Bennett David: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Bennett David: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1921] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 It gives me great pleasure to follow our esteemed colleague Wayne Mapp in talking about the title of the Land Transport Amendment Bill. We find that this title has a number of problems. The biggest problem is that a Land Transport Amendment Bill was passed in 2005. It is very difficult for a novice to find this legislation. For example we can go to the Land Transport Act 1998—get the book—but where is the 2005 amendment? We have to go right to the back of the book. Are we to have another Land Transport Amendment Bill of 2006? This really highlights that this title is not appropriate for what we need. We need a much better title to reflect this situation. 
What then can we call the bill? We could try the “Land Transport P Endorsement Bill” but I think P is not quite the word that we should be using at this time. It has a connotation that can be applied to criminal justice elements so I do not think P is quite right. Would we want the “Land Transport Passenger Endorsement Bill”? That could be quite effective. It could be the “LTPE Bill” which would be another start and could be something different as well. Then there could be the “Land Transport Passenger E Bill”. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: What does “E” stand for? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: “E” meaning endorsement. We could try that. Then we could look at something quite different—at the “LTA Passenger Endorsement Bill”. We could look at the “Land Transport Amendment Passenger Endorsement Bill” or just the “Land Transport Bill”. We could have something like the “Passenger Endorsement Bill” or just the “Endorsement Bill”. 
We need something that tells us what is going on today. We cannot quite work out what is going on today. If we look at the Land Transport Amendment Bill that was passed in 2005 for example and at what some people said about it and if we look at the Land Transport Amendment Bill 2006 we see that there are quite contrary arguments—especially from New Zealand First Labour and a number of the other parties—that have moved away from the initial intention of that Act. So we cannot call it the “Land Transport Amendment Bill 2006” because people are now talking about quite a different set of circumstances. 
People have moved on so the bill’s name needs to move to reflect that change in attitude and approach. We need to find something that is more reflective of what people want and what they are saying. We cannot see that under the Land Transport Amendment Bill 2006. There could be another possibility. We could be doing the “Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 2) 2007” if we followed the approach of the Labour - New Zealand First Government because it is looking at drawing another line in the sand. What will happen next year if we find that that line is wrong and a lot of people come to the press in the Christmas holidays next year? We will have to do it again. So we will have the “Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 2) 2007” and we will continue showing that we cannot have lines drawn in the sand just in grey areas. 
We need conclusive legislation that puts a formula for the way forward and the amendments on the Supplementary Order Paper achieve that. We need a new bill with a new name to reflect a new vision. That vision will be based on what people looked at last year in the Land Transport Amendment Bill 2005 and rightly passed. It is a vision that has a stricter approach to this issue than we are encountering at this stage of the game. 
It is my pleasure to debate the issue of the name for this legislation and I look forward to the options being considered in full by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee later this year when we have to reconsider the Land Transport Amendment Bill 2006. We will find that the grey areas that have been put in by Labour and New Zealand First do not work and we will have to reconsider the name yet again. 
Clause 1 agreed to.