Gosche Mark: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Gosche Mark: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1907] 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I begin by thanking all the members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee who tried to grapple with this problem in a very short space of time. We attempted to come to a consensus and the report back is as close as we could get to a consensus. But perhaps the process was not perfect and that is why we have an opportunity this afternoon and this evening in the Committee stage to look at what the committee has reported back after a couple of weeks’ work and to see whether the Committee of the whole House can improve upon the bill. 
We attempted obviously to remove some of the unintended consequences of the legislation that was passed last year. In particular we looked at the cases of people who had been convicted of an offence many many years ago—predominantly an offence whereby they may have had sex with a person under the age of 16. We read about those cases in the media and I think they touched the hearts of everybody in the House. The people in those cases may have had sex with their girlfriends at the age of 16 and their girlfriends may have been 15. Those cases have been rehearsed through the media so Parliament wanted to try to fix the problem. In doing so the select committee has come back with a fairly narrow opportunity for people in that category to seek from the Director of Land Transport the ability to apply for a P endorsement. 
The select committee unanimously added some more words to the bill so that it would be made quite clear to the director that the public interest in the safety of people was paramount. We also want to send that signal to the judges who may at some stage in the future—although we hope not—have a case where the director’s decision is appealed. It is clear that in the past the director may have turned down people for a P endorsement and then the courts may have overturned his or her decision. I state quite clearly in this debate that the entire committee’s desire is to make sure that the people who will take this legislation and make it work—the Director of Land Transport and any judge of the High Court who may adjudicate—get the clear message that if a person wants to get a P endorsement we must be absolutely sure that public safety is not put at risk. I believe that every member of the select committee and the House would agree with that statement. 
It is difficult to get the balance right in these circumstances. It is not a black or white issue. We tried to grapple with the length of sentence or the type of sentence that a person who had committed an offence under section 134 or 135 of the Crimes Act may have received because that gave us some idea of his or her age when the offence occurred. The committee indicated that if a person had not had a period of imprisonment it was because that person was likely to have been young when the offence was committed. The House in its debate on the Supplementary Order Papers that are on the Table will have to grapple with that issue because the committee did not in a short space of time come to a unanimous view. But I hope that Parliament will be able to do so in the time that this debate will take. It is quite a difficult question to grapple with but I am sure it is one that by the end of the debate we will have got right once and for all. We need to look at the Supplementary Order Papers which will take into account people who may have had some short period of imprisonment. I look forward to hearing the debate on that issue because we did debate it in the select committee for some time but as I said we did not reach a unanimous conclusion. The main point that has to be made is that the overall intention of the bill is to protect the public particularly those who use taxis or buses. To write the law in terms of restricting people from driving can be somewhat difficult as has been proven by this exercise. 
I would like to raise another issue that earlier speakers have not commented on yet. This is the question of whether those who had lost their licences as a result of the passing of the legislation and its coming into force in January this year should be given any compensation or should have their jobs reinstated. The committee looked at that issue with a degree of sympathy but felt unable to recommend those measures for good reason—there would be people in quite different circumstances who may have been self-employed versus people who may have been employed. So we are taking the word of the employers in that circumstance. They have assured us through the officials that they will treat generously employees who may end up getting their licences reinstated. We have recorded that information in the commentary on the bill as reported back and I wanted to make sure that it is also put on the record of the House in this debate. 
We have in a very short space of time tried to undo a wrong but I remind members that although Dr Mapp said a mistake was made by the select committee last time it did not actually put the appeal procedures into the law—the Committee of the whole House did so by way of a Supplementary Order Paper. It is a little unfair of Dr Mapp to blame himself and others who were on the committee at that time for something that the Committee of the whole House put in by way of a Supplementary Order Paper. By the way just to remind people every single member of the House last time voted for that bill. But I agree with Dr Mapp to a degree that we did so without the proper facts. It was not that we ignored the facts; the facts were not there to ignore. That is one of the things that I hope the officials who run the taxi and bus licensing system will take note of. It is not good enough to not know who is driving the buses and taxis in this country which is what we were confronted with at that time. 
 When we asked how many people might be affected by this law we could not be told which makes us somewhat worried. If officials have done proper police checks to get a fit and proper person test done we might expect that it would be recorded somewhere that we had allowed so many people who have this offence to drive and so many people with that offence to drive. That clearly was not the case. So if nothing else comes out of this exercise in a positive sense other than undoing some wrong perhaps we will also get some decent record-keeping of who gets to drive taxis and buses in this country and the nature of their backgrounds. So I remind members that there is still a very stiff process to be gone through for those who have lost their licence as a result of the law change. It is not an automatic right; it is a right for those people to come in and ask the director whether they meet the criteria for the director to look at their case again. 
The last thing that I would comment on—and with which we do disagree with the National Party—is if we are to allow existing drivers who have been convicted of an offence under sections 134 or 135 to drive again what is the logic of not allowing a P endorsement to a new person who might have committed that offence at the same time—30 years ago—but who has never applied to be a taxi driver? That is where logic disappears and prejudice takes over. I had thought we might be above doing that. However I hope that in the course of the debate we will be able to change the National Party’s mind on that one. The logic is quite clear: if it is OK for a person who held a P endorsement prior to January who committed an offence 30 years ago to have his licence reinstated why is the situation not the same for a guy who might have done exactly the same thing 30 years ago and now wants to apply for a P endorsement? It is logical that if one is safe to drive then so should be the other. I rest my case. 
Debate interrupted.