Mapp Wayne: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Mapp Wayne: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21362] 
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