roads. Is the authority appealing the sentence? Is it working with the police to appeal that light sentence handed out to a driver’s licence testing officer who accepted $50 in exchange for granting a licence to people who had not sat the test? I want to know whether the Minister is serious about making sure that the people who paid to get those licences have their licences revoked. It is no laughing matter even though Labour members may find it funny. Over 100 people might be driving on our roads without properly passing the driving test— 
Jim Peters 
: Only 100? 
PANSY WONG 
: —well it could be more—endangering their own lives and other people’s lives. I challenge Labour members to stop laughing and get serious about ensuring safety on New Zealand roads. 
I am looking forward to the Minister taking a call in the Committee stage to assure New Zealanders that corrupt officers will be pursued and that Land Transport New Zealand will appeal the sentence of 280 hours of community service that was dished out to an officer who had received bribes in exchange for handing out licences to people who had not passed the driving test. 
Today we are debating the Land Transport Amendment Bill which is supposed to strengthen the enforcement capacity of Land Transport New Zealand and I want to know whether the Minister will ensure that the provisions are tough enough and whether there are the resources and the will for Land Transport New Zealand to enforce the provisions. I am looking forward to the Minister’s support for the amendments I will propose in the Committee stage and I also want an answer as to what further action the Minister will take with regard to the recent sentencing of the officer found guilty of accepting bribes to issue licences. 
Bill read a second time. 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
: I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Land Transport Amendment Bill that it take the bill part by part. 
Motion agreed to. 
In Committee 
Part 1 Preliminary provision 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 On some of the parts of this bill it will be a little bit difficult for us to get an exceedingly strong debate going on because they are pretty mundane and run of the mill. But they are worthwhile. Part 1 has only one clause—clause 3 “Purpose”. I guess that every bill has to have a purpose and if we are to stick to the very— 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: You’re having us on. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: No. Clayton Cosgrove needs to learn a lot about how legislation works and one of the things that legislation should always have is a purpose. The purpose of this bill is to “promote and enhance provisions in that transport legislation relating to safe road user behaviour and vehicle safety;”. I would doubt that there would be a member in the Chamber who did not believe that that was an ongoing quest for us and for years to come I am sure this Parliament will be looking at ways of improving them. 
One of the ways in which change will occur over the years is in the technology used to record where vehicles travel and what they do. Already in the heavy traffic fleet a number of big trucks are recorded on the Global Positioning System. I imagine that paper logbooks will one day be an anachronism and we will simply have everything on a Wi-Fi network running back to a base with Land Transport New Zealand being able to look at any one truck at any one time and with police enforcement officers being able to bring that truck up on their screens as they follow behind it etc. 
Paragraph (b) of clause 3(1) states that another aim is to “improve and enhance the enforcement provisions” of the land transport legislation. It is that provision that I am starting to get a bit nervous about. I say to members of the Government that there has been a distinct shift in the mood out there in the community with regard to enforcement. Let me talk about the commercial vehicle investigation units of the police. I think everybody who is interested in safe operations wants those bodies to work in a collaborative and cooperative way with representatives of the heavy vehicle industry to ensure that heavy vehicles operate in a safe way—just as say in the civil aviation branch people work with the industry to assist it and try to promote a safety culture. We will never actually get a safety culture if we do it only by punitive measures; we have to try to work in a collaborative and cooperative way. 
But I tell the Minister for Transport Safety today that the more and more times I go out and talk with operators of heavy vehicles around the country the more and more anger I hear being expressed. The commercial vehicle investigation units have turned into a far more punitive “ping ’em lock ’em up throw away the key deal to them” regime even on some of the trivial logbook technicality issues and they are putting unbelievably punitive fines in place. Instead of those units having the effect of as clause 3 states improving and enhancing the enforcement provisions of the transport legislation instead of their achieving the aim of safe road-user behaviour and better vehicle safety they are getting almost a negative reaction from the industry—“If that’s how we are going to be treated then we’re going to pull down the shutters ‘go to the mattresses’ ”—to use an expression from  
The Godfather 
—“and go to war with some of these things.” I do not think that is helpful. I hope the Minister takes that on board. 
At the committee the other day I raised an example of a fairly large crane operator in Tauranga Todd and Pollock Crane Hire and Haulage. I know that the owners do not mind my mentioning it; I think they are pretty responsible operators and it is a good company. One of their cranes happened to go from their location to a building site less than 5 kilometres away. The driver forgot to remove the counterweight which is supposed to travel on a separate truck and that meant that the crane was 380 kilos overweight. There was a 400-kilo fuel tank on board so if the crane had had a nearly empty fuel tank it would have been within the limits. The fine was $35000. The crane has been off the road pink-stickered for 2 months and has been unable to generate revenue. Quite properly the owners of that company are angry. Yes they know they made a mistake and yes they would be happy to pay the $800 fine for the crane being overweight because it should not have been. Yes they want to cooperate. They would rather the commercial vehicle investigation unit guys came in sat down and worked with the drivers to try to make them understand the rules. 
But I am saddened to say that this legislation does not do very much in the area of trying to promote people working together cooperatively to as clause 3(1)(b) states “improve and advance the enforcement provisions”. Well enforcement will not work unless it is the final area of use. We should ping the bad operators and the best thing which I have heard suggested many times is to get a risk rating system up and running. I know that Land Transport New Zealand applied for it in the Budget and was turned down. Treasury declined it. But let me say to the Minister that we cannot treat all the operators the same because there are some really good ones some average ones and some bad ones. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 I want to address Part 1 “Preliminary provision” and as I have said ACT supports the bill. Part 1 deals with the bill’s purpose. I want to address an interesting issue that arises. Clause 3(2)(h) states one of the purposes of this bill is: “ensuring that a person whose conduct contributes to an operator’s or driver’s failure to comply with his or her duties under this Act is held accountable for that conduct;”. That deals with the chain of responsibility in terms of breaching the law. Later on we will be looking at Part 2 in which clause 33A inserts new Part 6C into the Land Transport Act. Part 6C follows on from the offences relating mainly to logbooks truck-drivers etc. It was brought in because the people involved with this legislation believed that truck-drivers cannot be held to be solely responsible for breaching the law and that their employers were urging them to work longer hours not to take enough rest time or indeed to break the speed limit. Part 6C includes new section 79T which deals with someone who commits an offence being subject “to a fine not exceeding $25000 who by act or omission directly or indirectly causes or requires a driver to—” break the speed limit. 
What we will actually see in August will be very interesting. Will this legislation apply to cases that come to court where the speed limit has been broken and drivers have been urged to do so because they were for instance hurrying to get to a rugby match—or hurrying to get the passenger in the back of the car who was working on papers to a rugby match when that passenger actually came out later and said she would rather be reading a book anyway? Well we all know whom I am talking about. I am talking about the Prime Minister. Of course the Prime Minister will not appear as a witness in that court case. 
Phil Heatley 
: Why isn’t she? 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: Exactly—why is she not appearing? Why is the Prime Minister not appearing as a witness in that court case? With that new section being inserted and with the purpose of this bill being to bring into the legislation the chain of responsibility it raises the question of whether the law applies to everybody who knowingly or unknowingly causes someone to break the speed limit. Will that law apply to everyone or is a Prime Minister—or indeed a member of Parliament if that should come up—above the law? I think that is a very important matter to address in the debate at this Committee stage. 
As far as I am concerned I believe we did not have to have that measure in the bill because I believe that people are responsible for their own actions and should be held accountable for them. They cannot say that someone else made them break the law. Human beings have the power of free will. Unlike animals they can think for themselves. They do have choices. People cannot speed fill out their logbooks incorrectly or drive when they have already been driving too long and should have taken a rest and then say that their employers made them do it. They cannot speed and say that someone else made them do it. But if we are to hold passengers accountable under the law for causing someone to break the speed limit—and we have heard that the Prime Minister did urge the drivers on in that speeding cavalcade to break the law and to as my colleague Stephen Franks said “speed through the countryside scattering peasants by the wayside like some dictator in a Third World country”—and if we are to bring this sort of legislation into this Parliament then we have to make sure that when people are reportedly subject to that legislation and have done things that the public believe could bring them under this provision justice is not only done but is seen to be done. 
I think that that is a very interesting issue which should be looked at in the debate at this Committee stage. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 One of the interesting things to be taken from the previous speaker’s comments is that the prosecution has apparently said that it will not be calling the Prime Minister. What we have not heard is whether any of those who are defendants will be seeking to call the Prime Minister because it is certainly my understanding—and it has been noted by others—that they might find it very beneficial for their cases to do precisely that. So I suspect that we actually have not heard the end of that matter. It would certainly raise the question of what the Prime Minister said. What she did not say was whether people were acting at least in some way as a result of things that she might have said. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member needs to come back to the purpose of the bill. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: So that would be a very interesting point that will come out I might add of Part 1 which contains clause 3(2)(h) concerning the accountability of people who give instructions. So although the Chair may be saying to come back to the bill it is precisely why that issue is directly relevant. 
One of the other issues I wish to deal with is a matter that will come up in one of the other provisions which is referred to as “low-speed vehicle technology”. 
Darren Hughes 
: That’s in Part 2. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: One would think that the Government would know that surely by definition when we have clause 3 “Purpose” in Part 1 everything else in the bill has to be related to the purpose of the bill. So quite clearly anything to do with the licensing of vehicles is covered by Part 1 of the bill. In fact if it is not covered in Part 1 by definition it cannot be covered in subsequent parts because it will not be fulfilling the purpose of the bill.  
 I want the Committee to have a brief discussion mostly about vehicle technology and will raise that later on. I just want to put this question to the Minister. I do not expect him to address it now but I imagine he will later. We have given the Director of Land Transport discretion to exempt certain low-speed vehicles from the definition “motor vehicle” if they have a maximum power output between 300 and 600 watts. Most electric power - assisted bicycles are between 300 and 600 watts as opposed to being less than 300 watts. 
I have a question that I will raise with the Minister when we get to Part 2 and I will ask him to take advice from his officials. In essence what are the rules that the director will apply? It seems to me that too much discretion has been given to the director. Frankly vehicles—or power-assisted bicycles as we describe them now—with a power output between 300 and 600 watts should by and large be subject to blanket approval. It should be the exception rather than the rule that they not be approved because the whole intent of those provisions is to allow such approval. So I appreciate that the Minister will not address that matter directly now but will address it later. 
The other provisions in Part 1 relate particularly to the regulation of drivers convicted of serious criminal offences particularly those driving taxis. Having read the Supplementary Order Paper I do have some serious questions that I will be raising later about new section 29B “Passenger endorsement may be reinstated in certain cases”. It seems to me that the way that is drafted currently is too open. 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 I would have thought that the junior Labour whip would show a bit more interest in promoting road safety instead of trying to shut down the debate. I am very supportive of the objective of Part 1 which is to improve and enhance the enforcement provisions in the transport legislation. I am very interested in urging the Minister to take a call to reassure the New Zealand public that Land Transport New Zealand will exercise the provisions of the legislation. 
In my second reading speech I spoke about my concerns. Indeed many people talk to me about the slow process of investigating the conduct of other officers and driving instructors in that sector. We want to know how often an internal audit or an independent audit has been carried out. The public would not have confidence in enforcement of legislation if they perceive that Land Transport New Zealand would not take complaints seriously or if the sentence handed out to a testing officer who sold drivers licences was only 280 hours community service. That tarnishes New Zealand’s reputation as a country that does not stand for corrupt practices. 
I want to know what Land Transport New Zealand is doing in terms of working with the police or the Crown prosecutor. Are they working to review the light sentence that has been handed out? I understand that an investigation is under way in the same area about the conduct of testing officers or driving instructors. I think the Minister should take a call to reassure us after the House has spent time and resources to pass legislation that the enforcement agent will actually carry out the law and to assure parliamentarians such as myself that it is serious in enforcing this legislation. Otherwise why are we sitting here under urgency passing this legislation? Is it just to make politicians feel good? 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: The member knows that it’s not like that. 
PANSY WONG 
: The signs are good. The Minister seems to be ready to leap to his feet to assure us but I am not too sure why the Minister says he cannot. The Minister is paid to say he can instead of screaming from his seat that he cannot. I am not sure what the Minister can do. All we want is for the Minister to give us an assurance that the provisions in this Land Transport Amendment Bill will be taken seriously by Land Transport New Zealand because its past history of responding to complaints from the public has been very slow in coming forth. 
So I tell the Minister that we will be on this case. I have amendments for the Committee stage and I hope the Minister will take to them kindly. The signs are that other political parties would be supportive of my amendments which I will go into more detail during Part 2. So for me as my very learned colleague the Hon Maurice Williamson says who can argue against the purpose of promoting and enhancing road safety as well as enhancing the enforcement provisions? Surely the testing of that is in the actual implementation and the public’s perception that Land Transport New Zealand is responsive to complaints is diligent in carrying out independent audits and is perceived to be transparent and even-handed in its handling of the legislation. 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
Part 2 Amendments to principal Act 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I guess the difficulty we strike now as a Committee is that this is a piece of legislation with lots and lots of bits in it. It has been cleverly constructed by the Minister so that it has Part 1 which has one clause called “Purpose” and then we go to Part 2 and that part by my calculations has something like—let me get this right—87 clauses and a lot of detail. I want to put in a reserve bid right from the outset that this is obviously where the rubber meets the road where the hook meets the load on the crane and where we need to start getting into some of the specifics. 
As I said in my second reading speech a lot of the bill is just tidying things up. It is to cope with some offences that have not been dealt with properly in the past and it will do some log-book process tidying up. The two big ones that I am happy about before I talk about a couple of the niggles in this part are by far the prohibition of people with a conviction entering the taxi industry or the P licence holder—people who have a conviction for a murder a serious sexual offence or a serious violent offence; we would like to exclude them even if they are in the industry right now. 
I know that the Minister has put forward Supplementary Order Paper 375 but in our view it misses the mark. I think that it will grant the right for people to appeal and the right for the director of Land Transport New Zealand—and I know that a number of speakers on our side in particular Dr Mapp is more versed in the law and will pick that up—but my view is that I am prepared to be hard and fast on it. If we were desperately short of taxi drivers I would suggest that we would have to find a way to accommodate them. But I have to say that convictions for murder serious sexual offences or serious violent offences are not just ordinary things. It is not just that a person has had a couple of small burglary convictions in his past when he was a young bloke with a few tattoos and so on. They are dreadfully serious events. 
My view on those people is: “Sorry get another job. Go and drive a bus.”—because there are lots of people on a bus so the one-to-one thing is not quite the same; or more important: “Go and drive a tractor a bulldozer or a truck or get into the construction industry. It is simply not acceptable that you were convicted for that and then for you to say that it was a while ago.” The 10 years that is currently proposed in the Supplementary Order Paper is not good enough either. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: It’s not for murder. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: No the 10 years does apply to other offences that I do not accept. Therefore I have to give notice that the National Party will certainly be voting against the Supplementary Order Paper but we will support the rest of the legislation. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: You rely on that legal advice from him? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Dr Mapp is a doctor of law. I tell the member that I am happy to put him against that party’s legal brain any day of the week. 
Let us get back to things like chain of responsibility. The Minister in the chair now is different from the Minister who was here before and I shall repeat a few of the things I mentioned before about this. The chain of responsibility in this bill is a good move. For too long it had been possible for some dodgy operators at the company management and ownership end to embark on practices that were unsafe or were skirting their responsibilities for weight loads under the truck licences that operators had. Then when the poor old driver who was the very sort of person of last resort on the side of the road got caught he or she would be the one getting pinged getting the fines and the demerit points. 
The Road Transport Forum made a very good submission—Tony Friedlander’s team came along to the select committee and said they would like the chain of responsibility extended to include all appropriate transport offences where a third party has influence over the transport task. I am pleased to say that those changes look to be in the bill and look to be suitable. They cover not just things like speeding offences but weight limits load security and a range of other issues. 
When it gets down to the trivial I have an issue to discuss with the Minister and I hope he will think about letting the Government at least have a bit of leeway on one amendment I want to put up and that is to do with the little tiddlers—the Go-Peds and the mopeds. As everyone will know there is now a stunning level of little vehicles that mainly kids and some teenagers get around in. If one goes to the beach one will see them with those little devices. The problem is that under the old Transport Act most of them were considered to be a motor vehicle; people had to get a licence and a number plate pay for registration and all of that. It was truly ridiculous. 
However the attempt to exempt the more trivial of these has missed the mark. I showed the select committee some photos of my little 7-year-old twins driving an electric scooter at the beach. It is not an unsafe vehicle. It is not one likely to be involved in accidents on the road because they use it on little trailways and paths. It has a little 350-watt electric engine and unfortunately that will still get caught up in the bureaucracy of the director of Land Transport New Zealand making decisions on it and so on. 
In relation to the minority report I have to say that the National Party tried to be as cooperative as it could on this as always. As members will see in the commentary on page 9 of the report at the bottom New Zealand National believes that 600 watts would be a more realistic cut-off point. I agree that if we get into the really big powerful engines on some of the mopeds and Go-Peds—and there are now look-alike chopper bikes out there with much bigger engines—that would be foolish. But for a whole lot of the more kids’-end toys I would like to see changes. 
I look forward to taking more calls later on after other colleagues especially Dr Mapp and his legal mind on this stuff about penalties. However I do not want bad eggs driving taxis under any circumstances. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 I shall talk about two things that are of concern to me. One is Supplementary Order Paper 375 in the name of the Hon Pete Hodgson the Minister of Transport. I agree with the last speaker the Hon Maurice Williamson that the Supplementary Order Paper almost overturns all the good work we have done in terms of cleaning out the taxi industry. We actually agreed in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—the Labour members agreed to this too—that if one was out one was out. With this Supplementary Order Paper a person can apply to be reinstated by the Director of Land Transport if that person’s offence was committed more than 10 years ago and he or she has not reoffended in the 10 years leading up to the time of the application. 
Ten years is a very short time for those offences. We are dealing with a very high bar. The offences are crimes like murder or a sexual offence. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: Murder is not included. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: I am not talking about the Supplementary Order Paper at the moment. I am talking about the actual bill as it stands and what we agreed to. If a person’s licence has lapsed for 10 years as it reads here— 
Lianne Dalziel 
: You can’t include murder. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: I know that. The member should let me finish. The member should listen for a moment. Instead of getting so excited she should just settle down. In relation to the specified offences as Maurice Williamson said if it is a sexual offence and a person got only 3 years or 2 years in jail or did not even go to jail it is still a sexual offence. The passengers who hire a cab or who hire someone as a bus driver have the right to know that that person does not have a conviction for such an offence. I do not care whether it happened 15 or 20 years ago. As Maurice Williamson said people with such convictions should go and drive a bulldozer but they should not drive something where they come into contact with passengers. 
So we will not be supporting Supplementary Order Paper 375. It is actually the wrong way round. What we discussed in the select committee was that if someone with a conviction thought he or she was a fit able and proper person to be a taxi-driver but had had his or her P-class licence application turned down that person could go to the High Court for a review of that decision. This Supplementary Order Paper has turned that on its head. Instead of the burden of proof being on the applicant—the would-be driver—that person can now go to the High Court if the director turns down his or her application to be reinstated. That is not the way that we discussed it in the select committee. The provision is far too easy. We should look at the past record of the director of the then Land Transport Safety Authority. By that I mean that when I asked the former Minister of Transport Paul Swain in 2003 how many of the then current taxi drivers had convictions for sex offences I was advised by the Land Transport Safety Authority that it did not maintain a database of all taxi-drivers with criminal convictions nor had it done so in the past. What sort of a gatekeeper is that? Now we are turning the measure back on its head with the amendment to insert new section 29B on Supplementary Order Paper 375 which basically will almost take us back to the days when the authority had no clue about what was happening. 
 The other good point Maurice Williamson made was that Part 2 and the schedules make up the rest of the bill. However small parties like ACT get 10 minutes if lucky and 5 minutes if unlucky to debate this major legislation. 
I note especially new Part 6C “Offences relating to chain of responsibility”. It provides that a passenger can be held criminally liable or responsible in terms of the driver breaking the law if the passenger knew or suspected the law was being broken. I have already mentioned a court case due to come before the court in August involving a motorcade. I think five people have been charged. Two police officers who were passengers are accused of being parties to the offence. It is very difficult to understand why two police officers who were passengers are being prosecuted because it is suspected they knew the law was being broken yet the Prime Minister who heads up the highest court in the land did not know that. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I would like to continue on from where Deborah Coddington left off and to talk about new Part 6C “Offences relating to chain of responsibility”. Labour members may like to wake up or put down their newspapers and to flick through the bill. New section 79T “Offence to cause or require driver to breach speed limits maximum work time or rest time requirements” states: “Every person commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $25000 who by act or omission directly or indirectly causes or requires a driver to—(a) exceed any applicable speed limit if that—(i) person knew or should have known that the speed limit would be or would likely be exceeded; and (ii) driver is a driver to whom … applies;”. I could easily slot other words into that provision—such as “the Prime Minister … directly or indirectly causes or requires a driver to—(a) exceed any applicable speed limit if that—(i) Prime Minister knew or should have known that the speed limit would be or would likely be exceeded;”. 
I simply say that whether it is a young 17-year-old exceeding the speed limit in Clayton Cosgrove’s electorate—because he certainly does not have that issue under control—whether it is a 75-year-old exceeding the speed limit in Ponsonby or whether it is a Prime Minister exceeding the speed limit over 200 kilometres of road in the South Island the rules should remain the same. We say that no one in this country—unless the Labour members concede it is a corrupt country—should be above the law. National is asking questions in this Parliament as people are asking questions in their homes throughout the country about whether the Prime Minister should be accountable to the law just like everyone else. I am not saying she is guilty or not guilty but she should show up in court and give evidence on that matter just as every other New Zealander would young or old and South Islander or North Islander. 
New section 79T inserted by clause 33A is specifically about passengers who would encourage or at least not discourage “directly or indirectly” a driver to speed. There is shame in the Labour Party camp about the motorcade issue because the Prime Minister was in a hurry over 10 or 50 or 200 kilometres I think of road in the South Island that the motorcade screamed over in order to attend important affairs of State—I have forgotten whom the All Blacks were playing that day! The motorcade was rushing through South Island towns in order to attend important affairs of State. The Prime Minister we understand allegedly— 
Deborah Coddington 
: They were playing the Wallabies. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: The All Blacks were playing the Wallabies that day. The Prime Minister encouraged her driver to go over 140 kilometres an hour—that is our understanding of it. This bill addresses that sort of issue and I hope members on the Government side of the Chamber will take a call in defence of the Prime Minister to explain to us why she is not giving evidence in court voluntarily. Why is that the case when this bill highlights that particular matter? 
I would now like to touch on the issues that Maurice Williamson put forward to the Committee some minutes ago regarding the offence history of taxi-drivers or others who wish to drive people to various destinations around our cities or countryside. I find it appalling as does Deborah Coddington that those in the taxi industry who are supposed to be acting as “gatekeepers”—monitoring drivers—have no idea of the offences taxi-drivers may have committed before they took up the role of taxi-driver. The industry has never asked drivers about the offences they have committed or been convicted of and does not appear to care whether drivers have committed or been convicted of offences. Certainly the industry has no record of whether drivers have committed or been convicted of offences. Of course serious violent or sexual offences should be known within the companies in the taxi industry simply because no one would like to think that his or her mother grandmother daughter or sister was being taken at 12 midnight on a Saturday night around seedy parts of Auckland by such drivers. There should be restrictions on that. 
I appreciate that Supplementary Order Paper 375 in the name of the Hon Pete Hodgson specifically excludes some violent and sexual offences but other offences are not excluded. All we ask is that there be some transparency in the employment of taxi-drivers around our cities and countryside so that people are kept safe. People put tremendous trust in the people who drive them around. My understanding of criminal activities and I have heard this on a number of occasions from police specialists is that if anyone is ever approached—akiddie a woman or anybody—by someone in a motor vehicle who wants that person to get into the car and who tries to make the person do so either forcibly or otherwise the best opportunity for escape is before the person gets in the car. Once people get into a motor vehicle they are effectively captured and it is very difficult to escape. We willingly get into taxis—we pay to get into taxis—and we are in effect caught up in that taxi for as long as the driver would have us in there. If the driver is a criminal has criminal offences or has further criminal intent it is a very dangerous position to be in indeed. We challenge the Minister on his lax laws and softening of the legislation whereby we are not able to monitor or gate-keep as Deborah Coddington said those taxi-drivers and would-be taxi-drivers who have those sorts of previous convictions. 
 It is interesting to think that taxi-drivers have a 10-year time frame—that somehow it is safe for people who have not offended for 10 years to drive New Zealand women around the streets of Auckland in the dark hours of the early morning. But those people might have been in jail for the whole of those 10 years in which case they could not have offended over that time. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: That doesn’t stop them. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: That is true. Under the current prison system as we have seen throughout New Zealand people can still deal drugs while they are in the prison system they can still be involved in illicit sex while in the prison system and on it goes. But the reality is that people may not have had a conviction for the last 10 years because they have been inside the slammer. I am interested to know whether Mark Gosche will promote taxi companies driving up to prisons and saying to prisoners about to be released: “Jump aboard. You’re entering society. Here’s your job. Here’s a licence for 6 months. You go and drive the good people of Auckland around Manurewa for the next 6 months. You haven’t had any conviction in the last decade because we’ve kept you locked up. Granted you did have a sentence of 30 years and we’ve let you out in 10 but the reality is that you haven’t had an offence in the last 10 years so you’re a safe person.” 
We think that is absolutely absurd. There is enough concern in the taxi and cab industry as it is at the moment with all sorts of people from around the world driving cabs such as brain surgeons from Russia and dentists from Lithuania. All sorts of people are driving people up and down the wrong streets in Auckland Wellington and Christchurch and the last thing we need is for criminals and those who carry convictions to drive our people around as well. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 There is an old saying that “a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing” and the member who has just resumed his seat has illustrated that absolutely 100 percent. I shall explain the taxi-driving conviction clause for want of a better term. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Just take it slowly for him. Use small words. 
PETER BROWN 
: I will speak slowly and use small words because I am only a simple sailor myself. This bill puts anybody convicted of these crimes out. Those who are convicted and who have never been a taxi-driver will never get the chance—they are out totally 100 percent. This bill also puts out those people who are currently driving taxis and who in earlier years have been convicted of these offences—totally out. Those who have been convicted of murder and serious sexual offences are out 100 percent forever. But the other people are granted a right of appeal. They are to some degree granted an element of fairness. 
New Zealand First does not want those people driving taxis at all but we do not believe that we are the people who should be removing justice from those people—neither is Maurice Williamson nor Wayne Mapp. In the first instance we think that the director is in a much better position to do so and in the second instance it should be the High Court. We think that is a reasonable approach. I caution members before they embark on a wordy journey that saying that we are letting murderers rapists and goodness knows who drive our taxis with impunity will send a signal of alarm throughout the country. Those people are definitely excluded and I am glad to see that National members have suddenly recognised that. 
I want to speak briefly about courtesy coaches because this matter is of some concern. I have just spoken to the Minister and the officials on the issue. A number of clubs in this country run courtesy buses and they charge a fee. Some charge it by donation but some have a set fee. Some give guidance about what sort of donation a person should make but others charge a set fee. This bill will make the practice of charging a specific set fee illegal. In many instances clubs have told me that they will remove their courtesy coaches. But thankfully I now know after having spoken with the Minister and the officials that these provisions will not come into force for some time and therefore clubs will have time to make representations to the Government or whoever to have their case listened to. 
A number of clubs have courtesy coaches including Napier RSA Kawerau Cosmopolitan Club Stokes Valley Cosmopolitan Club Levin Cosmopolitan Club Alexandra District Club Whangarei RSA Wanganui RSA Waitomo Club Petone Working Men’s Club Onehunga Workingmen’s Club Matamata Club Wairoa Club Mount Maunganui RSA Tauranga RSA Waihi Beach Memorial RSA the Mt Maunganui Cosmopolitan Club and last but not least the Otaki Memorial RSA. The member for Otaki said that the Otaki Memorial RSA was not concerned about this legislation but it is. I have a letter written by the club to the Minister and copied to me. I am told that 350 of these clubs exist in the country and as they have 220000 voting members they are a voice to be listened to. Having spoken to the Minister and the officials I am encouraged to believe that in the fullness of time their concerns will be identified and amended. 
I emphasise that many of these clubs tell me that there is no competing taxi service at closing time and during the hours of darkness and they want the ability to charge a modest fee to drop people off at their homes. One club I spoke with reminded me very strenuously that if Parliament removes this service then it will be putting more drunks on the road. That sits very uncomfortably with New Zealand First. We want to get drunks off the road but we do not want to destroy their liberty to go to their clubs and if a courtesy service can be arranged managed and administered in a reasonable manner with a modest fee attached then New Zealand First is all for it. But after talking to the Minister and the officials I understand the complications and I respect their view. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I stand to take a brief call to respond to my colleague from New Zealand First Peter Brown to thank him for his quite careful remarks but also because it is on the record to correct him on one of his remarks if I may. The member said this legislation makes charging a fee illegal and I just want the Committee to be very clear that it already is. That is already the case. This law makes things no worse. What it does do is to provide a regulatory framework by which we can progressively make things better. As society changes as attitudes towards drink-driving tighten up as good RSAs and other service organisations around the country seek to take responsibility for their club membership and as that becomes a more and more expensive thing for them to do and therefore their desire to charge becomes greater so too must the regulation keep up. That is why the passage of this legislation matters. We can then have the development of the regulatory framework to keep it abreast of the changing needs of society. I thank the member for his remarks and correct him on just one of them. This bill does not make anything worse. It does the opposite. It lays the framework to make things progressively more flexible and more responsive to the needs of society. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I would like to take a call to address the Minister of Transport’s amendment on his Supplementary Order Paper to Part 5 of the schedule. It deals with the problem of people who operate a vehicle that creates excessive noise. I welcome the Minister’s cooperation on this and thank him for it. The amendment proposes to add 10 demerit points to that offence. 
Before I became a member of Parliament I was a member of the city council in Tauranga. At the time we had a particular problem in one of our best tourism areas along the main beach where there is a lot of high-rise apartment-style accommodation. For many years we have suffered the problem of young people coming to town in their cars and thinking it is fun to go round and round in a circle making a noise. Sometimes this happens at 2 in the morning making life miserable for both residents and visitors. In fact I quite frequently see in the newspaper letters to the editor from people who had come for a nice relaxing holiday but have gone away very disappointed. They write to the newspaper that they will never come back because their sleep was destroyed because of this nuisance. 
Early on in my term in Parliament United Future saw the opportunity to give assistance to pass the boy racer legislation so that the police have more powers to deal with this issue particularly where the drivers are doing doughnuts and other dangerous things. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Has it made a difference? 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: It has made a difference in regard to that activity but it has not addressed the issue of those who simply want to make a nuisance of themselves. People can do that regardless of whether they have a modified muffler on their car. They can use just a standard car and simply rev the engine at 2 o’clock in the morning and they will wake people up. They can use their car stereo and be a nuisance. When I spoke to police in the area about what suggestions they might have to deal with it they said they wanted to be able to take the keys off the drivers right there on the spot so that they could immobilise the vehicle for the evening—the drivers could come back the next day and get the keys—and that would be the end of the problem for that night. That would soon send a message to those causing the disturbance that it will not be tolerated. 
Unfortunately it seems that step is a little bit too draconian in some people’s minds so we have arrived at the compromise of putting on demerit points. I think that is a reasonable compromise. We will have to monitor how it goes over the next year but at least it is better than simply issuing tickets to those young people because they seem to take no regard of them at all. In fact some of them have a glovebox full of tickets. They do not pay them or else they go home and somebody else digs deep into his or her pocket and pays for those tickets which I cannot really understand. The effect is that those young people have disregard for the law. I hope this amendment to add 10 demerit points will send a very clear signal to those young people. We love young people. We think that stage of life is a great time. Sometimes young people do crazy things and sometimes they do not have regard for other people around them. We do not want to be too severe but we do want to send a message that that sort of behaviour will not be tolerated. 
Not only is it affecting the residents of the area; it is also hurting the economy because great investments have been made in providing facilities for visitors. We value tourism in New Zealand and we have increasing numbers of tourists every year. It is not a problem just in the Mount Maunganui and Tauranga area; other very popular tourism sites around the country are at risk from that kind of behaviour. I am sure that visitors from overseas go away wondering why on earth we tolerate that behaviour. So I welcome this amendment. Hopefully with the addition of 10 demerit points if people are caught once twice or three times they will realise they are very close to having their licence taken off them and they will find some other useful activity in which to engage in the wee hours of the morning particularly at the weekends which is when this kind of activity occurs. 
Of course the problem will be addressed only if the police are adequately resourced so that they can go out at night and catch those engaging in this activity. We certainly hope that as this new law comes into force the police will take the initiative to undertake some campaigns during weekends so that the message is sent very clearly early on in the piece to young people that they cannot continue that activity and drive everybody nuts. I hope the people of Tauranga and Mount Maunganui will finally get some relief and be able to have a good night’s sleep. One of the most important things we can have in life is a good night’s sleep and I hope that will be the case. 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 I have proposed two amendments to Part 2 that I would like to explain to the Committee in detail to enable members of the other political parties including the Minister in the chair the Hon Pete Hodgson to consider them. I look forward to the Minister’s comments—hopefully they will be positive. I learnt from the Hon Harry Duynhoven that in relation to individuals who teach learner-drivers for monetary consideration the offence of not having the “I” endorsement was previously omitted from legislation. Apparently that offence has been reinstated in this Land Transport Amendment Bill— and I welcome that—to make it clear that any individual who teaches learner-drivers for monetary consideration should obtain an “I” endorsement. 
But what this legislation has not taken into consideration is how we can inform the public that people who want to learn to drive properly from a licensed driving instructor are getting that service. The Minister in his letter to me said that they would advertise in newspapers etc. I think that a very smart move would be for an instructor who is properly authorised to do it for commercial purposes to display the “I” endorsement on the vehicle in which he or she teaches students just like taxis do. Nowadays when we get into a taxi we know the name of the taxi-driver which enables individuals to lodge a complaint or make inquiries. It also reminds the driving instructors that they have to have the “I” endorsement in order to carry out those commercial activities. 
My second amendment proposes that the driving instructors who can obtain the “I” endorsement should be New Zealand citizens or holders of a permanent residence visa. That is to avoid visitors or people holding student permits teaching others for commercial gain. I do not believe that teaching others to drive on New Zealand roads can be entrusted to persons who have spent a short time in New Zealand. Even though they may be experienced drivers in their home country we have our own rules. 
If we look at the United States or China we have the right-hand versus the left-hand driving habit. Also New Zealand has a unique set of road conditions particularly on the open road. So I believe that the “I” endorsement driving permit should be limited to New Zealand citizens or people who are permanent resident visa-holders. I hope the Minister can take a call to indicate whether he is in favour of those changes to enhance road safety for New Zealand society. 
I continue to bring up the theme of this legislation being about enhancing the enforcement regime. Just now my colleague Phil Heatley who is a very robust debater raised a very good question. He asked whether the Prime Minister the Rt Hon Helen Clark should be seen to be above the law. This legislation should send a stern signal and say that no matter who if legislation to enhance road safety in New Zealand is infringed that person should front up to the court to answer or defend the charges otherwise we are making a mockery of having one standard of rule for all. It would be one standard for the Prime Minister and one standard for the rest of New Zealand’s citizens which I do not think would be a desirable outcome of this legislation. The enforcement provision is one that National members want to see being properly enforced. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I wish to talk on Supplementary Order Paper 375 and to refer members to the commentary in the bill itself. There was concern about whether there ought to be some form of—and I noted this specifically—appeal provision for those who had been convicted of offences prior to the enactment of the legislation. The concern did not exist in relation to those who would be convicted post the enactment of the legislation. That relevant part of the commentary concludes: “All members of the committee recommend that further consideration be given to this matter.” 
The first point to note is that it was intended to be an appeal. That normally involves or envisages going to either the District Court or the High Court—that kind of gravity if you will. So even the process itself is intended quite specifically to be something of a deterrent. What does the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper have instead? All a person has to do is apply to the Director of Land Transport which is a relatively simple straightforward procedure thus having a low threshold. 
I note that it relates to convictions more than 10 years prior to the enactment of the legislation—at least that point was correctly noted—and secondly the person must have no convictions for offences punishable within the last 10 years. 
Let us say this legislation will come into effect on 1 July this year. Essentially it applies to anyone with offences prior to July 1995. As has been noted those offences do not include murder or serious sexual offences but they do include some very serious offences indeed. 
Phil Heatley 
: What are they? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: They include aggravated assault and a whole series of very serious offences. That is our particular concern. They include attempt to murder conspiracy to murder and—which is probably much more common—causing grievous bodily harm by injury and aggravated wounding and injury; in other words the classic “GBH” as it was known. Those are offences for which a person invariably gets a sentence of imprisonment. So they are very serious yet we are saying that such a person ought to be able to go through a relatively straightforward procedure which is to apply to the Director of Land Transport and get a passenger endorsement to drive a taxi or indeed a bus. 
We say that there are two problems. The first problem is that the process is to go to the director as opposed to for instance applying to the District Court as being an appropriate venue. That would have been a much higher threshold and the rules could have been more properly prescribed. That is the first flaw. 
The second flaw is the 10-year period. It will hardly escape the notice of members that the clean-slate legislation also has a 10-year period. Surely we would want to draw a pretty significant distinction between wiping genuinely minor offences where there have been no further offences committed in the last 10 years and these kinds of offences. A 20-year period might have been more appropriate because as Mr Heatley quite rightly pointed out in reality a large chunk of that 10 years will have been inside a jail. I am absolutely sure that the public should not have to be driven in a taxi by someone who has spent maybe 7 of the last 10 years—say 1995 to 2002—in jail. 
There are two flaws. The first flaw is the application to the director and the second flaw is the 10 years. I believe that the Government has taken excessive licence from the views of the select committee. Yes there was a problem and I was one of those who said the Government needed to look at this issue. I assumed I must say that the Government would be thinking of an appeal to a court in order to deliberately raise the threshold so it would not be easy to get. What has been done instead is that people apply to the director and then if the director turns the case down there can be an appeal to the High Court. There is a double threshold. It is quite clearly intended that the first level of application will be lower and easier. Do we truly want to say to people who have committed serious offences and who may have been in jail for 7 years that they can simply apply to the director to get a passenger endorsement? Is that what the Government is seriously saying to the public of New Zealand? Apparently it is. It says people should just write a brief letter—that will do and they will get their passenger endorsement. It does not matter whether they have thrown acid or been convicted of grievous bodily harm and things of that nature. So we cannot support this Supplementary Order Paper in the way it has been drafted. 
If there had been a different threshold—say an application to the District Court with full evidence given either way—that might have been quite a different situation. It would have been clear on the face of it that the threshold—[ 
Interruption 
] No the first application is to the director. Only if the director refuses does one then go to the High Court. It is amazing is it not? A member of the select committee who is a lawyer has apparently not even read the Supplementary Order Paper because she thinks the way to do this is to go to the High Court. I say to that member that the High Court issue arises only if the director turns the case down. I say to the Minister that I do not believe that this Supplementary Order Paper meets the kinds of circumstances that members on this side of the Chamber envisaged by the specific reference to the concept of appeal. An application to the director is simply not an appeal. It is just that—an application. That is the first issue I wanted to deal with. 
The second issue is one that was dealt with but I bring it up again. It is the rules about vehicles between 300 watts and 600 watts which are mentioned in the commentary and in clauses 4 and 68A. We say that the Government has got this one wrong. Frankly we believe that there should be general approval for vehicles—basically bicycles—up to 600 watts and then nothing further. I believe that this issue will have to be revisited by the Government. Part 2 is very long. It runs from page 7 of the bill to page 99. Virtually the entire bill is contained within that part and I hope that we will have proper opportunities to consider all the issues. 
I suggest to the Minister that the provisions in relation to the definition of “vehicle” contained in clause 4 and the further provisions clause 68A on that very question are flawed. There is an absolute exemption for vehicles under 300 watts. That is fair enough. Then the director has discretion for vehicles between 300 and 600 watts and that is inadequate 
LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 Thank you Madam Chairperson for giving me that call because I would really like the Minister Pete Hodgson to take a call to explain this Supplementary Order Paper to us. There is another flaw in addition to the two that Wayne Mapp pointed out. I too am unhappy with the Director of Land Transport having the sole power to reinstate licences to those who already have convictions. I think it should go to the High Court first. 
Secondly I would really like the Minister to explain something about reinstatement. A licence cannot be reinstated if people have been convicted of a serious offence under section 29A(2)(a) or (b)—inserted by clause 13—which relate to murder or a sexual crime punishable by 7 years’ or more imprisonment. However if we look at section 29A(2)(d) inserted by clause 13 we see that it states: “an offence committed outside New Zealand that if committed in New Zealand would constitute an offence specified in paragraphs (a) to (c).” But when I look at the Supplementary Order Paper it does not seem to me—and I am not a lawyer—to include paragraph (d). Do we have an anomaly whereby if a person is convicted of murder or a serious sexual crime outside New Zealand he or she is not subject to the same barrier as those who were convicted of it inside New Zealand? In other words could a person slip through because it was a historical conviction and therefore the person would not have to apply or is it the other way round? I do not know. That is why I am asking the Minister to explain. For me committing a serious sexual offence with say a little girl in Thailand is just as bad as committing it with a little girl in New Zealand and it should be treated exactly the same. 
I know—and we discussed it at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—that with a lot of immigrants these days especially refugees it is very difficult to find out exactly what criminal history they have or whether they have one because we are dealing with different jurisdictions. The committee talked about that. But where possible I think the same laws should apply. If we are bringing in a law that totally prohibits—no ifs no buts no right of appeal—New Zealand people convicted under New Zealand legislation of murder or a serious sexual crime from going into the taxi industry or from getting back into it then I think we should apply that same legislation to those who have been convicted of comparable crimes in another jurisdiction when we know and can find out about those crimes. Let us face it: if people have been convicted of such crimes whether or not they are taxi-drivers they should not be in this country. It is a privilege to live in New Zealand not a right—but that is another debate and not one that relates to this legislation. 
So I ask the Minister to take a call to explain this Supplementary Order Paper. It is very important. The select committee members worked together very hard to arrive at a situation we could all be happy with. We will probably have a situation whereby people can go to the Director of Land Transport and if they are turned down they can go to the High Court but let us at least have a situation whereby the same rules apply to everyone whether he or she was convicted in New Zealand or overseas. 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 Thank you Madam Chairperson for giving me the chance to raise another matter about Part 2. It relates to clause 15 and the issue of work time and logbooks. I was approached by a very nice couple in Tauranga—I am sorry to raise matters relating to Tauranga all the time but somebody in this Chamber has to raise the concerns of the good people of Tauranga. That nice couple operate a dial-a-driver business as a part-time operation. The husband works full time and the wife works part time because they see their priority as making a living that is sufficient to enable them to raise their family. They want the mother to be able to stay home in the afternoons so that she is there when the children come home from school and I think that that is laudable. They are concerned that this legislation will affect their business. I appreciate the discussion I have been able to have with the Minister and the officials to see whether the situation could be resolved but they have informed me that it is not possible in this legislation to find a way to exempt that couple. I have been informed that there is some hope because this legislation will not take effect for a year. There will be another process of submissions before the rules come into force so we may be able to find a way forward for the couple in that time. 
In this debate I simply want to put on record what the couple’s concern is so that we will remember that we need to work through this issue in the year ahead. The couple work as I said but they come home in the evening. The husband goes to bed. It is probably best for me to read from his submission to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee so that the issue will be nice and clear for everybody. The husband wrote that he arrives home shortly after 5 o’clock eats his dinner and then goes to bed for approximately 4 to 5 hours of rest. He is then ready for when at around 10.30 the couple start to get calls from people who wish to be driven home because they have had a little too much to drink. Since the overarching concern of this bill is safety I think it is important that we keep services like that operating so that people can find a way to get home if they have had too much to drink. So at around 10.30 the phone may go and the couple may begin to respond to some calls. They do not take calls after midnight during the week but on Saturday night—their busiest night—they go through until 3 in the morning. They are taking care not to overwork and make themselves too tired. They do not drive long distances when they pick people up and drive them home. They believe that they are operating in a very safe manner. 
The problem is that the legislation in establishing the 13-hour period in which a person can continue to work will affect them. It will not take into account the fact that although the husband works during the day he comes home and has several hours of very good sleep is probably as alert as anybody else and can provide the service. He wrote: “We understand the concerns regarding driver fatigue and accidents that are related to this but feel that dial-a-driver services in smaller centres do not pose a threat to our clients in this regard.” I agree with him. Just how many accidents can be attributed to safe drivers who are getting drunk clients home? There is no evidence that there is a problem. I think that someone who has worked driving for 13 hours will be far more tired than that gentleman who has worked an 8-hour day gone home had a sleep and then gone out to work again for a few hours in the night accompanied by his wife and sometimes apparently by the children who the couple say enjoy being involved as a family in the business. I think we should applaud a family that is committed to working together like that in order to provide an income so that they can meet their needs. 
The husband wrote: “It seems ridiculous to me that a man can drive a truck for 11 hours out of 13 in a day and then go out and drive as many hours as he likes in his private vehicle and there isn’t a law against that.” His comment makes pretty good sense really. He also makes the point that it is not fair to judge all people as needing the same amount of sleep each night. He wrote that many people exist quite happily on only 5 to 6 hours of sleep in a 24-hour period and I am sure that all members in this Chamber would have to agree with him. The husband wrote: “Both myself and my wife are people who do not need 8 hours every night and manage very well on the regime that we have put in place. We do not drive great distances here in Tauranga. Probably the furthest area we have transported clients home to is Te Puke which is only 26 kilometres from central Tauranga. Our driving is start-stop stuff along streets we have got to know very well and we are always careful to keep to the speed limits and take no risks.” 
I want to put on the record of Parliament that there is something that has not been resolved through this legislation. I support the legislation for trying to improve safety but we do not want to exclude the small dial-a-driver businesses which I believe exist not only in Tauranga but in other areas from operating. It is in the best interests of the safety of all of us that people who have been drinking can find a way to get home. Sometimes taxi companies will provide that service but when taxis are very busy they prefer to take one person home and not to tie up two drivers. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I want to speak about the two amendments put forward by National Party members. 
The first is in the name of Pansy Wong. It seems to me to make quite a degree of sense. She states: “Driving instructors who teach driving for hire or reward must display the I endorsement in a visible manner during driving courses.” I would have thought that was a pretty sound sort of requirement in legislation—that a driving instructor displays the endorsement in a visible manner so that when one gets in the instructor’s car one knows that he or she is the genuine article so to speak. The amendment goes on: “Driving instructors who teach driving for hire or reward with an I endorsement must be New Zealand citizens or permanent residents.” I cannot read her last words to be honest but that requirement too makes sense. Should our driving instructors not have learnt their trade in this country? 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: It seems sensible. 
PETER BROWN 
: It seems quite sensible to me and it seems to be an oversight that the legislation does not recognise this sort of thing. So I think I can say that New Zealand First will support Pansy Wong’s amendment. We believe that driving instructors should advertise who they are how they are qualified etc. and we believe that they should have learnt their trade in this country and be fully au fait with our rules. Some of our rules are slightly different from rules elsewhere. One example is the right-hand turn rule which came in 20-odd years ago; I am sure it was devised by panel beaters! I thought the Hon Mark Gosche was going to look at that rule a year or so back with a view to amending it because in some areas it causes a lot of confusion. I think it is important that driving instructors are permanent residents or New Zealand citizens. We will support that. 
The Hon Maurice Williamson has put forward another amendment that we believe has quite a lot of merit. Its purpose is to combine in relation to appendix 2 of the commentary vehicles with a power output of less than 300 watts and vehicles with a power output of between 300 watts and 600 watts. The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee has just looked at this matter pretty carefully. I thought we did a pretty darn good job on it but Maurice Williamson made some valid points a few moments ago. He pointed out that a vehicle with a power output of between 300 watts and 600 watts may be determined by the director not to be a motor vehicle. That seems to add possibly an awful lot of unnecessary bureaucracy on to the director. There is a little picture of the type of vehicle; it helps us on this side of the House immensely. 
Phil Heatley 
: Ha ha! 
PETER BROWN 
: The member laughs but it does make things very clear. They are very straightforward-looking vehicles and all the other requirements—driver requirements and vehicle requirements—have to be adhered to. So we think the Hon Maurice Williamson on this occasion has got it spot on and we will support the amendment in his name. 
On the issue just raised by Larry Baldock I wonder whether he is actually serious. Is the member suggesting that it will be compulsory for a fellow to go home after doing his 8 hours and have a 5-hour sleep? For all we know he could go and play football. We need to have some rules and regulations governing driving on a commercial basis for income. I think the bill pretty well has it right. I accept the anomaly—I myself am aware of it—that a truck-driver after driving a truck for 11 hours can then go and drive his car from here to the other end of New Zealand if he so wishes. That is a loophole that we may have to look at in the fullness of time. But when it comes to commercial driving it is only right and proper to have some restrictions. 
I think this bill goes a long way towards addressing some of the concerns and certainly the concerns around logbooks. Some drivers and company managers have told me how drivers have been fined excessively for very minor logbook offences. This bill takes care of that. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Pansy Wong to Part 2 be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause 10A: 
10ANew Section 26A inserted 
26ADisplay 
(1)driving instructors who teach driving for hire or reward must display “I” endorsement in a visible manner during driving courses. 
(2)driving instructors who teach driving for hire or reward with “I” endorsement must be New Zealand citizens or permanent resident visa holders. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 68A(2) be agreed to: 
to omit from subsection (2) of section 168A the expression “300 W” and substitute the expression “600 W”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 375 in the name of the Hon Pete Hodgson to Part 2 and the following amendments in his name to clause 85 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (3) the words “Sections 4(a) to (d) 5(6)(a) 7 8(3) and (4) 9 12 to 14 18 to 23 24(2)(a) to (c) 26(3) 29 32 to 39” and substitute the words “Sections 4 to 46”; and 
to omit subclause (4). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Schedule 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 375 in the name of the Hon Pete Hodgson to the schedule be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Amendments agreed to and schedule as amended agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I rise to speak to clauses 1 and 2 the title and commencement. The interesting part here is the commencement date itself. Under clause 2 there is a complex formula of which provisions come into force at which times. For instance the legislation as a whole comes into force on 16 January 2006 which is basically 6 months from now but certain parts of it can come into force on an earlier date. I ask the Minister of Transport why the special rules that we have now introduced relating to taxi-drivers which are covered by clause 13 have to wait until 16 January to come into force instead of coming into force at the time of the royal assent. That was the original proposal but now it seems as I read this that clause 13 will come into force on 16 January 2006. It may be that it is intended by Order in Council to bring that portion into force at a different date possibly an earlier date. I would like some assurance from the Minister that that would be the case. 
For the moment he has effectively created a loophole whereby those who have been convicted of serious offences would be able to continue driving over the following 6 months. I would have thought that on legislation of this nature when the rules on this kind of issue are being changed particularly with the very loose appeal procedure that is now being approved—well it is actually not an appeal procedure really; one just has to apply to the director and that will suffice—the public are exposed to unnecessary risk. This Parliament based on the submissions that its committee received wants to give a very clear signal that passengers in taxis in particular deserve special protection. Parliament has established what is overall apart from that review procedure a rigorous test an exemplary test even whereby persons guilty of various serious offences ought not to be able to drive taxis. But as I read the legislation that does not come into force for another 6 months and I have to ask why we would do that. Why would we allow someone convicted literally of murder or of various serious sexual offences to continue to drive over the next 6 months and potentially place people at risk? As a Parliament we are saying that that is not possible and that those people ought to have their licences removed. Presumably that means now not 6 months from now. So I want some form of explanation as to why—and maybe I have misread clause 2 because it is relatively complexly constructed—that is not the case. I would be pleased if the Minister could give a direction on it. 
Other parts of the legislation I understand have implementation processes involved in them and new rules—logbook requirements etc.—have to be developed. One would expect that to take some period of time. After all it is not simply a question of people changing patterns; they also have to complete new logbooks essentially to comply with the legislation for the future and clearly people need time to produce those logbooks and so on and so forth. This is an area in which Parliament says upon balancing public safety and the interests of the drivers public safety takes priority. I believe if we are saying that as strictly and as seriously as we are—and it is a substantial test; I recognise that—then that part of the legislation ought to come into force at the time of the royal assent or as soon as possible thereafter. I would appreciate an explanation from the Minister on that point. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 375 in the name of the Hon Pete Hodgson to clause 2 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Amendments agreed to and clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
Third Reading 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I move  
That the Land Transport Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. I thank members for their work on this bill. The examination it has been given and the amendments made have improved it considerably. The bill is a result of a series of reviews and it is intended to improve the safety and security of road users in line with the New Zealand Transport Strategy. It also remedies a number of problems in the legislative framework regarding the responsibilities of road users traffic offences and penalties and the driver-licensing system. 
Its main features and significant amendments include a requirement to surrender superseded driver licences in response to police and hospitality industry concerns that superseded learner and restricted licences are being used to assist minors to gain entry to licensed establishments. This bill contains amendments to transport operator licensing in line with the 2001 review. They aim to simplify and clarify licensing requirements and to reduce compliance costs for transport operators. 
The bill also includes measures to improve commercial driver standards through the Ministry Rules Programme. Those include enhanced accountability for taxi organisations and strengthened offence and penalty provisions. It now also requires taxi service licence holders and drivers to provide company details in Braille inside taxis. That step should enhance the security of visually impaired taxi passengers. 
The bill prohibits persons convicted of serious violent and sexual offences from being a passenger service driver. That will address the risk to public safety from having those with such convictions in a one-on-one situation with passengers. The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee extended the scope of the provision in order to cover offences committed prior to the commencement of the bill which means that the provision will apply to existing passenger service drivers with convictions for serious violent and sexual offences. 
The House has further amended the provision following concerns raised by the select committee to allow some individuals convicted of certain listed offences—but not murder or sexual offences—to apply to have their passenger endorsements reinstated in extremely limited circumstances. The circumstances apply when the conviction is more than 10 years old and when the applicant has not been convicted of an imprisonable offence in the previous 10 years. I consider that that approach appropriately balances the ability of those posing no risk to the safety of the public to maintain their passenger endorsements with the legitimate personal security concerns of the users of passenger services. 
The bill clarifies that home community support workers who occasionally give rides to their clients—to help them with shopping for example—do not require passenger service licences. It was originally intended that that matter be clarified via the forthcoming operator licensing rule. However I accept that considerable uncertainty has arisen in the home-based care sector as to whether licensing is required and so that issue should be rectified quickly. 
In addition operators of courtesy coach services have raised concerns that the bill will affect the service they provide. I can assure them that the bill does not require courtesy services to be licensed where the payment of a fare is not a condition of carriage. However there will be an opportunity in the upcoming months for organisations to comment further on the passenger licensing provisions during the development of the operator licensing rule. I will ensure that those organisations that have contacted me on that matter are kept informed about the submission process. 
Work is also under way to extend the current exemption to passenger service licensing for car-pooling arrangements to include initiatives such as the Rideshare programme currently being developed in Auckland along with other social informal or not-for-profit activities. It has never been this Government’s intention to capture those arrangements in the licensing regime; clarification would therefore be useful and I will seek to implement those exemptions by regulation as soon as practicable. 
Following consultation and a review the bill retains prescribed driving-hours and logbooks for commercial drivers. The select committee has placed key limits on the allowable hours in the primary Act. That gives due emphasis to the importance of managing fatigue within the transport industry. The bill also simplifies the driving-hours and logbook system and introduces a new simpler definition of work time. Additionally it introduces a new “chain of responsibility” offence to ensure that employers and other industry participants are held accountable if they knowingly allow or cause driving-hour breaches. It also covers offences for load security overloading and speeding where commercial vehicles are involved. Those are positive measures which by making the likes of consignees and consignors equally liable where they have knowingly contributed to an offence will help improve the safety of commercial transport services. 
The bill contains a number of common-sense amendments to remedy several defects in transport legislation. Those include empowering police to serve a notice of licence suspension at the roadside on a driver with more than 100 demerit points where the director has been unable to serve the notice. They also include ensuring that driving offences involving injury or death apply both on and off a road and updating the definition of “motor vehicle” to exclude vehicles powered by very small motors. The maximum power output for low-powered vehicles has been increased to 300 watts or higher for specified classes of vehicles such as electrical bicycles. 
During the debate on this bill the United Future party raised the issue of excessively noisy vehicles. As a consequence of discussions with them and with the Greens the bill now strengthens the sanctions and tools available to enforcement officers to deal with excessively noisy vehicles. It does that by assigning 10 demerit points for vehicle noise offences and by increasing fines. This bill contains a large number of positive changes to the legislative framework underpinning land transport safety. Not only will it improve safety and help save lives but it will also reduce unnecessary complication and business compliance costs. I commend it to the House. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 National supports this bill. We recognise as the Minister has indicated that much of it covers improvements to the existing legislation and enhancing it. I note in this third reading that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee members worked very constructively together to enhance the legislation. The rules in many parts are detailed technical and naturally intended to attract the interests of only those people who are most directly affected in the transport industry. So I note the rules around logbooks etc. and the details around the limited licence powers of traffic officers and the like. Some specific things did not get covered in earlier debates including some of the rules around goods and services vehicles—in particular the sizes of those vehicles. That area of the law has actually been made somewhat more liberal and we recognise the value of that in terms of the practicality of operating modern New Zealand businesses. 
There are of course some issues that the select committee and indeed the preceding debate have focused on—and quite properly so. The changes are substantial and rest particularly around the P1 endorsement—that is the endorsement for taxi-drivers bus drivers drivers of courtesy vehicles—and electric bikes. I want to turn to the issue of that P1 endorsement for taxi-drivers. The select committee in some respects largely on its own initiative—and I note at this point the contribution of Deborah Coddington; it was she who really raised the issue at the select committee and the committee to a person saw the importance of the issue she was raising—recommended a major change to the legislation so that people in the industry at present who have very serious convictions ought not to be allowed to hold a P1 endorsement. We felt that passengers in taxis are in a uniquely vulnerable situation particularly late at night and particularly if they are young women. So the people who are carrying those people ought to satisfy rigorous tests. 
In essence we have proposed that anyone who is henceforth convicted—or more particularly who has previously been convicted—of murder of a serious sexual offence or of other serious offences such as aggravated assault and the like should not be able to hold a licence. On further consideration we did consider that there should be a very limited appeal. The National Party believes that the Government has gone too far in essentially giving discretion on appeals to the director rather than to the court system. If the proposals put forward by the Minister had referred for instance to a District Court considering that issue they would have almost certainly received our support but we consider that giving that power to the director has softened the requirement excessively. 
The courtesy vehicle issue vexed the select committee. We have come up with some minor modifications to the existing rules. I am not sure that we ever got that one completely right and no doubt it is something that could be revisited further. 
I want to comment on the issue of electric bikes and then by extension on some of the issues that I think this country will have to look at in the future. We believe that the number of electric bikes being used is likely to increase for a whole variety of reasons. More cycleways are being constructed and by and large they have support within local communities. Almost certainly that will lead to a greater increase in the numbers of bicycles that have electrical assistance to propel them and we believe that a more liberal approach is necessary. It is quite common now for those bikes to have motors of 600 watts. That will become increasingly common in the industry and we believed a blanket exemption up to that level was appropriate. The Minister has said that the director should have the discretion to rule on exemptions for vehicles with motors of between 300 watts and 600 watts and maybe that is something that will need to be revisited further. 
I want to close on this particular point: I believe that as a nation we will have to consider more seriously the issue of vehicle emissions. I think that there is a real question as to whether we are taking a rigorous enough approach to that issue. Certainly much of the New Zealand passenger fleet consists of imported vehicles many of which were quite old at the time of being first imported. I wonder whether we will have to look more rigorously at putting an age limitation on the first importation of those vehicles plus take a more rigorous approach to the emission levels of those vehicles generally. In a whole variety of ways this country is concerned about global warming. There are different approaches to that issue. The Government’s approach is very much— 
Phil Heatley 
: Taxes. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: —taxes as my colleague has quite rightly put it. National is opposed to a carbon tax but nevertheless we recognise the seriousness of the issue. I note that last week President Bush also noted the significance of the issue. I believe that in due course the United States will become a party not to Kyoto but to a subsequent convention. Rather than taking a punitive tax approach—which is always the fond approach of the socialist; the European way if you will—the approach of the United States is to provide incentives for new technology. I guess it is an issue of whether one thinks an incentive or a tax is more appropriate. We know what the Government thinks. It thinks the tax or the punitive approach—the cost-plus mentality approach—is the right way. I believe that in time that will be shown to be an unwise decision. 
Nevertheless I think there is concern that we should have a more efficient vehicle fleet. I have only to think of the work done by the Toyota and Honda motor companies on their hybrid technology vehicles. I imagine that over the next few years the United States will be incentivising that kind of technology. President Bush has already indicated that is the pathway the United States will take and I believe that a future agreement post-Kyoto will have a much greater focus on incentives rather than on punitive taxes. The outcome of course is intended to be the same: to reduce the effect of global warming. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: This is about land transport. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I say this to the Minister who has responsibilities in this area. I believe that when this issue is reviewed further—and it will have to be—the pathway of Kyoto and of taxation will be seen essentially as a flawed approach. Nevertheless the matter will have to be dealt with and I believe that the way of the future will be technological innovation. That will be driven more through an incentivisation process than through punitive taxes. I believe that one of the things we will have to look at is the age of our vehicle fleet and the rules around the importation of motor vehicles particularly their age at the time of their first importation. It is noteworthy that Toyota and Honda have said that importing vehicles that are already 8 or 10 years old means that New Zealand misses out fundamentally on newer technology. 
If that issue was looked at more thoroughly by the Government and Crown agencies—the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority for instance should be looking at that issue more intensively—we may come up with a more rational approach to that particular issue. That is not to suggest that we would not have second-hand imports; clearly they are a feature of New Zealand’s way of life if you will and we do get substantial technological advantages as a consequence of importing them. But that does not mean to say that the alternative is essentially to have open slather on importing any vehicle no matter how old it is. So I suggest that as we look at the issues that this bill raises we see we will have to think more creatively and more imaginatively in order to deal with the issue of global warming. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I am very pleased to see this legislation finally reach this point. It is good law. It deals with some very serious issues. It makes sure that our punishments for those who drink and drive and those who speed at the upper end of the scale are much harsher so that we actually deal with the repeat offenders and with those who are going extremely fast in a less tolerant way than the law currently allows. 
We also deal with some quite small but significant issues in the bill. Some are very important particularly to those who drive for a living. We are allowing people who are currently disqualified from driving say buses to have the chance to go for a limited licence if they have not offended while driving their buses. We know that there is a shortage of truck drivers and bus drivers in this country so some of these minor changes actually help people. People might not be able to continue to drive a passenger service vehicle but they can drive a truck. At the moment they are prohibited from doing both and that does not make sense. 
Visually impaired and blind people who are great users of taxis for obvious reasons will benefit from a small but significant change. The bill will put Braille signs in taxis for their safety so they can identify who has been driving them which company etc. Surprisingly the National Party opposed the provision that has just made the law on taxi signage safer simpler and better. The National Party’s position is to make it harder and much more expensive. National members say that the taxi companies should go through the courts and use competition law to do that which shows people that they have no understanding of small businesses and the costs that apply to them. 
Changes to liability through the chain of responsibility say that one cannot design a contract that actually makes the driver break the law. One cannot overload and do the things that are being done out there at the moment and get away with it. The Road Transport Forum asked for that change and the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and the Government are very pleased to be able to deliver it. 
We have also taken some regulation away from the smaller end of the industry—the courier driver type of operations. The law is much simpler now with lower compliance costs. It is a sensible law and I support it fully. 
Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Let me first apologise to those people who have just tuned into their radio at 2 o’clock—expecting Parliament to be sitting—to hear the Rt Hon Winston Peters take on the Government again and embarrass it even further. Unfortunately that will not happen. The Government has given up the ghost. It has put the House into urgency. So the Rt Hon Winston Peters has been denied his opportunity to ask this Government some penetrating questions. 
We are debating the third reading of the Land Transport Amendment Bill and it is a bill that New Zealand First supports. That is not to say that the Government’s bill is 100 percent correct but it is pretty close. 
Darren Hughes 
: 99 percent? 
PETER BROWN 
: Maybe not 99 percent but pretty close. There are three aspects of this bill that I would like to touch on. The first is the simplified logbook regime for commercial truck-drivers. It is long awaited and long overdue. Truck-drivers are not the brains of New Zealand and in saying that I am not putting them down. They are average guys who drive trucks for a living and by and large drive them very very well. But I have seen some entries in logbooks that have allegedly resulted in drivers being charged with a crime. The one that comes to mind is a truck-driver who signed off at Wanganui one evening and said that he had off-loaded his truck at the depot at Wanganui. The following morning at 6 o’clock or half-past 6 he signed on again at the depot “loading” but he did not put “Wanganui”. Apparently he was fined in excess of $300 and suspended for a period of time. He was a family man with a couple of children and but for the goodness of his employer he would have lost quite a lot of money. That sort of regime seems ludicrous to New Zealand First. So we are very very pleased that this Land Transport Amendment Bill simplifies the logbook regime for truck-drivers. It is easier for them to fill in the details and easier for the police to identify any problems. 
This country depends on trucking. Frankly we do not have enough trucks. When the logging comes back on stream as it will in a year or so we will be in dire need of more truck-drivers; if not by the thousands certainly by the hundreds. They are the backbone of society. There is not much that we purchase from retail stores that is not delivered by truck. Indeed much of the cargo that comes and goes through our ports is handled by trucks. Some people say: “Put it on the rail.” but railways are not as flexible as trucking when it comes to small parcels of cargo. Rail is OK and is very good when moving goods from depot to depot but when it comes to small parcels and small container loads—two or three containers or two or three truckloads—trucks are in their element. 
New Zealand is a nation of small exporters as well as large exporters and trucks have a role to play. Trucking people are entitled to a straightforward regime and in our view this simplified logbook will achieve that. I only hope the commercial vehicle inspection unit of the police takes on board what is being done today and adopts a more cooperative attitude with the trucking people than it has done in the past. 
The second area of concern is the contentious issue of passenger endorsements on licences for taxi drivers and bus drivers. New Zealand First totally supports the concept that a person who is guilty of murder or other serious crimes as listed in the bill should not be driving a taxi or a bus. We absolutely support the notion that people who have that sort of past should be prohibited from driving taxis or buses. But somewhat regrettably several hundred of our taxi-drivers—if we believe the figures given to us—are guilty of some sort of heinous crime. At one point the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee simply wanted to say “out” meaning “out out” with those people. But in its wisdom the Government has listened and said that although it is not prepared to accept those people if they have an established track record of driving competently and have caused no problems to the public the bill provides the right of an appeal for some of them—not people who have been guilty of murder rape or sexual offences—but none the less those who have been guilty of some serious offences. 
The Supplementary Order Paper that accompanies this bill provides a means for reinstatement of passenger endorsement for people who have not reoffended in the last 10 years so have a clean record for that period. Some of them might well have been rehabilitated to such a degree that they own the taxicab or own the business. It would be most unfair to say that we are prohibiting them from driving forever without any right of appeal. This bill stops them from driving but it gives them the right of appeal to the Director of Land Transport or subsequently to the High Court. 
New Zealand First prides itself on being the law and order party in this Parliament. We would if we were honest want those people totally excluded from driving taxis or buses. But if we want law and order in the country we have to have justice and justice is dependent on giving everyone a fair hearing. As much as I dislike defending the right of people who are guilty of some awful crimes to have a fair hearing if we want law and order we must have justice. Those people are entitled to a hearing and a legitimate hearing at that. So New Zealand First supports the Supplementary Order Paper just as it supports the bill. 
Our third concern is courtesy vans operated by clubs. I am quite relieved after talking to the Minister and his officials and hearing the Minister’s comments in the House that the Government is taking an objective view on this issue. I am told there are 350 licensed clubs in this country with 220000 voting members. The clubs probably have other associated members who cannot vote. It is common practice for the clubs to run a courtesy bus although it is illegal for them to charge a fee. They are meant to seek donations but currently many of them charge a fee. Frankly the Parliament must face up to the reality of what is happening in the outside world. I am told by the Minister and his officials that because this bill will not come into force until January next year there is a time frame available. I was encouraged by the Minister’s comments that the Government would be listening to submissions from those clubs or people associated with those clubs in a very positive manner and that he was hopeful of addressing the concern under what he termed “operating licence rules”. I think I have that correct. This is a good bill and 90 percent correct— 
Darren Hughes 
: 99 percent— 
PETER BROWN 
: That 99 percent must be a record for this Government. So New Zealand First supports the passage of this bill. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 I want to speak briefly in the third reading of this bill. It is probably the last piece of legislation that I will see all the way through this House and I take the opportunity to thank the chairman of the select committee Mark Gosche who knew what was dear to my heart in this legislation—that is cleaning up the taxi industry by not allowing those who have convictions for serious sexual abuse crimes to hold a P endorsement on their licence and be able to drive taxis or buses. As a member of a small party who is on two select committees and spokesperson for 10 portfolios it was difficult for me to be at every single select committee meeting. The chairman went out of his way to make sure that when I was there we discussed clauses that related to those offences and I do appreciate that. As I said before it was a good—[ 
Interruption 
] If those members would just listen for a moment they would hear that there is no need for them to interject. This legislation is a good example of people working together in a select committee to achieve the required result. I think this legislation does actually make New Zealand in some small way a better place. 
We are cleaning up the taxi industry. We need to clean up the taxi industry. For a while there were a lot of calls that it needed to be totally regulated again. This legislation steers a way between those two opposites if one likes. There is no need to go back to total regulation of the taxi industry. We do not want to go back to the days when women came out of a restaurant at 11 o’clock at night and there was not a taxi in sight. The industry was so tightly controlled and so expensive to get into that there was never a taxi when one really needed one. That did not make for safe cities. There is still some merit to the argument put forward by people who have been in the taxi industry for quite a long time that perhaps we should look at devolving the control of the taxi industry back to local authorities or local communities. They have an interest in keeping a good taxi industry in their town or city because it is a reflection on the state of their town or city. They could take some pride in having a good fleet of taxis good drivers and all that sort of thing. It is more a matter of self-interest for them. This bill does not deal with that but maybe it will be dealt with in the future. 
One of the things that I am particularly pleased got through is the provision to make the ban on those with serious convictions retrospective; it will apply to those already in the industry. It is a very high bar; sexual crimes subject to a sentence of 7 years’ jail or more murder and a number of other crimes fall into that category. But we did discuss and get the officials to work out whether we could make it retrospective. We all agreed and there was cross-party support with Lianne Dalziel Lynne Pillay Maurice Williamson and myself in particular agreeing that it was just not good enough to allow these people to drive in these situations—even to drive a bus. Maurice Williamson raised the point that perhaps the case of a bus driver is not quite so bad because a lot of passengers are on board so it is harder to commit a crime. That is not the only point. I believe that people who pay for a service—and we are talking about paying passengers here—have a right to know that the person who is driving and in charge of that service is a fit and proper person. By a fit and proper person we mean that that person has not been convicted of any serious crime. It is not just about whether we give them the opportunity to commit those crimes again; it is about the safety of communities and the perception of being safe. 
That is why I agreed that we needed to look at the issue of being fair to those who have been rehabilitated—that they should have a right of appeal to the High Court when their application to renew their licence is turned down. We now have seen that come in on a Supplementary Order Paper slightly differently. Unlike the Minister I do not have a huge amount of faith in the Director of Land Transport in terms of his using his discretion to decide whether those people are fit and proper persons especially when their crimes were committed overseas. However we shall have to see. 
The thing I do take issue with is the 10-year barrier. Peter Brown thinks 10 years is enough—what if for instance the taxi-driver has been rehabilitated enough to own his or her own business? Hundreds of sex offenders and murderers own their own business. Owning one’s own business does not make one a safe person by any stretch of the imagination. Kidnapping a child is one of the crimes that under this legislation would bar a person from getting a taxi licence but under Supplementary Order Paper 375 one would have a right of appeal—one would not be barred automatically. Say a person kidnapped a 6-year-old girl was convicted for that and did his or her time and that was 10½ years ago. That little girl would now be 16½ years. She gets into a cab and sees that the man who kidnapped her 10 years ago is driving the cab. Ten years ago is nothing to that person. In that person’s life it is nothing. 
Another crime that comes under the category of appeal is attempted murder. For murder a person is automatically barred but for attempted murder a person is not. The intent is still the same; it is just that the person did not succeed. He or she did not kill the person; he or she attempted to murder the person intended to murder him or her. To me 10 years back is not enough. What if a person was the subject of a murder attempt when he or she was 40 years old and 10 years later jumps on a bus hands over the fare and sees that the driver is the person who attempted to murder him or her 10 11 12 years ago? Those people should not have such a low barrier to the right of appeal. I still think they should go back to the High Court to fight it out there. If they were genuinely rehabilitated and genuinely believed that they had a right to be in a position of trust then they would put their money where their mouth is and fork out the amount of money needed to appeal to the High Court. They would not take such an appeal lightly. I am not saying that people do not become rehabilitated; they do. But there are plenty of other jobs—and other driving jobs—that they can do. 
In closing another thing that the bill does not address but that needs to be addressed in terms of taxi-drivers is stopping Work and Income New Zealand from using taxpayers’ money to set immigrants up with cars and licences—providing translators when they sit exams and putting signs on its walls telling them that they can get jobs as taxi-drivers. As someone said recently when one comes out of the Auckland airport one could be excused for thinking one was in downtown Delhi or somewhere like that. We have more than enough taxi-drivers. We do not need to spend taxpayers’ money putting immigrants into taxis. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: So they don’t deserve a job? 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: Of course they deserve a job. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: They don’t deserve a job? 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: The Minister says they do not deserve a job. He might think they do not deserve a job. I ask him whose money is getting them into a job. It is taxpayers’ money; money is being taken off the taxpayers to get them into a job. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: So are we going to spend money on white people getting a job? 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: We only take brown immigrants do we? I thought we took immigrants from all over the world. The Minister does not want brown immigrants getting into jobs. Well that is very interesting from that Minister. 
In conclusion I am just pleased to be able to support this legislation. Although it will not be the silver bullet for the taxi industry or the transport industry it goes a long way and the ACT party will be voting for it. 
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: 
 I endorse the comments of Deborah Coddington about the cooperative nature of the process. In fact it is interesting to hear the sort of barracking across the House. The select committee was much more peaceful than that. We support the Land Transport Amendment Bill. It contains a range of common-sense measures and is the outcome of numerous submissions and substantial consultation and deliberation. However the Greens felt obliged to include a minority report on the bill. It reported back over the decision of the committee to make passenger licence “fit and proper person” provisions retrospective without minimum sentence or appeal provisions. As originally written the bill made provision for the opportunity to exempt individuals sentenced to less than 2 years in prison and it was not proposed that the provisions be retrospective. 
 Because of several well-publicised incidents of individuals with serious convictions gaining a P endorsement on a licence and subsequently committing an offence against a passenger the committee decided the provisions should be retrospective. The committee considered the possibility of appeal but apart from myself and latterly Peter Brown it was not satisfied that the conditions for appeal as presented by the officials were sufficiently robust to protect passengers from the possibility of finding themselves in a taxicab with a rapist or murderer. So rather than run the risk of letting anyone through it was decided to remove the possibility by removing all. 
Deborah Coddington asked whether the time period of 10 years without conviction was long enough if for example the person’s last conviction was more than 10 years ago. She wondered about people who had been convicted of kidnapping or rape but we must remember that in addition to the 10-year requirement the director has to be convinced the person is unlikely to offend again. I would have thought that a person convicted of a serious sexual offence or kidnapping would be unlikely to pass the barrier. I agree with the intent of the provision and since the “fit and proper person” test may not on occasions have been applied robustly enough in the past there may be a case for re-examining drivers with previous serious convictions. However the prospect of depriving persons of their livelihood long after conviction and quite possibly for an offence at the minor end of the scale and removing the minimum sentence provisions for an offence for which the person has already been punished and which the community may well have known about and forgiven long-ago is in my opinion unfair and would likely result in a serious injustice without any improvement in passenger safety. The Greens are pleased that the Supplementary Order Paper reinstates the minimum sentences and provides for a right of appeal. 
I have a query about new section 29B(1) inserted by clause 13: “A person whose passenger endorsement is deemed to be expired and of no effect under section 29A(1A) may apply to the Director to have that passenger endorsement reinstated if—(a) the person has not been convicted of an offence specified in section …;”. Then follows the word “and” and I wonder whether it should be “or”. Because paragraph (b) states: “the person’s last conviction for a specified serious offence occurred more than 10 years before the commencement of this section; and”. It seems to me it should be “or”. Perhaps I have read it wrongly but people might want to think about that. 
When I drew attention to the matter originally one party put out a press release saying the Greens were soft on crime and wanted rapists and murderers to be driving taxis. Of course that is nonsense. People convicted of serious offences should not be driving taxis but this provision is for those at the lower end of offending. The Supplementary Order Paper provides that the director may reinstate a passenger endorsement if he or she is convinced that the applicant poses no risk to the community. 
The point was made that even schoolteachers and early childhood workers are not subject to such conditions. It is not difficult to imagine an incensed public dumping on Parliament at the prospect of losing their taxi-driver perhaps the only taxi-driver in a small rural community because of a 30-year-old scrap an only offence by that person committed in his or her youth. That is the kind of situation that no doubt some members in the House might have found themselves in had they not been lucky. I can think of times in the past when I have been beaten up by people and not inflicted any great injury on anybody but it is possible that I could have found myself in such a situation. 
I know that most members of the committee shared my concerns about the possibility of an injustice and were motivated by a concern for the safety of passengers. I hope they are satisfied that the amendments made will not endanger passengers. 
I wish to speak briefly about the provision for licensing small motorised personal transport devices—namely mopeds scooters skateboards recumbents etc. The rationale for exempting these vehicles is that if the motor is such that they pose no more threat than someone on a bicycle then what justification can there be for treating them differently? The bill has a little wriggle-room to provide the director with the opportunity to consider new and innovative devices that might pose a minimal risk for inclusion in the list of devices not requiring licensing. I think that is an interesting aspect and with the need for more innovative means of transport it opens up the opportunity for some of those more innovative means of transport. The Greens will be supporting the bill. 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 United Future is also supporting the bill. I think one of its strongest points is the restrictions on the taxi industry. I want to pick up on what Deborah Coddington was saying about offenders. I was thinking about that over the lunch break and definitely there are certain areas of transgression that prevent people from having a second chance and being in the situation of being a taxi-driver—such as sexual sins. When we think about the 10-year time period in respect of past convictions we do not know what might trigger somebody in a certain situation. We are talking about the taxi industry about the one-on-one situation between a taxi-driver and a female or male passenger. Therefore the amendment is a welcome addition to enable people to feel safe when travelling in taxis. 
I sat on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for part of the process and it was great to see the various parties in Parliament working well together on this legislation. It was refreshing and Mark Gosche did a tremendous job of chairing the committee and picking up on everybody’s viewpoint. 
I want to touch on the amendment that United Future has had put in the bill with regard to noisy vehicles. We had actually pushed for the ability to have a noisy vehicle immobilised. The noise is made in the late hours of the night and causes a nuisance. It is a problem throughout most of the major cities in the country. However noise in itself is an interesting scenario. In transport one of the things that has concerned me is that we have regulations that car exhaust systems must be no noisier than they were when originally manufactured. That requirement is causing major challenges to the secondary exhaust market. I fail to see how we can have a requirement that an exhaust be no noisier than when it was originally manufactured. Surely we must have the simplicity of putting in a maximum decibel level that an exhaust noise can be. My suggestion would be 100 decibels. To give members some idea of what 100 decibels is I tell them that a Stagecoach bus accelerating away from traffic lights reaches 123 decibels. I myself have checked it with a meter and 100 decibels is not an unreasonable amount. 
There are two types of citizens when it comes to noise. Firstly there are people I refer to as “CAVE” people—“Citizens Against Virtually Everything”—and secondly there are the enthusiasts like myself who just want a nice crisp-sounding exhaust note on their motor vehicle. “CAVE” people are the sort who live around the Western Springs Stadium in Auckland. They move into an area that has the magnificent sound of speedway racing which has been going on there for decades and then they begin to complain about the noise. 
Getting back to the amendment that United Future wanted I think it is of serious concern especially to the tourism industry when people in cars cause undue noise at night-time in resorts such as Tauranga and keep people awake. We need to look seriously at how we will address the problem in that area but I say let us not go overboard and take that nice crisp exhaust note off all cars. 
I am also pleased to see that the issue of a P licence—for passenger servicing—for drivers of courtesy vehicles has been looked at. We have to face up to the fact—and provide for it in legislation—that certain service industries are doing road safety a favour in driving people home. Sometimes it becomes a fine balance in the law as to what we are going to do about that. 
But overall the bill is good legislation. I believe that it will go a long way to cleaning up a lot of areas. We welcome the changes to the logbook requirements. We think that is a step in the right direction. We acknowledge that more and more of this type of tracking will be done electronically and that is great. Probably there will not be a problem with speeding trucks in the long term because all of them will be tracked by the Global Positioning System and the police will be able to see what speeds they are travelling at in various sectors. In the end that will bring greater road safety which I think everybody here is looking forward to. So United Future is happy to support the legislation. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I take this opportunity to take a short call in support of the bill and also to acknowledge the comments made by previous speakers. I was a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and quite agree with Paul Adams that Mark Gosche did a great job chairing that committee. We made some very progressive decisions to make this bill very sensible and workable in order to improve safety and security for all road users in New Zealand. I also acknowledge the people who made a submission on courtesy vehicles. We were able to make some really common-sense decisions about the use of courtesy vehicles making sure that the good work being done in that area is not impeded but that safety is ensured. I will not take any more time. I am proud of this bill and I commend it to the House. 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 I notice from the timetable that this bill’s passage through the House is being completed on almost the anniversary date of its introduction to Parliament. The bill was introduced in June 2004 so on the anniversary date of its introduction it is quite pleasing to see parties on all sides of the House supporting it. 
I want to raise an issue that I think the National Party and ACT also raised in terms of whether individuals who have committed serious sexual and other offences in the past can after a 10-year period without further conviction be a taxi-driver. We are hopeful that the rigid enforcement of this provision will see a real improvement. I notice that in the last few years particularly since the promotional campaign against drink-driving has been run the use of taxis has hugely increased especially at weekends. Security in terms of the type of individual who is allowed to drive taxis is therefore important. 
However from a personal point of view I am disappointed that Labour and United Future did not see fit to support the two amendments I proposed during the Committee stage. I took one issue just to demonstrate how difficult it was and how slow it can be at times to introduce measures to improve safety on roads. For example I learnt that the 1999 Land Transport (Drivers Licensing) Rule requires that a driving instructor who teaches driving for reward hold the I—driving instructor—endorsement licence. The rule also requires the instructor to have the appropriate class of licence for the vehicle that the learner is being taught to drive. That is all very well but unfortunately the offence provision for providing unlicensed driving instruction for reward was omitted from the Land Transport Act 1998. That has been picked up only in this current legislation. For an offence to be omitted for 7 years before it can be put right has saddened me. 
I am also saddened that those two parties did not see fit to accept the two amendments I proposed that would strengthen safety provisions. Currently individuals who give lessons for monetary reward have to hold an I endorsement licence yet the public has no transparent or quick way to learn whether they do; neither is an enforcement agent able to verify readily whether driving instructors do hold an I endorsement licence. My amendment was simply that it should be displayed in the vehicle when driving lessons are being conducted. When we think about it we require taxi-drivers to display their names and identification as a reference point for concerned enforcement agents passengers or in this case students. I was very disappointed that Labour and United Future did not see fit to incorporate that amendment. I hate to think it will take another 7 years for a sensible amendment like that to be accepted. 
I also proposed a further amendment that driving instructors who teach for monetary reward should be limited to New Zealand citizens or permanent resident visa holders. If we are concerned about safety on roads then I think that the people who are qualified to teach for monetary gain should at least be very familiar with New Zealand road conditions and New Zealanders’ driving habits and with legislation and regulations surrounding that. So I was extremely disappointed once again that Labour and United Future did not see fit to endorse that amendment. Just now in the courts a driver’s-licence testing officer has been handed down a sentence of 280 hours’ community service for selling licences to individuals who did not seek to be tested and another driving instructor who offered to sell licences is now facing sentence. 
I am watching with interest to see whether there is one standard of law in New Zealand. I expressed concern that the sentence of 280 hours of community service did not send people a serious enough message about not accepting bribes. I think it is very sad that in New Zealand where we pride ourselves on not tolerating corruption or bribery the sentence does not in my mind reflect the serious nature of the offence. After all these individuals did not pass driving tests and are allowed to drive on New Zealand roads. They are endangering not just their own lives but also those of pedestrians and other drivers on the roads. 
So I hope Land Transport New Zealand will take this issue seriously because history shows that it does not respond effectively and efficiently to complaints about driving instructors. Proper investigation seems to be very slow in coming and there is a reluctance to take action. This morning in my second reading speech I read out the advertisements of driving schools or of individual driving instructors which offer individuals a choice of testing officer a choice of sitting the test on weekends and a choice of the route of their test. I have been assured by the Minister for Transport Safety the Hon Harry Duynhoven that Land Transport New Zealand is undertaking to monitor these types of advertisements. However these advertisements continue to appear in newspapers. The ones I quoted are dated 10 June which is last Friday. 
 Overseas students shared their astonishment at this. They said that in their home countries blatantly fraudulent advertisements like that are not allowed in newspapers and that they are more likely to be displayed on lamp posts etc. I urge the Minister to monitor Land Transport New Zealand to ensure that these types of complaints are taken seriously. I think that in New Zealand we should not tolerate publications that contain advertisements of a fraudulent nature as they indicate that bribery and corruption are taking place. 
Although National supports this legislation I am extremely disappointed that Labour and United Future have not endorsed the two amendments I proposed. I can only live in hope that Land Transport New Zealand will start to take those complaints seriously. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 I rise to support the Land Transport Amendment Bill and to say that it is excellent legislation whose introduction was also supported by United Future the Greens and of course our coalition partner the Progressive Party. The bill enhances the safety aspects of transport legislation. It improves the law concerning the responsibility of road users. It is tough on serious offences particularly those in relation to alcohol and speed. It enhances the power to take effective action against repeat drunk-drivers. It also offers security to the travelling public in that those people who have convictions for serious violent and sexual offences will be prohibited from being a taxi-driver. This is good legislation and I am pleased to see that it has the almost unanimous support of the House. 
Bill read a third time.