Heatley Phil: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Heatley Phil: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21357] 
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.