Moroney Sue: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Moroney Sue: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1944] 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to propose the amendments to clause 4 that are in the name of the Hon Jim Anderton on Supplementary Order Paper 14. In doing so I want to thank the parties that supported the amendments to clause 3 on that Supplementary Order Paper. I invite further support for the amendments to clause 4 so that we can complete that course of action. 
I want to remind members that the reasons these amendments need their support is that they do put public safety as a paramount issue to be addressed. They also invite and ensure a real approach of consistency—not a consistency that is made up of treating people differently depending on when they choose to enter this industry. That is not a consistent approach; it is inconsistent. For a party that proposes one law for all it is quite surprising that it is coming from those quarters. 
These amendments also ensure workability. It is very workable legislation given these amendments. They make it practical. They also ensure that the reputation and the trust of the industry is maintained and enhanced. They also answer the question of how long and for what reasons does society continue to punish people who have already been dealt with by our justice system. Yes it is the issue of double jeopardy that people have raised time and time again in this debate. 
Some of the issues that have been raised in this debate about the amendments draw our attention to the role of the Director of Land Transport under the amendments. I assure members that under these amendments the Director of Land Transport must be satisfied that allowing those individuals to hold passenger endorsements would not be contrary to the public interest and would not pose an undue risk to public safety and security. Many members on the other side of the Chamber have asked the question as to who would know the level of detail and how we would know the exact nature of the offence. That is the very point of relying on our justice system and the sentences handed down by that system. That is where those details are known. That is where those details are borne out. But those issues and those details have been fully canvassed before a judge or jury in handing down sentencing. That is one of the very reasons why these amendments make so much sense. 
It is also the details that would become known to the director. So all the details about which we can only make summations at this point and in this forum would be fully canvassed in making that decision. 
I have been to quite a number of horse auctions in my life and I have watched the parliamentary debating chamber start to resemble them at points during this debate. We have seen members opposite try to hold an auction as to how far we can go and try to gain some support for their amendments. Certainly there is a place for auctioneering but I never thought I would see it on the floor of the debating chamber. Auctioneering is done at a horse auction; it did not work here today. 
In closing I would like to invite the parties that supported the clause 3 amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 14 to complete that course of action. I propose the amendments to clause 4 on Supplementary Order Paper 14.