Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1910] 
Land Transport Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 The Land Transport Amendment Bill is an attempt to meet the needs of the community while at the same time being a signal to all New Zealanders of the standard of conduct expected from people in positions of such trust. 
In reviewing this bill some situations need to be considered. In Hamilton before Christmas we had an example where a local female student was raped on a taxi ride home after a night out. The driver was never arrested. However the description of the driver led to major innuendo regarding one of the taxi firms in the city. The taxi firm in question had a large number of migrants as drivers. With the public concerns over safety that taxi firm found it had a major drop-off in business. Simply speaking people were afraid to use the taxis from that firm. Needless to say the firm soon folded and it is no longer in business in Hamilton. 
A second example is that of the local taxi driver who drove me to Parliament on Tuesday morning. We discussed what drivers think of their industry and the legislation that governs their activities. Jignesh has been driving for over a year and has a good understanding of the rules that govern his industry. He was adamant that anyone who has the position of trust that a taxi driver has should not have such a criminal record. He was proud of his history of having a clean slate. That pride in his own history is a measure of the high standard of care he expects from other taxi drivers. He believed that drivers with criminal convictions should not be granted an endorsement. 
Those examples illustrate public opinion. New Zealanders place great trust in their taxi and bus drivers and as a result passengers expect certain levels of conduct. The criminal history of the driver is a relevant factor for passengers. 
A third example is that of the well-documented cases of drivers who have had convictions many years ago for certain offences and who have now been denied an endorsement. Those drivers have been unable to undertake their normal business and employment opportunities since the passing of the 2005 amendment Act. The two most widely discussed cases are first the one of the Dunedin driver who lost his licence because 34 years ago at the age of 16 he slept with his 15-year-old girlfriend 2 days short of her 16th birthday. The second case is that of a Kaiapoi driver. It is important to note that many of the cases in the public arena have involved sexual relationship convictions. The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee was advised that such convictions are very rare these days so going forward there will be substantially fewer people in that situation. 
The examples I have given show the two key elements that the legislation needs to achieve. First a group of drivers has been caught out by the reforms of late 2005. Those drivers have gained public prominence and support for their case. Many constituents have expressed their desire for leniency for those drivers. New Zealanders agreed with the policy of the 2005 amendment Act but they also wanted there to be a degree of discretion for those who were caught out in their current employment or business positions. Second the public and drivers in particular have a general perception that certain levels of trust are placed in drivers and therefore certain standards are to be expected. The generally accepted standard as enacted last year is for all drivers to fulfil strict criteria. This bill fails to achieve the second of those fundamental concepts. 
In June last year members of the Government passed the restrictive legislation. The arguments of public safety and passenger rights were given prominence. But as a result of public opinion on certain cases there has been a major rethink in policy. The 2005 amendment Act was intended to show a signal to drivers as to the standard of conduct required. If a driver wants to undertake that career he or she needs to meet the standards of the industry. That is the only way we can retain trust in the industry. It is appropriate to make some change to the 2005 amendment Act but let us not go so far to the other extreme that the original intention of that amendment is lost. We need to incorporate the concerns of existing drivers but we should not remove the spirit of the high standards required of new drivers. We need to take a balanced approach. 
This bill in its current form goes too far. The changes proposed in it are to the overall detriment of the industry and of New Zealand as a whole. The bill is in the interests of neither drivers nor passengers. The bill removes the intention of strengthening the drivers in their industry and removes security from passengers. It makes no distinction between existing and new drivers and we need such a distinction in order to enact strict criteria for new drivers. 
For those reasons we propose the following amendments. For existing drivers namely those drivers currently undertaking such activity an avenue for endorsement may be offered as is proposed in this bill. However for new drivers we propose an amendment that will mean the strict rules and enforcement that were the essence of the 2005 amendment Act shall apply. These amendments will mean first that we can achieve the goal of assisting those caught in a situation that had not been envisaged and second that the amendments will retain the ultimate goals of the 2005 amendment Act. Passengers and drivers can then have confidence in the industry. The amendments will mean that we can accommodate public opinion and also keep alive the spirit and intent of the 2005 amendment Act. It is a win-win situation as existing drivers are satisfied and we also endorse the high standards expected of the industry. 
Let us not forget that when the bill that was to become the 2005 amendment Act first came before the House in May and June last year Lianne Dalziel and Lynne Pillay backed Deborah Coddington’s moves to extend that legislation from new drivers to existing drivers. The reasons given for the 2005 amendment Act were that it was required in order to maintain public safety and public confidence in the industry. The extension of its provisions now requires refinement but we should not lose sight of the original intent of that amendment. The original intent was that the higher standards are required and expected of new drivers. The same emotion and strength of argument that extended the 2005 amendment Act to existing drivers can be achieved only through distinguishing new from existing drivers. The difference between new and existing drivers needs to be enshrined in law. 
In the select committee we originally came to that conclusion albeit with some debate over the actual thresholds to be used to determine the level of leniency for existing drivers. All parties on the select committee initially concluded that new drivers should be treated differently from existing drivers. I ask Peter Brown from New Zealand First to adhere to his comments in  
Hansard 
 on 16 February 2006: “From now on sure no murderers and nobody who has committed those serious crimes will be eligible for a licence but people who have a passenger licence and have driven for some time and who have been law abiding are entitled to have consideration.” Peter Brown goes on to say: “We should treat them as individuals and get the legislation right from now on.” Similarly Te Ururoa Flavell said on the same day: “The Maori Party in supporting this bill nevertheless retains its position that people convicted of specified serious offences such as murder or sexual and violent offences should be prohibited from carrying passengers.” 
I believe that our initial gut feelings at the select committee were proper. I ask all the parties to consider this legislation in terms of what is right and just. It is not a matter of trying to cover specific cases in the future. Any attempt to second-guess future circumstances will lead to the same problems that we are trying to correct today. The only fair and just approach is to send a signal to new entrants of the standard required of them. That is what these amendments will achieve. The Land Transport Amendment Bill needs to have some discretion for those caught out in the 2005 amendment Act while retaining the original intention of that amendment which was to improve public safety and public confidence in the industry. The amendments now proposed achieve both these goals. Let us go back to first principles and enact those amendments so as to confirm the original intent of the 2005 amendment Act. Let us take a reasoned approach to cases caught in the 2005 amendment Act. Let us also send the right signals to future drivers and passengers. To do both those things shows a flexible and listening Parliament and also a Parliament that is willing to provide direction and a clear vision for the future. 
Mark Gosche said two things that I think we need to focus on. He said that now we have the facts. That is right—now we have the facts to deal with the existing drivers. We have the facts for those cases. That should not deter us from the original intention of the legislation which was so good that everyone voted for it last term. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I would like to start by complimenting the member who has just resumed his seat. I thought he read that beautifully. This bill was a dog’s breakfast from whoa to go principally because the two old tired parties would not listen during the last term of Parliament. Wayne Mapp shakes his head but he has been privately over here and acknowledged that I made more than one appeal to be a little bit more reasonable. He is now nodding in agreement. Labour was exactly the same and it has now fallen on the shoulders of the Hon Harry Duynhoven to sort out the mess. Let me just remind the House that when the bill came back to the House there was no provision for appeal for anybody in relation to any one of those serious offences. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Hang on! It wasn’t my bill. 
PETER BROWN 
: The Minister wants to disown it from the word go. As the Hon Mark Gosche has already stated the appeal process originally came into the House as a Supplementary Order Paper during the Committee stage. It was out of kilter. I have it in front of me. It prohibits—we are talking retrospectively now and forward-thinking—a person convicted of murder. Such a person shall not get a passenger endorsement. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: No one’s suggesting that. 
PETER BROWN 
: The Minister is correct. It also goes on to state that a person convicted of “a sexual crime under Part 7 of the Crimes Act 1961 punishable by 7 or more years’ imprisonment”—and there is a little bit more detail there—shall not get a passenger endorsement. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: No one’s suggesting that. 
PETER BROWN 
: Well we will come to that in a minute. It then goes on to state that people will not get a passenger endorsement if they have committed “an offence against any of the following sections of the Crimes Act 1961:”. Let me just list the offences: attempt to murder counselling or attempting to procure murder conspiracy to murder accessory after the fact to murder wounding with intent intent to cause grievous bodily harm by injury aggravated wounding or injury discharging a firearm or doing a dangerous act with intent acid throwing intent to cause grievous bodily harm by poison infecting with disease abduction of women or girls kidnapping abduction of child under 16 robbery aggravated robbery assault with intent to rob—those sorts of things can be labelled very very serious crimes indeed. 
But the appeal process allowed for those people listed in paragraph (c) in clause 4 the people I have listed to appeal to the director for a passenger licence. It caught trapped totally people guilty of murder as it should and people guilty of sexual crime. In that sexual crime category it captured the young lovers 18 and 16 years old. As we know people kicked up a fuss. There is such a case in Dunedin and there is another in Tauranga. There are probably another two such cases in Tauranga that I am aware of and there are probably others in other parts of this country. As we know they were the drivers to send the bill back to the select committee to have another look at it. Meanwhile all those people who are guilty of those offences I have listed can appeal to the director to get the P endorsement with the exception of murderers. 
We have looked at the 234 cases—if my memory serves me right—of the people who were captured under the list of sexual acts. Most of them were young and they got involved sexually. Whether or not we agree with that is neither here nor there. That is what happened and they have now been prohibited from getting a passenger endorsement. This bill corrects that anomaly and allows them to appeal to the director. That is only right and proper. With all due respect I cannot see how a young guy who got involved with a young girl during their teenage years is necessarily now a threat to passenger safety. That just does not stack up with me at all. They had red blood flowing through their veins they were given the opportunity or they created the opportunity and they got sexually active whilst one of them at least was under the age of 16. 
These incidents occurred in the 1960s and 1970s some a bit later and it is absolutely ridiculous to say that they are a threat or a danger to the public when driving a taxi a bus or what have you. This bill corrects that situation. The Minister wants to take it a little bit further because at the select committee it was said that people found guilty of that crime or convicted of that crime and who received a fine or a term in borstal—a juvenile punishment in other words—should have the right to appeal. The Minister in a Supplementary Order Paper wants to extend that right to people guilty of that crime convicted of that crime who had a modest period of imprisonment. 
New Zealand First is prepared to support the Minister in that because we know there were some young people who would have gone to borstal if there had been room there but instead went to prison for a month or so. New Zealand First believes that they should have the right of appeal also. 
As we move forward we want to be consistent. If we believe— 
David Bennett 
: You couldn’t be consistent with anyone last year. 
PETER BROWN 
: If the member would just sit over there and hold his peace for a moment I will continue. If we believe that young people who feel the passion of blood in their veins and get sexually active at 15 or thereabouts—perhaps 17 or 18—are likely to be a threat to passenger safety why do we not believe that of the people who are already driving taxis? That is inconsistent and absolutely unfair. They can do almost anything but they cannot drive a taxi. We will allow an appeal to be heard for a potential murderer because that is what the last bill did—and they have put their appeals in—but we will not allow an appeal to be heard of a 15 or 16-year-old who wants to buy a taxi and who is not driving at the moment. Tell me that that makes sense. 
David Bennett 
: Why did you vote for it last year? 
PETER BROWN 
: I tell Mr Bennett that we did not vote for that last year. We voted for the Supplementary Order Paper but we told the House and the select committee that there would be loopholes that people would fall through. If Mr Bennett gets his Supplementary Order Paper through—and he has not got a snowball’s chance in hell I might add—he will be condemning those youngsters to a life where they cannot drive a taxi because they got involved with one another. 
I tell the member that in this modern day and age whether we like it or not we are much more casual about young people having relationships than we were in the 1960s. It is a lot more casual. Whether we like it or not that is the case. There are something like 500-plus people on the domestic purposes benefit who obviously had sexual relations when they were very young—some of them under 16. In 2004 something like 3840-plus abortions were undergone by females under the age of 19 and some of those girls would be under 16. Eighty-five of them were in the 11 to 14 age group. People are not getting caught for underage sex or policed for it now but the one or two or the few who are Wayne Mapp wants to say that they can never drive a taxi. 
I ask Wayne Mapp to think it through sensibly. I know many members in his caucus who think that what he is doing with the Supplementary Order Paper is unfair. [ 
Interruption 
] Harry Duynhoven has just told me that some people in the member’s caucus have made representations to him to take a fairer attitude. 
New Zealand First will support the bill at all its stages and it will be supporting the Hon Harry Duynhoven’s Supplementary Order Paper. I also say to the honourable member David Bennett that I do not retract one word of the sentence that he stated I said. Indeed I am proud to have said it. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Greens are very disappointed that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee has disembowelled the Land Transport Amendment Bill sent to us last month. The bill as sent to the select committee righted a major injustice to 200 or so former offenders who are currently driving buses and taxis and to many rehabilitated former criminals who may want to drive buses and taxis in the future. This all goes back to a serious misjudgment made by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee last year. The committee then was dealing with a real problem that was illustrated by a few cases of taxi drivers assaulting and raping passengers. So it was useful to have the former sex offenders and violent offenders looked at and for them to have to go through the hoops to get a clean bill of health. That was only if their offences had been some time ago—the amending bill had 10 years as a guideline—and if it was established that they had clearly been rehabilitated. The idea was that the Director of Land Transport would look at those individual cases and grant exemptions where appropriate. 
The problem was that the select committee last year made a couple of mistakes. Firstly it dealt only with injustices to existing drivers who might have been rehabilitated former offenders not injustices to those rehabilitated former offenders who might apply for bus and taxi jobs in the future. Secondly although the committee allowed current drivers whose past offences were for violence a chance to get approvals it denied that chance to former sex offenders. As the January date to implement those exclusions approached there was quite an outcry across the country as members know. Drivers who had spent most of their life in the industry with spotless work records were being kicked out because for example 30 years ago they had a carnal knowledge conviction for sleeping with a 15-year-old when they were themselves 16. 
Our Green MP on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee last year Mike Ward warned what would happen in his minority comments in the committee’s report back to Parliament. He reported that failure to include an exemption for former sex offenders “… means that we are elevating taxi driving to a status well above such sensitive areas as early childhood education in terms of the standards we impose on those involved. In the Green Party’s view the main result will be to penalise a small number of individuals who have long since been rehabilitated while doing little to improve the safety of taxi passengers overall.” Mike Ward also said that: “The Green Party is uncomfortable with the potential for injustice especially when there is no evidence that such a blanket prohibition delivers a significant improvement in safety compared with alternatives.” And how right Mike Ward was. 
The Green Party hoped that the exposure in January and February of several individual cases of such injustice and the public sympathy for the bus and taxi drivers concerned would knock a bit of sense into the more conservative politicians in the House who jump on the “bash the criminals” bandwagon. We hoped that when the Minister for Transport Safety Harry Duynhoven came in with an amending bill last month National ACT United Future and New Zealand First would get behind it. But the National and New Zealand First majority on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee seems to have mucked it up. Harry Duynhoven’s new Land Transport Amendment Bill that went to the select committee in February rectified most of the problems. It allowed former violent offenders and sex offenders to go to the Director of Land Transport for an exemption. The director’s consideration would be based on the length of time since the person’s last conviction any other convictions the person might have and whether there was still a threat to public safety and security. Unfortunately the select committee ripped the guts out of Harry Duynhoven’s bill and restricted the exemptions to some but not all categories of former sex offenders and even then only to those people currently in the industry not to people who might want to become bus and taxi drivers in the future. Former violent offenders were left out in the cold altogether. 
I have had emails from people complaining about the injustice shown to them and others resulting from those changes brought in at the select committee—for example one person in the taxi industry who is now 47 was convicted of armed robbery when he was 18. That might sound like a very serious offence but he must have been at the lower end of the scale for that crime because he received only 6 months’ periodic detention. He will be pushed out of the industry if the bill goes through in its present form even though he has given the industry over 20 years of meritorious service and has kept his nose clean all of that time. Under the select committee’s prescription he has no chance of getting an exemption. He will be in the same category as all the other former violent offenders regardless of how much they have rehabilitated themselves. 
The Green Party will be voting for Jim Anderton’s amendment in the Committee of the whole House and we sincerely hope that it will get through. At least it rectifies most of the problems caused by the select committee. Under Jim Anderton’s amendment any former offenders will be able to apply for an exemption to drive a bus or taxi whether or not they have been convicted of a violent or a sex offence and whether or not they are currently in the industry or are new applicants. The only qualification is that they have not been in prison for an offence for more than a year. We would have liked that qualification not to be there but we are putting our main efforts into getting support for Jim Anderton’s amendment even with the weakness that I have described. 
The Greens have a principled compassionate approach that does not bend to the “bash the criminals” mob at all. Our compassion is first and foremost for the victims of crime and their families and friends. But we do not help the victims unless we also try to help the offenders and work with their families and public agencies to rehabilitate them. In doing so we can help to prevent reoffending and the creation of new criminals. Surely with over 7000 people now in prison—and the number is growing—and many of them are violent offenders with a very high reoffending rate we must work at rehabilitation. 
 We have to show compassion to people who are trying to rehabilitate themselves fully and we must have confidence that people can be fully rehabilitated. We have to give former offenders the incentive that they do have a future if they fully rehabilitate themselves whatever crime they have committed. Everyone deserves to have a chance to prove they have become good and respectable citizens. Unfortunately Jim Anderton’s amendment does not go quite far enough to meet that compassionate and rehabilitative ethos. Take for example a case I was approached about this week. It concerns a man who 25 years ago was convicted for armed robbery and was in jail for 3 years. He does not qualify under Jim Anderton’s amendment yet the offence was committed 25 years ago and he has made a good contribution to society ever since. He is good at working with disabled people which not everyone is. He wants a passenger licence so as to be able to carry disabled people around in his taxi. It is a shame that under Jim Anderton’s amendment he will not have any chance to do so. 
We believe that the Director of Land Transport would be qualified to deal with that former armed robber’s case and to judge whether he is truly rehabilitated. Such an approach would be in the spirit of the Clean Slate Bill—a Green Party initiative that was passed in the last Parliament. It allows people who have relatively minor offences and who have not offended in 7 years to have their records wiped so they cannot be discriminated against in jobs and elsewhere. It is even illegal for employers to try to get information on potential employees if that information is restricted under the provisions of the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act. Surely in that spirit a person who was convicted of a more serious crime that happened 30 or 40 years ago but who has not reoffended since can be deemed to be fully rehabilitated—or at least should have a chance to show that he or she has not reoffended over that 30 or 40 years. That is the common-sense compassionate humanitarian way to go. It also accords with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act which says that people should not be subject to double jeopardy—that is they should not be punished twice for the same crime. 
People who have served their time should not be punished again and again for the rest of their days by being denied the jobs they are suited to and can serve the community in. We must take an approach of compassion and we must take an approach of rehabilitation. That is the Green Party’s approach to this bill. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 This past week we have dealt with the issue of justice in the various bills that have come before us—in relation to legal services and access to justice in the Supreme Court as well as to justice for workers on probation. Today we come to the second reading of the Land Transport Amendment Bill and again we return to the call for justice. That call for justice arose when the Land Transport Amendment Act 2005 came into force and basically put a whole stash of bus and taxi drivers out of work. Up and down the country drivers told us about the stigma they were confronted with as the Act kicked in and the pain of unemployment and humiliation that they were facing. Yes like many others we had to ask why we were continuing to punish people for crimes they had paid for long ago. 
The original Act was overly restrictive in dictating the rights of former offenders to keep their jobs in the bus and taxi industries. The Minister presented a bill to give those citizens the right to get their licences back and the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee also came back with a report. The Maori Party was disappointed that the committee chose to reduce exemptions only for those with minor sex offences while leaving those with records of imprisonment for violence out in the cold. The Maori Party has often spoken in this House against violence but also it is always willing to look for good in people. It is with that in mind that we come to the two amendments being put forward today. 
We have concerns about drivers who will not be able to apply for a passenger licence particularly because of the restrictions around the cut-off time frame and the restrictions around violence. We support the amendment of Jim Anderton to allow people both inside and outside the industry to apply for an exemption but we would be more flexible about the length of cut-off time in relation to imprisonment because people jailed under the Crimes Act of 1961 will still be denied by this legislation. We will also support the amendment put forward by Harry Duynhoven to help those drivers most affected because both amendments are consistent with Maori Party philosophy. 
The Maori Party wants to enhance the mana of all people by promoting a system based more on justice that heals than justice that hammers. We support systems where restorative justice is given greater value because restorative justice is a key element in a fair and just society and a key element in Maori judicial practice as well. We believe there is always room for hope to believe the best in people and to reward those who through their actions seek another chance. Ours is a focus on healing rather than conflict; a focus on reconciliation rather than retribution. 
I started this speech today by reminding the House of the need to focus on justice and today I remind us of matters of justice other than this issue. Where is the justice for those families who went hungry while the breadwinner was out of work and where indeed is the justice for the original victims of the offences? How are their voices to be heard? The Maori Party supports both the bill and the two amendments being heard today in the interests of those people who have been unfairly treated by the original legislation. We support the families who have suffered and who will receive no redress or compensation. We support the principle of restorative justice. 
The great Dr Martin Luther King once said: “Every man must decide whether he will walk in the light of creative altruism or in the darkness of destructive selfishness. This is the judgment. Life’s most persistent and urgent question is always: what are you doing for others?”. Thankfully today we will all be able to do something for people who have already paid for their crimes and who need not be punished again. I wish us the strength and the wisdom to make the right choice. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I would like to take a brief call on the second reading of the Land Transport Amendment Bill primarily to reiterate the comments I made on the first reading of this bill. I think it is helpful to go back and refresh ourselves as to why this amendment bill was introduced by the Hon Harry Duynhoven. 
It came about of course because of a bill that Parliament had passed last year—with a measure of hysteria around crime and punishment—without picking up the fact that its passage would bring to an end the employment of a group of people who had committed crimes many many years ago but who had since gone on to lead crime-free lives as drivers of buses taxis etc. The particular group of people that was brought to the attention of the House at that time—in January actually—consisted mainly of those who had been convicted of offences of a carnal knowledge type many many years ago. They were men who had gone on to have happy marriages and happy families since that time and some of them had gone on to marry the woman they had committed the original crime with. Effectively that bill last year when we think about it had retrospective application to historic events. It brought to an end the employment of those people in the industries they were involved in even though they had driven buses or taxis for many many years and as I say had otherwise led blameless lives as good citizens of this country. That was the mischief we set out to fix. 
I would like to signal at this stage that United Future will support the Supplementary Order Paper proposed by the Government to the bill that has been reported back from the select committee because we think it actually completes the job in that regard. Otherwise we have done if you like half the job; we have half apologised and we have restored justice for half of those involved but not for the other half. I think the distinction between the two is too arbitrary and therefore United Future will definitely support that Supplementary Order Paper. 
 When it comes to the Supplementary Order Paper from the Hon Jim Anderton of the Progressive party I signal at this stage that United Future will not be supporting it. A judgment has to be made and I think his amendment is possibly just a step a little bit too far. Every party here I think with goodwill has endeavoured to make that judgment. It is not a simple straightforward matter as to where the line should be drawn. We think the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper draws the line at about the right place. 
So I signal our support for the second reading and our intention to support the Supplementary Order Paper put forward by the Minister for Land Transport Safety when we get to the Committee stage. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the Land Transport Amendment Bill and wish to acknowledge those around the country who will be most affected by the outcome of this debate and the subsequent vote: those people who have already lost their P-class licences—and therefore their livelihoods—and their families. 
Years and years ago those people as kids gave way to natural impulses were prosecuted and punished. They were charged under section 134(1) of the Crimes Act 1961. Those people having put all that behind them 20 30 or 40 years later find themselves being refused a licence and not only is that the case but they are lumped in with a bunch of serious criminals and sexos. Those people now have to go through the pain of having to differentiate themselves from those other offenders and of having to go back and relitigate the rights and the wrongs of the circumstances that led to a conviction in the first place. Those are circumstances that nobody today would raise an eyebrow to except for the fact that they were actually prosecuted for them. They have to justify that to family members employers and community members. 
I will give an example from my own electorate. A school bus driver a person who is held in very high regard had sex with his girlfriend 42 years ago. He was 16 and she was nearly 16. They got home late mum found out interrogated the girl and called the cops. The young boy was interrogated by the police and pleaded guilty to a charge of what we then called unlawful carnal knowledge. He received a small fine of about $100. He has never offended again in any way whatsoever and has now been married to that girl for over 40 years and he has children and grandchildren. He is a very community-minded person and he lost his job on 16 January this year. There are many many others just like him. 
The very obvious factor that causes huge unfairness is that with time and I would say the lowering of standards—others would say the adoption of policy that confronts real life—the courts no longer deal with those sorts of liaisons between young people by way of prosecution. In fact when the police have brought a charge similar to that under section 134(1)—a boyfriend/girlfriend situation—even as far back as 1990 the courts sought non-judicial resolution of the charges. 
The passage of time is very important because changes to the law including the introduction of new legislation that affected the provisions of sections 134 and 135 of the Crimes Act are significant. It is sections 134 and 135 that are specifically mentioned in clauses 3 and 4 of this bill and those sections certainly affected the way those offences and sex offending in general were investigated and prosecuted. Prior to the 1985 introduction of the terms for offences such as sexual violation and unlawful sexual connection an offence pursuant to section 134(2) included all the non-penile penetrative sexual assaults and acts and oral sex. So an effective rape with fingers bottles or other implements was charged under those two sections—134 and 135. Those offences are now included in the offence of sexual violation which is punishable by up to 20 years’ imprisonment. So there was a situation where somebody who committed an offence with say a bottle on a women was charged with indecent assault prior to 1985. After 1985 the charge was one of sexual violation. Today the offence would be eligible for a penalty of up to 20 years’ imprisonment. So one is not comparing apples with apples. If one looks back and says that if someone received only under 12 months’ imprisonment the offence was not really very serious the chances are that one will see it was a very serious offence at the time. 
Another point is that just looking at the section against which the conviction was entered does not tell one about the circumstances of the offence either. An indecent assault may be anything from an unwanted kiss to in the days prior to 1985 where most of these cases come from full penetrative sex. Looking at the section of the Act it does not tell one anything. 
I can tell members that looking at the sentence does not necessarily tell one anything either. I was part of a group of people who arrested somebody for rape in the early 1980s. It was a rape that occurred when two men took a girl from a party to the Maitai Valley in Nelson. One held her down while the other one had sex and then they swapped over. They did that twice. They were convicted of rape. One offender received 3 years’ imprisonment which was a pretty reasonable sentence in those days. The other offender was sentenced to 9 months’ periodic detention—9 months for rape or for what we would consider to be aggravated rape. Nowadays the minimum sentence would be at least 8 years’ imprisonment. The guy who got 9 months’ periodic detention would expect to get somewhere between 6 and 8 years’ imprisonment and the other guy would get 12 years. 
One cannot make a blanket assessment by looking back at penalties or at the sections against which convictions were entered and decide just how serious the crimes are. An offence that somebody received 6 months’ imprisonment for in 1985 would easily incur a sentence of 6 to 8 years today and the Government says that those people are OK to drive taxis and school buses. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: No it does not say that. 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: Well because the charge I referred to was one of rape that is quite right. However if a person had been charged with indecent assault and had received a penalty of less than 12 months’ imprisonment even though the offence may well have involved penetration it would be considered to be a very serious sexual offence today. If that person was convicted of only a section 134(2)(a) (b) or (c) offence then that person could drive a taxi under Supplementary Order Paper 13 in the name of the Hon Harry Duynhoven. I am sure we do not want to expose the people who travel in our taxis today to that. 
Some of the circumstances that would be available though are circumstances that are held for instance on archive. I wonder when someone is making an application to regain his or her P-class licence how much of that will be available. If all the person has to do is to admit that he or she was convicted at some time in the past of such an offence who gets to work out what those circumstances were? Will the circumstances be obtained by way of an application to the police with the consent of the applicant or will it be the case that the applicant’s view of events with the benefit of hindsight and the minimisation that comes with hindsight means that there will not be any other check by the director? We do not know that. I guess it may be over to the director. 
My point is this: over time the investigation and prosecution of sexual offences have changed significantly. Before 1985 it was a very difficult thing even harder than it is today for women and men—more especially women—to make complaints of a sexual nature. In fact the old detective’s manual from those days which Mr Deputy Speaker the Hon Clem Simich may remember advised detectives to be very wary of a woman who made a complaint because complaints were easy to make and hard to defend. It also invited detectives to consider for instance that the woman may well have brought the matter upon herself by the clothing she wore or where she managed to place herself at certain times and in certain company. 
 Looking back on it that seems to be a really horrific thing but we have to remember that those were the days before the 1985 amendments to the Crimes Act and the amendments to the Evidence Act. So in those days we also had situations when for instance a complaint of rape was made but because the complainant was exposed to interrogation without the protections that are involved in the law today—for instance regarding cross-examination on his or her sexual history with other partners—pleas were often mitigated down and a charge that was initially investigated as rape would be laid under section 134(1) as unlawful carnal knowledge. 
In conclusion the only safe way of differentiating the historical offending of those worthy of assistance to reapply for their licences from that of those who are unworthy is to look at the circumstances of individual cases independent evidence of which has long gone. The second-best way is to distinguish between those who were sentenced to a term of imprisonment and those who were not. Supplementary Order Paper 13 would allow those imprisoned for sex offending to drive young women late at night alone and that is rubbish. National says that those commercial passenger drivers who were convicted as young teenagers for what we used to call consensual unlawful carnal knowledge—we are now resigned to that as being inevitable—should be allowed to maintain their P-class licences as long as they did not receive a sentence of imprisonment at all because the worst offenders went to jail. 
Amendments recommended by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee by majority agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Land Transport Amendment Bill be now read a second time.  
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Bill read a second time. 
In Committee 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: At the outset I wish to advise and remind members that this bill is not drafted in parts unlike other legislation; therefore each clause will be debated separately in sequence. Members may have become used to having the latitude to sum up that is allowed in debate on primary clauses when they follow consideration of the parts of a bill. This latitude does not apply to the debates on clause 1 and clause 2 of this bill. These debates should be strictly relevant to the elements of the clauses—the bill’s title and its commencement date. Whether the title set out in clause 1 properly describes the bill is the issue under consideration in the debate on clause 1. When addressing that issue members should speak purely to whether clause 1 describes the bill. The debates on clauses 1 and 2 are not an opportunity to debate the substantive provisions of the bill. That will come in the debates on clauses 3 and 4. The reason for that is there are four questions—four clauses. I just wished to advise members of that. 
LINDSAY TISCH (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I understand there will be five debates not four because of a member’s Supplementary Order Paper 17. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: You are right Mr Tisch. I understand that one member is putting forward a new clause. It will be provided for and debated separately. There will be five questions and five debates. 
Clause 1 Title 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I thank you Mr Chairperson for your guidance to members on the way we should conduct our debate. I am sure members will fairly strictly observe your injunctions. 
The title is accurately described—it is a Land Transport Act that is being amended. In that discussion one has to consider why the Act was originally amended; otherwise why would this bill have the title “Land Transport Amendment Bill”? It was amended due to circumstances about which I will not go into detail because they have been canvassed in the previous debate. We are now having to deal with the consequential effect of the original amendment with this amendment bill. 
It is important that I put on record that National will vote for this clause. For the benefit of the Minister for Land Transport Safety I want to say why we will vote for this clause. We recognise that it is necessary to have an amendment provision. Therefore we have to vote for a clause that reflects that the bill is an amendment; otherwise why would we vote for this clause? We are voting for it because there is an injustice most notably related to persons who already held taxi or bus driver licences and who were not intended to be caught by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee’s legislation from last year. I think even Mr Brown would concede that that was the general view of the select committee last year. We are now having to make an amendment to fix that up. I also note the comments made by the chair of the committee who said that this situation was not entirely the fault of the committee. I guess that is true but the House does rely on the guidance of select committee members and the truth is that they along with the officials did not take quite enough care. 
I think it is perfectly reasonable that the debate be focused on the amendment and the reasons for this particular title. I do not think it is necessary to be vexatious or litigious in the way we conduct this debate. I conclude by saying that National will support this particular clause because we recognise the necessity to pass legislation to deal with the circumstances of the 230 bus and taxi drivers affected by the previous amendment who ought to have a right to apply for reconsideration. 
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. 
Clause 2 Commencement 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I understand that the commencement date is quite specific. However there are some issues around that date that I think need to be noted at this time for the purpose of informing those people who found themselves out of employment. Just prior to Christmas some 260 people found that they could no longer be employed. Here we are passing a bill whose commencement date is upon its receiving the Royal assent which will be some time after this urgency. We had 260-odd drivers who found that— 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: 234. 
ERIC ROY 
: The number is 234; I stand corrected by the Minister for Land Transport Safety. Those 234 people had a long cold Christmas wondering about their future and here we are now starting to work our way through the Committee stage of this bill and considering its commencement date which is not until the Royal assent is given. I understand also that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee deliberated on this point throughout this year and that raises the first point. There was still time in my view to expedite this whole matter much much more quickly given the uncertainty for the 234 people who had found themselves out of employment. The select committee deliberated and completed its report last week. The House could have gone into urgency last week. I ask members to consider this: 234 drivers out there are wondering what is happening; they have no understanding of the— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Cut your speech short and we can get it passed. 
ERIC ROY 
: The member who is interrupting is also delaying the process. These points are relevant. I want it to be recorded in  
Hansard 
 that there was a lack of concern and a lack of earnestness and speediness by the Government in dealing with a matter whereby people because of a blemish because of a lack of consideration for something having occurred in a past era—given that this clause is the commencement clause—had lost their jobs. This House has not moved as rapidly as I believe it should have. 
So we await the Royal assent. The issue I would like to raise is that those people are out of pocket. The select committee should have been concerned about retrospectivity in terms of people getting some compensation. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: You can’t do that actually. 
ERIC ROY 
: We cannot actually do that? [ 
Interruption 
] The issue I think is the matter of compensation for people who found themselves out of work. I am not sure that the date of the commencement of this bill—upon the Royal assent—allows for full consideration of that compensation aspect. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: It would be an ex gratia payment by the Crown. 
ERIC ROY 
: I guess it is a matter that will be negotiated between the employers and those who lost their jobs. I am not sure that the clarity around the commencement date is sufficient to allow those people to seek the best opportunity for compensation. I know that the Minister had no intention of creating this situation whereby those people lost their jobs but it is a matter of taking responsibility. 
I just want to say that we are in urgency now. This bill could have been resolved last week. It could now have been enacted and those people could have been given the opportunity to get on with having themselves reclassified. There are 234 people to process. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
ERIC ROY 
: I would like to canvass one or two points in summary of comments about the commencement date. The Land Transport Amendment Bill really sets out to correct some anomalies that occurred because of a retrospective piece of legislation. It impacted upon people who were in work. It impacted on them because of events that had occurred up to 40 years previously. As we talked about the commencement date the Minister in the chair the Hon Harry Duynhoven became aware prior to Christmas of what the original legislation would do. That legislation came into force on 16 January. We have had time since then to correct it. I have to say that taxi drivers and bus drivers are not at the top of the wage tree. Over the dinner adjournment I have been informed of a number of cases in which people have had to go to Work and Income to find support. They have been in real hardship. If this legislation corrects legislation that had a retrospective impact the point I make to the Committee is that this commencement date should have a retrospective impact. That is the point I wish to make. 
The Labour Government wants to champion the fact that it stands for the working person. As I said before those people who are the drivers in these passenger services are not very far up the wage tree. The least we could do is give consideration to having a retrospective commencement date so that there can be a compensation element for the people who are able to pass through the hoops to be re-employed. I ask the Committee to consider that it is inappropriate to lock those people into a situation whereby they have been in hardship without any consideration for a remedy to that. So I suggest making this date retrospective. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I have a couple of questions for the Minister in the chair Harry Duynhoven in relation to the commencement date. We are all aware that Parliament is sitting in urgency to deal with this legislation. Both the country and Parliament are well aware of the reasons for that. Some people have been—let us be honest—unjustly deprived of their livelihoods and need to be able to get back into business. Of course they cannot do that until this law takes effect. 
Parliament I would imagine will be passing this law tonight and it comes into effect under clause 2 on receiving the Royal assent. I presume the Governor-General is available—perhaps not tonight but certainly tomorrow—to enable this bill to come into effect on her signature. I would like an assurance from the Minister that that is his intent. Perhaps the Minister might like to comment on that. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: I can give you that assurance—as soon as is possible. And if the Governor-General is here tonight on Thursday we will be asking her to sign it. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I thank the Minister for that assurance. Therefore I understand people will be able to make their applications say as of next week. One would like to think that the Director of Land Transport would process the relevant ones expeditiously. As my colleague Eric Roy has made very clear those people will have been without income from 16 January to say towards the end of March. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Those who were actually employed as taxi and bus drivers. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Yes; I say to the Minister that I understand that. One of the interesting issues Mr Roy raised was compensation for that 2-month period. Obviously one cannot drive before one drives so to speak—we cannot retroactively drive because we cannot time travel. Having a retrospective provision could not conceivably change that. So the only way that people can be compensated it seems to me—and it would be a relatively small number of cases; some people have had alternative work or taken a management role etc.—is for the Government in appropriate cases to look at the question of ex gratia payments. That is a sovereign power that the Government has and I realise that it is exercised sparingly but from time to time it is actually exercised. I ask the Government to consider its powers and processes to pay an ex gratia payment in cases of real hardship due to what to be honest was an error of Parliament in passing the original law in the way it was passed. The basic intention of the law was right; there was one particular error which we are now fixing today. 
I want to make one point finally clear. National supports clause 2. We are supporting it because we do want the situation of the drivers who had their licences revoked according to the effect of the law to be fixed. That is our particular concern and we will support the parts of the bill that deal with that particular concern. The parts of the bill that do not deal with that concern we will not support. So I make it clear to the Minister that we will vote for this clause. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Clause 3 Persons convicted of specified serious offences prohibited from holding or applying for passenger endorsement 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
: 
 First I would like to thank the members who have contributed to the debate so far. I take a brief call to talk about where the bill goes from here. 
As members will be aware there are some Supplementary Order Papers. There is a Supplementary Order Paper from the Hon Jim Anderton and another one from a National member that apply to clause 3. It is important that members in looking at the bill as it has returned from the select committee read the struck-out clauses to learn what the original bill set out to do. I hope that members as they consider the bill look at what was proposed—remembering that the bill was to try to remedy the situation of the very people whom Dr Mapp talked about. 
Also I point out that I was a little surprised to hear a few speakers from the National Opposition talking about their wish not to allow anyone who was imprisoned to come back into the industry in the future. I am a little surprised at that given that some of the National MPs who contacted me in the Christmas holiday period actually contacted me to ask me to do anything possible to help their constituents who in one or two cases had in fact been imprisoned. So although they are saying to those constituents that they will do everything they can to help them it appears to me—and I hope they will reconsider their position on this—that even in cases of minor sentences of a month or 3 months they are now prepared to vote against the very people they have asked me to work to help. Over the Christmas holiday period I talked to each and every party—to National members Labour members and members of other parties. Indeed I rang some myself after receiving messages from them. I hope the National members will reconsider their position because if they go down the path they have proposed here this evening on the one hand they are saying to those people that they will be in touch with the Minister and will do what they can to help them and on the other hand they are voting against doing something for the very people whom they have asked the Minister to help. There is a double standard there that I sincerely hope does not get carried through. I beg the National MPs to think about their position on those issues. 
I look forward to the debate and hope we can have a constructive debate along the lines of the original bill. Sure the select committee has come back with other ideas but we should look carefully at what the bill was designed to do and ensure that people actually do get some justice from this. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to propose the amendment in the name of the Hon Jim Anderton set out on Supplementary Order Paper 14. I was a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that in the very short time given to it looked at this bill which amends the Land Transport Act. The select committee found the issues very difficult to deal with in terms of trying to get a balance. Public safety was obviously paramount in our thoughts as we looked at the legislation. We were also thinking about consistency. That was at the forefront of our minds when we discussed the issues in the select committee. Workability of course is very important in this type of legislation. Mixed in with that is the reputation and the trust of the industry involved. Another issue we had to consider was for how long and for what reasons society continues to punish people who have already been dealt with by our justice system. 
So in talking to this amendment I wish to say that it supports all of those concepts that the select committee was trying to deal with and it brings some balance to them. The amendments set out on the Supplementary Order Paper allow people who have been convicted of an offence specified in section 29A of the Land Transport Act to apply for a passenger endorsement as long as they were not sentenced to imprisonment for a term exceeding 12 months for that offence. The bill as reported back allowed only those who were convicted under sections 134 and 135 of the Crimes Act and who were not imprisoned to apply. 
The other thing that the Supplementary Order Paper does is to allow people convicted of a specified serious offence and who had a passenger endorsement deemed expired by amendments to the Land Transport Act that came into effect on 16 January 2006 to apply to have their endorsement reinstated. If the offence was a sexual offence an application can be made as long as the sentence for that offence was not a period of imprisonment of more than 12 months. So this amendment promotes consistency. 
The question it raises is how long society actually continues to punish people and interfere with their rehabilitation. Some of the people who currently have been disadvantaged by the legislation the select committee was considering were handed down sentences of imprisonment for as little as 1 month. The particular individual to whom I refer was handed down a sentence of 1 month’s imprisonment in 1964. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: 41 years ago. 
SUE MORONEY 
: That is right and this person is not able to continue in his occupation because of the 1 month’s sentence of imprisonment that was handed down. Those are some of the examples of the people this amendment seeks to support. The justice system worked to ensure that offenders pay their debt; the job of this legislation is to ensure public safety. This amendment will achieve that through using the term of imprisonment handed down to offenders as a means of determining whether they can apply to the Director of Land Transport for passenger endorsement. 
I acknowledge that the amendment deals with many of the issues raised by Keith Locke and the Green Party when Keith Locke spoke about the issue of double jeopardy. I also want to acknowledge that the amendment also deals with the issues raised by Hone Harawira and the Maori Party. Hone Harawira spoke of the concepts of restorative justice—he referred to it as justice that heals not justice that hammers—and the willingness to look for the good in people. I believe that we can look for the good in people who have offended and received sentences of imprisonment of 1 or 2 months in some instances. We need to allow the Director of Land Transport to apply the criteria in deciding whether these people should be allowed to be part of the passenger transport industry. This amendment gives those people the right to apply. I would like to move that amendment. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I want to make it clear to Ms Moroney that we will be opposing Mr Anderton’s amendment. We will also be opposing the Minister’s amendment in the same area although I appreciate that his relates to clause 4. We do so because there was a very deliberate reason why the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee last year passed the legislation in the form it did. That is not to say it got it entirely right. It was intended that it deliver a very strict message which was that sexual offenders should not be driving taxis. We are willing to concede that it was not intended that it cover those people convicted under section 134 of the Crimes Act. Virtually all of the cases that are relevant arise under that section. Essentially they are the cases such as the one relating to the 17-year-old boy and his 15-year-old girlfriend. It was not intended that the legislation cover that situation. However the bill that has come back from the select committee is intended to deal with this. Issues were raised with me and I questioned the people carefully. They assured me that they had been only fined. In fact some people had been convicted and discharged. 
I want to turn to some of the facts here because they are important. Two hundred and thirty-four people were affected by the legislation which is quite a significant number. Two people had actually been convicted of murder. I recall one member of the select committee saying that perhaps those people should have a shot at having a taxi licence. He subsequently changed his mind. I will not name that person here. Those categories are no longer included—with the consent I might add of the relevant member whom I will not name. The other offences included 13 for sexual violation. Do members know what that actually is? It is rape. Thirteen taxi drivers who had been rapists have been driving people around in taxis. Thirty of those 234 people had been convicted of having sex with children under 12. Eight of the people had been convicted of incest. I could go on. In short these are serious offences and I cannot believe that anyone would seriously suggest that any of those people should have the right even to apply for passenger endorsement reinstatement because that is the effect I might add of Mr Anderton’s amendment. 
The core of it is—and the Minister is obviously noting this; it is his particular concern as it is the concern of the rest of Parliament—that 130 people have been convicted under section 134 of the Crimes Act and 45 persons under section 135. By and large the convictions relate to events a long time ago when the people were by definition very young—as in the case involving the 15-year-old and the 17-year-old. How do the penalties compare? We should bear in mind that 130 came under section 134 of the Crimes Act. Interestingly enough 41 of the penalties involved fines. Suspended sentences community service probation and borstal—handed out to people under 17 I might add often for quite trivial things a long time ago—accounted for 139. That covers 180 people. Almost exactly the same number of people were convicted under section 134 as were convicted under section 135. One hundred and seventy were fined or had other minor punishments and 175 came under the minor offences. It is almost a perfect match. I do appreciate—and I am sure the Minister would wish to point this out—that in truth it is not a perfect match. Maybe some people who were imprisoned were covered by section 134. It was quite a small number admittedly but it is a vanishingly small number I suggest. 
We in the National Party are saying that we are taking a firm line on this. We are saying that we will consider and indeed vote for the ability to reapply provided people have not had a term of imprisonment. I think that actually directly addresses the issues that have been raised by the vast majority of people who have contacted members right across Parliament. I know there will be some outside the parameter but the vast majority as is clear from the figures I have read out are covered by the select committee report. 
I want to make it perfectly clear that the members of the select committee were pretty firm on this and the reason why the Minister is putting in a Supplementary Order Paper which would allow imprisonment to be covered is that the select committee did not think that imprisonment should be included. That was the view of the members of the select committee and it is the Government through the Minister that has said: “We can be more liberal. We can allow people to drive taxis even though they have been in prison.” 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: No you can allow them to apply. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I suggest to the Minister that that is in fact a misunderstanding of the law. If the rules are set down then effectively no discretion is given to the director. If there was a judicial review the judge would decide on the basis of the rules set down. Effectively the director would not have discretion. I know the law reads the way the Minister feels it does but in fact it would not be applied that way in any event. 
The select committee was very clear by consensus that imprisonment was the threshold. Someone who had been in prison could not apply; someone who had not been in prison could apply. An application in this circumstance was the same as having a re-grant. National is saying that we can deal with virtually every single one of the 175 out of 234 cases that matter because in virtually every one all the offenders got was a fine or other punishment. 
Government members have mentioned imprisonment. It is worth noting that imprisonment covers older people. Younger people got borstal. So where the victim if one can call the person that was 15 and the other person was 17 the offender was too young to be imprisoned. Where there is a broader age range or bigger gap between offender and victim then imprisonment tends to be levied. That is a proper distinction to make and that is why the select committee specifically did not include borstal. We wanted to allow people who were effectively in custody in borstal to be able to apply—for the very reason that borstal covered young people and that was our particular concern. I suggest to the Minister that that covers virtually all of the people who came to members of Parliament across the parties. 
National members are voting for clause 3 on principle as it is in the select committee report because we think that it gets the balance right. We are saying very clearly to those 175 people that if they apply they will get their licences back if they have not had a term of imprisonment. I tell the Minister that that is effectively how it will happen— 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Apply for consideration not automatically. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Well I know the Minister says that but in truth it will not be applied that way in reality. Under a judicial review a court would say that those are the criteria and if there is no reason not to give the licence the licence must be given back. The criteria set by Parliament here today I suggest are as a matter of interpretation of the law equivalent to an application. 
Simon Power 
: Why doesn’t this member continue for another 5 minutes? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I think that is a reasonable interjection. I think the points have been well made as to why we have taken the position that we have. We will be supporting clause 3 in order to be able to provide the appropriate remedy to the people who have contacted various members of Parliament. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I thank Wayne Mapp for that great exposition of what is actually happening here but I think there is something that we tend to forget when we are looking at a clause from a Labour Government that tries to put in a term of imprisonment. The Labour Government has made it quite clear that it does not want to imprison people so why does it need a clause about imprisonment? It is not going to put people in prison. People are going to be— 
Hon Member 
: Catch and release. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Yes a catch and release policy. The clause that Mr Anderton is putting forward is quite redundant because it is not going to be the reality of the situation. There is also the situation that a lot of the crimes that have been committed—in the cases that came before the members of this Parliament—are actually cases where in the past there would be a conviction but the evidence we had from the select committee was that in these cases there would now no longer be convictions in the courts for those offences because they are not being prosecuted. There certainly will not be imprisonment or borstal as it was in those days for the younger offenders because they are just not being convicted for those kinds of offences. So it is quite redundant to put in a clause looking simply at imprisonment for a 12-month period. 
In the select committee we considered that 12-month threshold quite extensively. It was felt that there was no need for that kind of level. In fact a lot of the Labour members felt that a 6-month level was more appropriate. When they were talking about a 6-month level that was fine—they had a couple of cases in mind that fitted in with that 6 months—but it has now been extended to 12 months because they have thought of another couple of cases that they want to get covered. 
What happens about the guy tomorrow who goes out and wants a P endorsement licence and who was sentenced to imprisonment for 13 months 40 years ago? Are we then going to come back and do this all again and extend the time to 14 or 15 months? That is the problem when people try to make a line in the sand on the basis of retrospective cases. That is all they are trying to do in this case. It is not good law looking forward to people and circumstances of the future it is trying to catch certain cases that have come before people in the last couple of months. 
Labour members have brought up some other questions in their speeches. There is the question of consistency. I think National members are being totally consistent. We are saying that for people who were existing drivers with offences we will provide a mechanism so there can be some kind of resolution to their problem. But we are also being totally consistent with the intention of the 2005 legislation. Its intention was to have a strict prohibition so that people had to go through a long and detailed process in order to keep the integrity of the profession and people involved in the industry. 
On 10 May 2005 the honourable Minister said: “The bill also prohibits persons convicted of serious violence and sexual offences from being passenger service drivers. That will address the risk to public safety of having convicted sex offenders and other violent offenders in a one-on-one situation with passengers. I note that the select committee recommends that the scope of that provision be extended to cover offences committed prior to the commencement of this bill.” 
That is the heart of the problem. The initial bill last year was looking at new drivers coming forward. Then under the guise of the select committee it was decided to go back and look at existing drivers as well. Concentration on existing drivers is the problem. The problem was not in looking at new drivers last year. It was a good piece of law. It knew what it wanted to achieve—it wanted to protect people hopping into taxis or on buses. That change can be remedied by having a Supplementary Order Paper passed tonight that makes a definition between existing and new drivers. That is totally consistent with what members wanted to achieve last year with what the public wants to see happen and with the public opinion expressed earlier this year when people felt they were in a situation where the law was not providing an opportunity to recognise their past for their industry now. That is why National is promoting the dual between the existing and the new. We think it is important that that break is made. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 One of the problems with the National Party is that it is not placing sufficient trust in the Director of Land Transport to use his or her discretion in this matter. 
Shane Jones 
: They need to be more humanitarian. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: Yes. The Director of Land Transport will obviously be in the firing line if he or she gets it wrong so he or she will spend a lot of time on each case. Wayne Mapp goes on about not trusting people who have committed serious offences but I suggest that the director will go through the process by looking at the seriousness of the offence the penalty applied and the length of time that has passed since the offence was committed—and other factors will be taken into consideration. 
In terms of the seriousness of offences we have looked at the ones that are at the lower end of the scale. There has been a lot of talk about carnal knowledge offences which are not deemed to be so serious these days and about the penalty for those offences. Even in the past when they were treated more seriously the penalty was not great. So the director will have an easier road ahead in terms of granting an exemption in those cases. Then we go on to what we consider to be the more serious offences. In my second reading speech I mentioned a person who was convicted of aggravated robbery. Obviously aggravated robbery is a serious offence but one has to take into account the penalty. In the case I gave the person convicted of aggravated robbery who is in the taxi industry right now received a penalty of 6 months’ periodic detention. So clearly the Director of Land Transport would say that that person was at the lighter end of that serious offence given that he received only 6 months’ periodic detention and other factors would be taken into consideration as well. 
Details I provided of another case involve somebody who was convicted of a crime—whose case would come under clause 3—and who wants to get into the industry and drive disabled people around. This person has a great aptitude in that direction—good empathy—but he had received a more serious sentence of 3 years in jail. Unfortunately even under Jim Anderton’s amendment bill that person would not get into the industry although the Greens would like the director’s discretion to go further in order to allow that. If the Green approach had been adopted the Director of Land Transport again would say: “It is a very serious offence. I will have to look at that case very closely. This person has a hard road—3 years’ imprisonment—to justify the circumstance.” The director would then go on to consider the third factor which is how long ago the offence was committed. In the example I gave the offence happened 25 years ago. When one talks about 25 years ago in terms of the aggravated robbery conviction with 3 years’ imprisonment or the other example I provided of aggravated robbery with 6 months’ periodic detention both of those cases happened many years ago—one case was 30 years ago and the other case was 25 years ago. Presumably the Director of Land Transport would have plenty of supporting evidence from people who had known those people over the years and could make a fairly good judgment. I have no doubt that the director would err on the side of caution given the concern in the community about taking too many risks with people driving others around—be it in a taxi or in a bus. It can be worked out if one trusts the Director of Land Transport. Somebody who committed a crime 25 or 30 years ago may even be a member of Parliament—who knows? In respect of this bill people do not seem to need the same qualification to become a member of Parliament as they do to become a bus driver or a taxi driver. 
I listened very closely to Hone Harawira’s very good speech in the second reading debate. One thing we have to bear in mind is that people often commit those crimes in their youth; they are often tearaways who get out of control due to bad parenting or whatever the problem is and they overcome that disadvantage later in life come right and really star in society. Those people should be given a chance. As we all know a high proportion of those people—50 percent of our prison population—is Maori. So if someone goes ahead and says as National does that no one who has ever been in prison should be given any discretion that person is being a bit discriminatory. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I want to talk briefly on clause 3 about an issue that has been bothering me. In 1960 and around that time sexual abuse and indecent assault were not taken very seriously either by the police by the community or by the nation. Now they are taken seriously thank God. 
I do not believe for one minute that I would want somebody who has had even a 1-month conviction in 1960 driving my daughter around in the dark of night because I am not sure whether he would do it again. He did it once so there is always a chance that he could do it again. Keith Locke says that carnal knowledge is not such an issue these days. Well it is if one’s daughter is 14 it is if one’s daughter is 13 and it is if one’s daughter is 12. It does not matter whether the encounter was consensual. What we now know and believe in society is totally different from what we believed in 1960 and before. Speaking as a parent and as a dad I say that it does not matter how old my daughter is; she could be 45 and I would still not want her to be driving around in the dead of night with some person who has been imprisoned—whether it was for a month or even for 5 days—for an offence that we now take to be serious. We might not have taken that offence seriously in 1960 but we do take it seriously these days. 
I have heard a number of the speeches tonight and before the dinner break and what strikes me is that we are talking about just taxi drivers or just bus drivers. What about women? What about all those people out there who actually think: “Well hang on. I’m actually quite scared because I am the one who has to take the cab. I am the one who has to take the bus home late at night after finishing my 12-hour shift at the Warehouse.” It is those people whom we should be thinking of. There are more of them out there than just those 230-odd people the law is being changed for. Four million people live in this country and we are changing a law for 230-odd people. It is a bad law anyway and I am glad I was not here in the last term because it is not my fault that the legislation was passed; it is the fault of everybody who was here. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Those hopeless members! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Hopeless members of Parliament and I hear from my esteemed colleague Dr Wayne Mapp that he voted for it. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Not only that; he was on the select committee. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: He was on the select committee as well. At least he is trying to fix the thing up. There are 4 million people out there and we are changing an anomaly for 230—[ 
Interruption 
] Mr Harawira butts in and says “Shut up.” We are changing the law for 230 people and Hone Harawira is feeling good about himself only because Keith Locke tried to butter him up by saying that his speech was a good speech. Well I wonder what the Greens want from the Maori Party—but that is not what we are here to talk about. 
Out of the 230 people only 175 actually matter because those people got a fine not an imprisonment. I ask Dr Mapp whether I am right. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Yes you are. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Absolutely thank you for that. So we are fixing up a law for 175 people. For goodness’ sake have we not got anything better to do other than to fix up things for 175 people? We are worried about their careers—their livelihoods. Well hang on what about all the women out there? What about all the young girls out there? 
Hon David Parker 
: We are worried about justice. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Mr Parker says that he does not care about all the women and girls out there. I want to know why we are allowing people who have already had a fine or even an imprisonment— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Especially an imprisonment. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
:—especially an imprisonment—to be driving our daughters around— 
Steve Chadwick 
: Or sons. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Absolutely I agree with the member—as far as I am concerned as a parent. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Well I think that is the first time for about 8 years that I have listened to Tau Henare and have agreed in part with what he had to say. He has reflected—fair go to the guy—to some degree the public’s concern. But as usual with Tau Henare he has taken it one step too far. We are fixing up this law because— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Because you didn’t do the job properly in the first place. 
PETER BROWN 
: —we did not do the job properly in the first place. It was not him; I will excuse the honourable member. We did not do the job properly and now we are trying to fix it up. 
It is not because 175 people or however many have missed out. That is the number of people who are affected by our botch-up directly but those people might well have been driving their cabs for years and been perfectly safe and highly regarded by their communities. I have had letters and phone calls from people with regard to the case of at least one person who is a decent law-abiding guy. When he was 17 he had a sexual relationship with a girl who was just under 16 and now we are taking his livelihood away from him. That is why we are fixing up this law and why we have to fix it up. 
New Zealand First will be supporting the Minister’s amendment to clause 4. We will not be supporting the Jim Anderton amendment to clause 3. The simple reason is that we want to accommodate as best we can people who are of no real danger to public safety. They have been caught by this “young love” effect—I will use that term; people can use more basic terms if they like—caught by that sort of administration. Many of them went to borstal or detention centres and one two or half a dozen went to prison. At the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—and I think the National Party members on the committee will recall this—I was opposed to supporting the part of the legislation relating to prison. I drew the line at what we might call youth punishment. But since that time the Minister has clarified exactly who is being affected and we see merit in widening the net. 
This bill is about where we draw the line. That is what we are arguing here. It is not if we will draw the line but where we will draw the line. I notice that Wayne Mapp made reference to a member in his contribution a little while ago. I will own up to being I think that member whom he implied had wanted to support a murderer. That is not true at all. What I pointed out—in a fictitious case I believe—was that a man came home and saw his wife in bed with his best mate. He assaulted his best mate and killed him and was put in prison for murder. I was trying to point out to the honourable member that if he had not killed him—or in modern-day parlance he probably would have been found guilty of manslaughter—it would have made a difference under this bill as manslaughter is not specified. It is not regarded as a serious enough crime. There is no offence of assault in this bill. There is assault to rob but not assault because it is not regarded as a serious crime under the bill. So I am trying to illustrate to the honourable member on the select committee the difference between a murder in those sorts of circumstances and what would have happened if he had not killed the guy. I was trying to illustrate how difficult it is to draw the line. 
The underlying point is that we should draw the line on the court judgment. We are safer there if we draw the line on the court judgment rather than on what we see as the offence. I left the select committee and said that we would draw the line at youth punishment which is covered by a new section 29A(4) to be inserted into the Land Transport Act 1998 by clause 3 of the bill. It states: “imprisonment excludes—(a) corrective training; or (b) borstal training; or (c) detention centre training”. That is where we drew the line. I accept the Hon Harry Duynhoven’s Supplementary Order Paper and I have taken it to my caucus. It said we should move the line that much further for the retrospective guys—the guys who are actually driving now or who have been driving until now—but not for the guys who will be in this position in the future. We keep the line at youth punishment for forward planning for people but for the retrospective guys we would let in those who have been convicted of offences carrying a sentence of short-term imprisonment of under a year. We think that is quite reasonable and quite sensible. It lets through those people whom we in Parliament in haste condemned. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I am quite surprised at and actually quite disappointed in what we have just heard from the member from New Zealand First. I am surprised in the sense that New Zealand First members have changed their tune within an hour. It must have been something they ate for tea. Just before the dinner break when National members proposed that we have a distinction between new and existing drivers to whom this legislation is applicable we were told by New Zealand First that to do so would be inconsistent and we should not do it. We were told that we must have one rule and it should apply to all. Now New Zealand First is coming back and saying that it would give existing drivers the 12-month criterion but for new drivers there would be no 12-month criterion and that New Zealand First would be tough on the new ones. 
Well that is what National is proposing in our Supplementary Order Paper 17. That was what was agreed on in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and that was I think the essence of the legislation passed last year. I implore New Zealand First: we have another hour so it should go all the way and go back to what it actually agreed on last year. It should give all people the certainty of knowing that they will be looked after of knowing that they can trust that when they hop in a taxi or on a bus they will be looked after to the degree they expect. It is in your hands now. You have moved halfway; you can go all the way. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is bringing the Chair into the debate. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: That is the essence of what National members are trying to do in our Supplementary Order Paper. We know that we cannot just draw a line in the sand and pick 12 months or 6 months out; we need to have a policy that is effective for the future. The only way we can do that is by having something—as we have provided—that defines the situations for new and existing drivers and having different rules for people in each situation. 
We have no problem with existing drivers. We understand the concerns of people who are in such an occupation who have been hurt by the legislation going through and who want to give some substance to their career. We are willing to give that substance and to provide that amendment. But we think the true intention of Parliament with the amendment Act of 2005 was to set up a new regime for all the people coming into the industry in the future. We think that the way we can give credit to the people who stood up in Parliament last year and promoted those ideals is to have separate criteria for new and existing drivers. 
New Zealand First has shown that that can be done conceptually. Those members have no problem with having separate criteria for new and existing drivers. Their only problem now is the thresholds. Well who will make the threshold decision now? Are we making it on the basis of 200 cases that have been put in front of us? What about the next 200 cases next year? What about the 200 cases after that? Will this threshold move just for the sake of it? Are people willing to get into cars or on to buses at night by themselves without the protection of a threshold but knowing that there is a true concept that they will be looked after and protected through an industry-wide approach? That is the essence of the break between new and existing drivers. 
I encourage people to look at the spirit of what we are doing here tonight and at the spirit of what members did last year. There was nothing wrong with that spirit. We have to refine that spirit to engage with cases that could come up potentially but we need to keep that spirit there for the future. We need to have that break between new and existing drivers and to put a tougher threshold on new people coming into the industry because that supports what New Zealanders want to see in the future. When people hop into a taxi they are in a position of weakness and they want to know that they will be looked after. That is the trust they put in that driver. The drivers want to have that respect and we want to be able to give them that respect as well. So I ask members to look at the spirit of what we are doing and vote for the amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 17 which distinguish between new and existing drivers. There can be no inconsistency issues. New Zealand First members have shown they are willing to move on that. All that they are debating now is the threshold that they want to apply to that distinction. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I will not speak for long. I thank Mr Brown for his gracious remarks. That is the most gracious he has ever been towards myself since 1993. I thank him for that—and it was only half gracious but never mind. I want to ask a question maybe not of the Minister—he is one of the few Ministers I have a bit of faith in—but of Mr Peter Brown. When he talks about murder and wanting to get the threshold right and moving it this way and that way the question for New Zealand First really is: are they going to support David Bennett’s Supplementary Order Paper? 
Peter Brown 
: No. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I see—they are having it both ways. If they flipped over the Supplementary Order Paper they would see that “specified serious offence” means “(a) murder;” and that is what he was talking about. Nowhere in what they did last year in 2005 when they got it wrong and waited for the newbies to come along and fix it— 
Peter Brown 
: Murder’s in there. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Oh no. The member said and everybody heard him that murder was not in there. The member said—and I might be going deaf— 
Peter Brown 
: You’re getting old. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I might have a bit of dementia at the age of 44 or 45 or whatever it was but the fact of the matter is that that member said that there was no mention of murder. That is what his words were and I would love to see the  
Hansard. 
 I apologise if I am wrong—it is highly unlikely but I do. The only way we will make a line in the sand is by supporting the Supplementary Order Paper in the name of David Bennett. It sets it out quite clearly—new and old. The new ones cannot apply. Am I right? 
David Bennett 
: Yes. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Absolutely and that is what we are trying to do. But the member from New Zealand First does not want a bar of it. He wants to support the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper. He wants to support the Labour Government because I suppose it is part of the baubles of power. I do not know. 
David Bennett 
: He won’t support them on the new ones though. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Well he will not support them on the new one either. I am trying to find out what Mr Brown’s position is. 
David Bennett 
: It depends on the case in front of him. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: So who decides whether it should be in or out? 
David Bennett 
: It depends on whether someone has come to him and said he or she is voting for New Zealand First 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: OK. So it all depends on whether someone comes before New Zealand First. So New Zealand First is now not only the judge and the jury but also the head of some sort of committee of moralistic people—they will decide. That is what they want to do rather than fixing up a piece of legislation—and it would be easy to fix it with the Supplementary Order Paper and then vote for it. There is nothing in the Supplementary Order Paper from David Bennett that is going to make this law any worse—in fact it will make it better—than it is now. So I cannot understand— 
Peter Brown 
: Read it. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I have read it. I have read both pages of it. It is a great little Supplementary Order Paper. But the fact of the matter is that the Supplementary Order Paper allows people who have been in the industry for a long long time and who have a minor infraction to carry on so that we do not take their livelihood away. But it says to all the new people and the existing people that they cannot apply for it if they have done one of these things. That is all it says. So how can people be against it? That is all I ask. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 17 in the name of David Bennett to insert new subclause (1AA) in clause 3 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question that the amendment be agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just caution members about the taking of votes. No other comment at all is allowed. I ask members to look at Speaker’s ruling 63/2 made by Speaker Hunt and also at Speaker’s ruling 63/5. It is highly disorderly to interject because it can be taken as intimidation and could lead to a breach of privilege. So I am just cautioning members. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
New Zealand National 46. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 50; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 46; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 14 in the name of the Hon Jim Anderton to omit and substitute words in section 29(A)(3)(b) in clause 3 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 50; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 46; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 14 in the name of the Hon Jim Anderton to add words to section 29A(3)(b) in clause 3 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 50; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 46; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 3 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand National 46. 
Clause 3 as amended agreed to. 
New clause 3A New section 29AA inserted 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 Clause 3A on Supplementary Order Paper 17 in my name reflects the insertion of a new clause for new persons. For the purposes of the clause a new person is defined under subclause (2) as “a person applying for a passenger endorsement after the commencement of the Land Transport Amendment Act 2006.” In essence a new person is someone who comes in after the legislation has been passed. So we are looking at someone who may apply in say a month’s time to come into the industry as the driver of either a taxi or a bus. That person would be a new person because he or she had come in after the legislation had been enacted. 
The reason we broke it into new and existing people was to reflect the intention of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and also the original intention of the amendment Act in 2005. The break between new and existing people was seen as the easiest way to do that. There may be other ways to make that distinction but the distinction between a new person who comes in and an existing driver is something that fulfils the requirements of the amendment Act in 2005. If we go back to the history of that amendment we find it was supposed to be just for new persons who come into the industry. At the select committee stage it was extended to include existing persons already in the industry. As a result of that we are now in the situation we have arrived at today with a number of cases that arose over the Christmas break attracting a lot of public opinion. Those cases are now being dealt with by this amendment bill. If we had kept the provision to new persons in the legislation in 2005 we would not have the problem that we do now. 
The break between new and existing persons reflects the need to maintain a balance and also to maintain the spirit of the 2005 amendment for the new people who come into the industry. We need that for new people because we need the security that every time we hop into a taxi or a bus we can trust the driver. The new distinction is a higher threshold than that for existing drivers. It builds the trust in the industry that enables drivers to go out there and feel comfortable in the jobs that they undertake and it enables passengers to feel comfortable about getting the driver of a taxi to take them to a venue. 
We believe that a distinction between new and existing drivers is appropriate and reflects the true intention of the legislation that was enacted last year. It also provides an opportunity for the balance and flexibility needed to look after people who have been caught in the earlier period of this year by the legislation from 2005. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I will speak for a couple of minutes on the Supplementary Order Paper presented by Mr Bennett. He made a couple of points—one of them around whether the legislation will prevent new applicants from being able to apply for and obtain a P-class licence. Mr Clayton Cosgrove also raised a few points earlier—one of them being the argument as to why one would not object to current licence holders yet object to those who seek to hold a licence in the future. The answer was pretty straightforward: because they do not currently hold a licence. Their livelihood or their ability to make a livelihood is not affected. If they can drive a bus or a cab then they can drive something else—for example a truck or a bulldozer. That is something that is affected in the future. As we have been told by the Government on several occasions there are jobs out there to burn. So it is about someone making a choice to try to enter an industry that they are not currently part of and it has a different impact than allowing those who are currently holders of P-class endorsements to apply for reinstatement of them. 
Another point made was about double jeopardy. I can sympathise with the arguments of double jeopardy and I accept of course that it is within the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act but we have a situation in this country and most other countries around the world where there are certain jobs that people cannot do if they have certain convictions or court awards have gone against them. For instance if someone wants to go on a racecourse but has been convicted of a crime punishable only by imprisonment he or she cannot go on. That person is barred from going on a racecourse. That is just the way it is; if people have those convictions they cannot go there. So if it is an old assault theft or sex complaint or anything else that person cannot go there. Double jeopardy rightly or wrongly exists in the law now—if that is what is known as double jeopardy. In fact it does not fall within the strict interpretation of the meaning or definition of a double jeopardy in any event. 
Within the House if for instance a court awarded costs against an MP but he or she could not pay then a notice of bankruptcy was filed against that MP and he or she still could not pay that person would not be able to be an MP any longer. I understand that there is a story around the presentation of the gold Mace that normally sits on the Table—that the MP who presented it was being proceeded against for bankruptcy. The Parliament at the time was so grateful for the fact that the donation was made that proceedings were withheld. By the time it decided to kick them off again the member at the time—years ago of course—was in a better position and so escaped them. But if he had been adjudicated bankrupt he could not have remained as a member of Parliament. The other example is liquor licences; one cannot hold a liquor licence if one has certain convictions. One cannot join the police with certain other convictions. That is just the way it is; that is life. 
I wanted to make those two points to counter points made earlier by the other side of the Chamber. I believe that the legislation is exactly consistent with what the select committee wanted in the first place. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I was not going to take a call on this part because we will vote it down. I draw the member who is promoting the Supplementary Order Paper to the fact that the “existing person” amendment he is referring to has already been voted down and therefore it is questionable whether we want an amendment referring to a “new person”. 
But I am taking the call because of the contribution made by Chester Borrows who has just resumed his seat. He made some interesting statements—for example he said that a person convicted of presumably any of the crimes listed on the back of the Supplementary Order Paper cannot go on to a racecourse cannot come here cannot join the police. I would like to ask the member—and maybe he can answer by way of interjection across the floor—whether it is possible that a young man of 16 or 17 who had sexual intercourse with a girl of 15 got picked up by police fined and put in borstal or somewhere else could not go on a racecourse. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: I can’t remember! 
PETER BROWN 
: There we are; there is the answer. Is the member telling me yes or no or that he does not know? 
Chester Borrows 
: I think that’s right. 
PETER BROWN 
: Sorry? Who is checking? 
Chester Borrows 
: The racecourse inspector. 
PETER BROWN 
: I do not know much about who— 
David Bennett 
: The Minister for Racing. 
PETER BROWN 
: I will get the Minister for Racing to check. I do not know much about how detailed the checks are when going on a racecourse but I do not know anybody— 
Chester Borrows 
: You can’t be a stable hand. 
PETER BROWN 
: Well these guys think the member said something quite different and now he is— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is the member yielding his time? 
PETER BROWN 
: I am not yielding my time. The member made an interesting point and I think it is worth knowing the facts of the case. The truth is in the detail; the assertion was made but the member is not fully au fait with the detail. But I suggest to the honourable members that many a person when young had a sexual relationship with a girl or—under 16—[ 
Interruption 
] 
David Bennett 
: Or what? 
PETER BROWN 
: Members might think that that is frivolous—as the member from Hamilton does. I know his parents are listening—Mr and Mrs Bennett are listening—so I will not name him. But they are listening to him. 
David Bennett 
: Oh I am afraid of you. 
PETER BROWN 
: He is taking it in a frivolous way. But without underrating the seriousness of those crimes the point I am making is that nowadays society is not policing them as adequately or effectively as it once did. There are many young people having sexual relationships with somebody under the age of 16 but they are not getting checked on and they are not getting penalised as perhaps has been alluded to. New Zealand First is saying—we have said it for people in the industry and we are saying it for new people coming into the industry—that that does not present a safety issue as far as the public is concerned. The situation of a person who maybe 15 10 or a few years ago had a sexual relationship with a younger person under the age of 16 is now—regrettably—being more accepted by society. As a crime it will not impact on public safety. It is more accepted. I can tell members— 
David Bennett 
: Why can’t you have us thinking that? 
PETER BROWN 
: Does the member want to question me? Because I think he should do that privately. I listened to his speech and I clearly got the impression that he knows very little about this bill although I recognise he has sat on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee now for several hours. This is important legislation and we really want to get it fair and just. This Supplementary Order Paper produced by Mr Bennett is not worth the paper it is written on. I could make a suggestion of how to use it but I can say it would be very very uncomfortable. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 17 in the name of David Bennett to insert new clause 3A be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That new clause 3A be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
New Zealand National 46. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
New clause 3A not agreed to. 
Clause 4 Passenger endorsement may be reinstated in certain cases 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
: 
 I thank members for the strong interest in this debate at this time of night. It seems that some of the members involved in this debate though have no clue in the wide world how the current licensing system works for taxi and bus drivers. If under the legislation we pass this evening a bus or taxi driver is approved to apply again that does not make that particular applicant automatically a driver. The first thing that any bus or taxi driver who has what is called a P endorsement—that addition to his or her licence—has to pass is what is called a fit and proper person test. The Director of Land Transport is the person who is responsible for ensuring that the people entering the industry are rightfully in the industry. 
There are people who have a criminal history from a previous time and that is what this debate has been about. It has been about how Parliament in the best efforts we can make can try to tidy up the industry for the future. As part of a much larger piece of legislation Parliament and the select committee inadvertently allowed a problem to go forward. When that problem was first identified to me late last year I simply said: “Hang on there is a mess here; how do we fix it?”. I got officials in the Minister of Transport and I both asked for a report on the issue and in the middle of December we got a report that said yes there was definitely an issue. 
The reason that it was raised with me was that people were starting to get letters from Land Transport New Zealand saying they would need to take some legal advice because they were among the people affected by that legislation. Those people were all sexual offenders but as we have since heard in the media and elsewhere and in this House some of those sexual offenders had no victim in that the partner in the sexual activity had been usually a girlfriend who was slightly younger and below the age of 16 years. In some cases that couple 40 years later are happily married and have been in the bus industry or taxi industry for 30 or 40 years and in some cases they are the owner and the wife of the owner or the joint owners of a bus or taxi company. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Yes we support them. It’s not a problem. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: The Opposition member Dr Wayne Mapp says yes National supports them—no problem. But I tell Dr Mapp that the problem is that this is about justice. It is not about some arcane sort of numbers thing; it is about justice for individuals and about having an industry that is safe for the customers of that industry. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to members if they are prepared to listen that many members rang me after this issue got publicity and when I got officials in late in December—one of the officials here will be able to tell me the date but I think it was around the 20th or 21st of December—we looked at ways of trying to fix it. I suggested all sorts of ways to try to fix the issue for those considered worthy of remaining in the taxi or bus industries and we found that in the words of one of the officials the legislation passed by Parliament last year was more watertight than a snapper. The end result was that the only way to fix it was by legislation. Having got that advice I immediately wrote to the Prime Minister to say we had a problem and would need to fix it. The Minister of the day who put that legislation before the House the select committee and Parliament did not for a moment I think believe we would be in the position we are now in. What has happened— 
David Bennett 
: Oh that’s not so. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: No I can assure the member that members of the select committee whom I talked to over the January period said to me that this was unexpected. 
We do not have a situation where whatever we do in the House tonight automatically sees those people become taxi or bus drivers; once they have applied to the Director of Land Transport they have to go through a process and the very first consideration is the safety of the public. Nobody gets his or her P endorsement without that being the first consideration. 
Whether the penalty was a fine a prison sentence time in borstal or licence suspension because the under-age sex had occurred in the back of a car is a factor that seems to have been missed out of this argument. The National Party apparently supports an incompetent axe murderer who currently is in the industry but who had a massive prison sentence for grievous bodily harm attempted murder or something else remaining in the industry without censure but says that a young man who when he was aged 17 and his girlfriend was 15½ had a bit of a rush of blood to the head got caught having under-age sex and was penalised should not be in the industry. A National member brought one case to me asking for help. That particular person had had 1 month in prison. National members are saying that a failed axe murderer who is currently in the industry should be allowed to carry on but a person who with his consenting girlfriend had under-age sex and wound up being convicted and sentenced to 1 month in prison should not be allowed to be in the industry. 
That is illogical nonsense. That is precisely why I have put up a Supplementary Order Paper to sort this thing out. I hope members will agree to that Supplementary Order Paper and I hope they will also consider Mr Anderton’s Supplementary Order Paper positively. It is important to look at what those Supplementary Order Papers do. The future application is important because why should we allow certain people in an industry now and say we will have a different standard for such people in the future? If we go ahead with the legislation as it currently sits someone in the industry right now who had a significant prison term but who is approved to drive because he or she has proven in his or her subsequent life to be a fit person will be allowed to continue in the industry but in the future a person with a prison sentence no matter how small will not be allowed into the industry no matter what the crime was. 
That is the position of the National Party. It is not logical in any way shape or form. I ask the National Party especially the members who have brought cases to me—some of whom will not know what penalty was incurred by the person they have asked me to intervene on behalf of—to consider seriously what they are doing. They should put their party politics to one side and look at justice. 
BOB CLARKSON (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 Mr Chairperson— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: This will be below the belt! 
BOB CLARKSON 
: No it will not be really. But since the member said that I would like to mention that I would rather be out building a jail on time and on budget. However we will get away from that. It was a pleasure to debate the bill with my colleagues in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. It was good fun and maybe the issue should have been left there for us to sort out. It was plain to me that the select committee was trying to get a good result for the drivers of the vehicles and for the travelling public who are in their care. 
In speaking to clause 4 of the bill I am happy to say that the select committee was generally agreed on the provisions of that clause. It was hard to get a final cut-off point for the reinstatement of people who have lost their P endorsement. The select committee was keen to get a good result. Clause 4 has to give the existing people who lost their P endorsement the understanding that they are being dealt with in a fair way. The select committee agreed that those people can reapply for their licences in certain circumstances. We all agreed with that. 
I will quickly mention a person in my area—and everybody has a case like this—who had an indiscretion with a girl a few months younger than himself. He was 16 and she was 15. It was a minor offence 38 years ago. He has been driving taxis and now those same people have three children. Some people if they have not served time in jail should have a chance to continue to serve the public—as some have done blamelessly for years. 
Just to speak generally for a moment the difference between National and Labour on what has been put forward is that National would like to have an earlier cut-off point than Labour’s. National says that after any jail sentence one is history. The bill allows anybody with a 12-month jail sentence or less to reapply for his or her licence. I think that is too lenient. I think we have to be tough but we also have to be fair. 
For the future National says that new licence holders as from 16 January should be treated firmly. We say applicants with any convictions as listed on Supplementary Order Paper 17 in the name of David Bennett need not bother to apply for a licence. They are history; they will not get a licence. We need to protect the public. Our view is quite simple: if one does the time one does not get a licence. That is not a new thing in law. For example if one has a jail sentence for dealing in drugs one does not go overseas. That is very similar to this situation. Conviction and going to jail for drug offences set the rules on a person’s future travel. National says that doing the crime and doing the time should set the rules for driving a public vehicle. Someone like that should not drive a public vehicle full stop. 
National seeks to change this clause to make sure that if future licence applicants have done jail time they will not drive public vehicles. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I want to take a call and speak to the Supplementary Order Paper in the name of the Hon Harry Duynhoven. United Future is delighted that the Minister has brought this Supplementary Order Paper to the House and also congratulates the Minister on circulating with the Supplementary Order Paper the actual details of individuals who would be affected. The Supplementary Order Paper of course changes the bill as reported back by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee to allow those who have committed offences under section 134 or 135 of the Crimes Act 1961—what we call the carnal knowledge sections—and who did go to jail but who were in jail for less than 12 months to reapply to have their P endorsement reinstated. 
I want to refer immediately to the table of people—we do not have their names—who are on that list. The first one is described as individual A. Individual A was convicted in 1964 at the age of 24 years and went to jail for 1 month. Now I am one of the people in Parliament like Bob Clarkson who was alive and well in 1964. Indeed 1964 was the year that I became a father for the first time. I can tell members that in those days  
Truth 
 used to write up carnal knowledge convictions in lurid detail. The whole country used to queue up at the local dairy to read about them. It was quite a big deal in those days. 
So here we are now talking about a person who is 65 years of age. Members should think about this. He was 24 in 1964; we are now in 2006 so he is at least 65 years of age. This person who has led a blameless life for the last 41 years and who has a P endorsement has had his licence removed. I agree with Minister Harry Duynhoven when he says that that is a completely unjust and unfair outcome. I do not want to go into the details of that because I think that if Tau Henare were really honest about this he would probably say: “There but for the grace of God go I.” and I think we should get really real about that. 
Let me take individual H on the same list. Individual H went to jail for 3 months in 1983. He was aged 40. Therefore he is now aged 62. He has also just lost his livelihood. Now let me ask the Committee this—I know that it is late at night but really some of the so-called humour going across this Chamber is quite disappointing because we are actually talking about real individuals here and we are talking about a matter of justice. Some members of the Committee might say: “Does it really matter Gordon if two men one aged 62 and one aged 65 lose their licence for the rest of their life?”. I say yes it does. If there was even one I would be prepared to be here any night of the week at 9 o’clock to say: “Let’s give these people justice.” Those people will not be able to find alternative employment at 62 or 65 years of age. That is their sole means of livelihood. They are working; they should be allowed to continue working. Parliament got it wrong. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
GORDON COPELAND 
: It put the bill through last time—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member. I ask new members to look at Speaker’s ruling 57/3 on interjections. I think they might learn something. 
GORDON COPELAND 
: I therefore express my deep disappointment. I am quite shocked that tonight the National Party intends to vote against this bill. I had hoped that we would acknowledge that Parliament got it wrong and got it wrong badly—that the legislation is unjust and unfair to the people concerned. As I said if it affects only one person it is still worth rectifying the injustice. National members are basically voting “No” tonight which means they are prepared to accept that situation. That is the only interpretation that the people of New Zealand will be able to put on their actions and National members should bear that in mind. I join my voice to that of Harry Duynhoven. I had genuinely expected tonight that this Parliament would have unanimity around this issue. I am disappointed that that is not the case and I ask National members to think again. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I follow on from a point made by my colleague earlier in respect of the application of sections 134 and 135 of the Crimes Act and how that relates to women. For years we did bad things by women and women complainants in respect of sexual matters. We did a lot of those things while investigating complaints or while women were trying to make complaints in respect of section 134(1) of that Act. Some pretty archaic stuff goes on within the Crimes Act and remains there today. An example of that is section 134(7) which reads: “No person shall be prosecuted for any offence against this section except under paragraph (a) …”—which is indecent assault—“unless the prosecution is commenced within 12 months from the time when the offence was committed.” 
I will just use the example that Gordon Copeland used. He talked about an offender who was 24 years of age and who was convicted of having sex with a girl who was at least 9 years younger than him. She could have been as young as 12 or 13—who knows? What we do not know is the nature of the relationship between the man and the girl or when the sexual offending started. When we look at men who offend against young girls like that we see they often do something known as grooming. In other words they set out to entice young girls because they have a preference for prepubescent girls—girls of that age. It seems very strange to me that Mr Copeland a member of United Future would so strongly defend somebody who even though the offence was as long ago as that had sex with a girl so much younger than himself. 
Pre-1985 we find as I alluded to earlier that as a society we took sex crimes very very lightly. Let us go back in time—perhaps to the time when my friend Bob Clarkson or when Peter Brown were young and could buy an ice cream for a penny. At about the same time Mr Brown could have been deported to Australia if he stole a loaf of bread. Maybe 30 or 40 years ago if someone had stolen an overcoat he or she would go to jail. That would not happen today. People can do burglaries or commit all sorts of what we consider to be serious crimes and not go to jail. The complete reverse of that has happened in respect of sex crimes because the further we go back the more lightly those crimes were treated. The penalties for sex crimes have now become significantly more serious than they were. 
Let us look for instance at section 134(2) of the Crimes Act in relation to indecent assault. A point that I made at the beginning of this debate was that the offence of indecent assault included things that are now treated as a rape offence. A person could now go to jail for 20 years for what would have been charged as an indecent assault in those days. Somebody who was convicted of indecent assault in 1983 or 1984 might well have gone to jail for 6 months. Today if he or she was charged with the same offence or the equivalent offence for doing the same act he or she would go to jail for 6 or 8 years no problem at all. 
I take the point the Minister made earlier that such a person would not automatically get a P-class licence but that the application would go for consideration before the director. The problem with that is: how do we know what information the director will have available to him or her? We know that in some cases for instance the offences go back 40 years - plus. What information will be available on them? Mr Copeland in relation to the incident he quoted could not tell us how the relationship with the girl started. Was the man involved with her as a teacher or babysitter? How did that relationship start? We do not know. All we know is that the man has not been convicted since then. Does that mean he has not offended again or that he has not been caught? Who knows? The point is that we just do not know. Are we prepared to take that risk with members of the public who ride in the back of taxis or who happen to be the last passenger on a bus? I can tell members that those people are vulnerable people. They are in a position to be picked up and taken away by a taxi driver and it seems ludicrous to me to take that risk. 
The point was made that a person who had committed an offence of kidnapping could still reapply for a licence. That seems strange to me. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I think the Minister for Transport Safety summed it up quite clearly in his introduction to this clause by saying it is all about justice. I think that is the essence of it and that is where I disagree with Tau Henare’s approach. He asked why we needed to worry about these 160 people—I do not know whether I have the number exactly right—and said that we should worry about young women etc. If we approach matters from a question of justice we worry about everyone and want everyone to have a fair go. This is not about 160 drivers versus women or girls as Mr Henare put it but is a question of our getting it right for everyone. 
We have to trust the Director of Land Transport in this matter. Chester Borrows asked how we know that the director has enough information. It is the same in any proceeding—in this proceeding or in a court or wherever. We have to trust the judge and the jury to work out whether they have enough information to reach their decision. If the director looks into the history of a person if not a lot of information comes forward and if no one is willing to put up his or her hand in favour of the person who wants an exception made so that he or she can get a P licence than that person does not get the licence. So I do not think there is a problem. 
Chester Borrows says that some people would have committed things over the years but they were not discovered the police did not catch them and they were not brought before the court and convicted. I do not think we can operate through life thinking that people might be bad but we have just not discovered it. We have to have a bit more confidence in human beings to do good and improve themselves. If a person is the subject of—and the director would place a lot of weight on this—a whole lot of good reports from all sorts of members of the community then that person might get a good result. The director can work out what sort of person he or she is. 
I was appreciative of Gordon Copeland’s speech in that he considered what the measure would mean to the people concerned. He said that people aged up to or around 60 might not have any other job to go to and that it could be quite critical for their future for them to keep their present job in the bus or taxi industry. I hope he supports Jim Anderton’s amendment to this clause in that respect. It applies to people whatever offence they committed. It might be difficult for people to get another job at the age Mr Copeland referred to and the director under Jim Anderton’s amendment would look closely at each person whose offence came under that range of offences. I think that is the way to go. 
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. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I will take just a short call. We have heard a lot of talk from the Minister for Transport Safety about justice. If he is talking about justice what about the justice that was the intent of the 2005 legislation? Parliament passed an Act in 2005 on the basis of providing justice for people undertaking a career as a driver and also providing justice for those who would be passengers in their vehicles. To come here and talk about justice in terms of what is being doing now is quite a different concept. The real justice is in providing an avenue for passengers and drivers to be protected as in the 2005 legislation. 
The reality of what is being done today is that it is a numbers game. If those cases had not come up in December to January you would not be doing what you are doing now. That legislation would have been there and it would have been fine. It is a numbers game. You have had some cases come before you and public opinion is dead against them so you have to do something about them. National members are not saying there is any problem with that; we are saying you should be honest. You have a problem so let us deal with it but keep the justice that you set up in 2005. That is the reality of what we are dealing with and that is where the consistency argument comes in. It is not a matter of consistency between new and existing drivers; it is a matter of consistency of policy between what you put forward in 2005 and what you are putting forward now. You have changed your policy because of public opinion concerning a few cases over the Christmas holidays. The best way of doing that— 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I realise you have been engrossed in other matters but the honourable member is saying “you did this” and “you did that”. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member. I tell the honourable member David Bennett that when he uses the word “you” he is referring to the Chair. It is convention that that does not happen. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Consistency needs to be looked at in relation to the intent of the 2005 Act—not consistency between existing and new drivers. People talk about the justice system as the means of recoil but the justice system is quite different from the legislative process. We pass legislation; the justice system interprets that legislation. In this case the justice system does not have the ability to interpret. There is strict legislation there and we need to put new legislation in place that achieves that. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I find it really unusual that a couple of parties that support for instance a bill proposing to criminalise parents for using reasonable discipline on their children are prepared to support this legislation which can see people who have been convicted and imprisoned for periods of up to 12 months for sex crimes apply to have a P-class endorsement. The point I have tried to make a number of times tonight is this: most if not all of the offences committed by those applicants occurred prior to 1985. Before 1985 we never had such things as child abuse teams and sexual assault teams. We did not have the proliferation of Rape Crisis groups either. It is amazing the amount of intelligence that those—[ 
Interruption 
] The list member who lives in Wanganui is calling out. Earlier on this evening we were pulled up for barracking whilst not sitting in our proper seats. We have managed to pull our heads in slightly since then. I suggest that rule be applied across the Chamber. 
The point is that we do know that only one in 10 women victims of sex abuse report it. That means a lot of undisclosed abuse is out there. That is an accepted fact and it has been reported on time and time again. We do know too that groups such as Rape Crisis receive on a confidential basis a lot of information about repeat offenders especially about repeat rapists and repeat sex abusers. I accept that a person should not be held back for the sake of rumour or gossip but the point is that people do not have to make a complaint when they are abused. They frequently choose not to for various reasons and they seek help from child abuse teams sex abuse teams and Rape Crisis centres. That means that the offenders can offend again and again and they may never have a conviction. They might have had a conviction earlier on when they were not as good at escaping it as they became later on but they would not have been caught since then. 
When for instance the director seeks information as to the suitability of an applicant for a bus-driver’s licence or a taxi driver’s licence he or she sends out a list of all the applicants and it goes to the police station. It is pinned on the noticeboard in the watch-house and the police ask what officers know about those applicants. The police may do some checks on the computer to see when an offender’s convictions were but that is all. The police have to deal in proof. They cannot ring up and say that someone has been reported for abuse several times but the complainant was not prepared to go to court. That information lies there latently. 
If the police did oppose an application on that basis what could and obviously would happen—it has happened in the incident the Minister cited earlier on—is that the applicant would go to the High Court. When an applicant is in front of the judge in the High Court what does the judge do? He or she calls on the police to give evidence to back up the fact that they opposed the application being granted in the first place. There is no proof of an offence. The police cannot prove it occurred because they are not prepared to put the complainant on the stand if he or she is not prepared to be re-victimised again. So the police lose and the applicant gets the licence. If that is the sort of society that Government members want that is over to them. 
I will look at the issue of the bloke’s view. I made the point earlier about section 134 of the Crimes Act which relates to children aged between 12 and 16 and section 135 of that Act which relates to women over 16 years of age. The bloke’s view which I have heard tonight and from Government members is that the offender was convicted only for grabbing a boob or for grabbing a crotch in a pub. It is all very well for a bloke to say that. What about the women? What do they have to say about that? Is it a big deal for them? I tell members that it is. Once a woman has been treated in that way and that is the response she has had from the person she has reported it to from the people in the hotel or from the offender at the time what happens? Nothing. Do members think the woman will go out again? Is that justice? Should she be expected to remain at home or stay out of her normal social circle because she is afraid? [ 
Interruption 
] You can rabbit on if you like. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is bringing the Chair into debate. 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: I am sorry Mr Chair. It was the passion of the moment. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: How appropriate! 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: How appropriate! The point is that it is not for a group of men or a group of politicians who sit on many occasions a long way from the coalface to decide how a woman should respond to that or whether she has been victimised. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 14 in the name of the Hon Jim Anderton to omit paragraph (i) from section 29B(1)(b) in clause 4 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 50; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 46; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 14 in the name of the Hon Jim Anderton to omit and substitute words in section 29B(1)(b)(ii) in clause 4 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 50; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 46; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 13 in the name of the Hon Harry Duynhoven to section 29B(1)(b)(ii) in clause 4 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand National 46. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: We had one further amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 14 in the name of the Hon Jim Anderton to add words to section 29B(1)(b)(ii) in clause 4. However it has been ruled out of order on the basis that it is the same as the previous amendment. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 4 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand National 46. 
Clause 4 as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Third Reading 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
: 
 I move  
That the Land Transport Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. The legislation this bill amends was passed to improve public safety so that those using passenger transport services often at night or alone could have a greater assurance that those working in a passenger service with whom they have direct contact pose no threat to them. However the mechanism is blunt. It leaves some individuals adversely affected in terms of their employment with no appreciable safety gain. The bill we now have strikes a better balance between the safety of the travelling public and the ability of those who have been convicted of offences at the minor end of the scale to continue to hold employment as a passenger service driver or to apply to have employment as a passenger service driver at some future time. The bill does not—I repeat it does not—automatically reissue passenger endorsements to those eligible to apply for them. It only allows applications to be made to the director. The reinstatement avenue is tightly prescribed and the criteria are strict. Indeed this amendment bill put up in my name tightens considerably the criteria that the director has to consider compared with the legislation the House passed under the previous Minister in 2005. 
 Upon the passage of this bill the director will inform those directly affected of the new reinstatement criteria. Some 158 people will I think be eligible—maybe 20 or so more but in that order—out of the 234 who were adversely affected by the original legislation. Decisions on whether a person qualifies for reinstatement will be made as quickly as possible. 
I want to comment on the performance of the National Party. I think that some of its members need to go home from this House tonight and look carefully at their reflection in the mirror. Some members in the National Party telephoned me over the Christmas holiday break to ask me to do something to help their constituents or someone who had been affected and had approached them for help. In some cases the member may not be aware of the penalty those constituents were given at the time of their offence. What is really galling for me is that I spent a considerable part of the Christmas holiday period on this issue. That is not a worry because it needed fixing and that is what I am paid to do. But I received assurances from several National MPs who voted tonight that they would support action to fix the problem for those who were on the minor end of the scale such as those who had had sex with a partner of a similar age but below 16 and were caught by what we know as the carnal knowledge provision—section 134 of the Crimes Act. 
I want to tell the public of New Zealand quite clearly what the National Party’s inconsistent position is. It is absolutely possible right now even before this amendment bill gets passed for there to be currently a taxi driver or a bus driver who is a former violent offender who has been convicted of for example a serious assault that might well have killed the person had he or she not been stopped who has served a prison sentence of perhaps 8 years in prison years ago but had been deemed either by the director or the courts to have reformed his or her life and to now not be a threat to the public. It is possible that that person a taxi driver or a bus driver—right now tonight in public—is carting women children and others around. 
National Party members are happy with that situation because in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee they did not object to—indeed they supported and in this House spoke about—such former violent offenders having the right after having served time for their crime to be taxi or bus drivers. But their position which in another venue I would describe with an “h” word of having two standards is such that they are happy for a sex offender who had no further crime recorded who got no penalty of imprisonment to be on the road quite happily as a taxi driver or a bus driver. 
But what they have offended against in my view is a principle of justice. Because if a person who was in such a sexual relationship with a similarly aged person but who was under 16 years of age and therefore got a sentence that was not a custodial sentence in a prison then he is OK. But if that very same person got a custodial sentence not in a borstal but in a prison because let us say the borstals were full then he may well have exactly the same penalty applied. National members may not be aware that some of the people on whose behalf they have asked me to intervene actually were imprisoned for a month or for 2 or 3 months. But they are not happy. They are happy to have on the road a violent offender who spent 8 years perhaps in prison but they are not happy to have on the road a person who had sex with his girlfriend and to whom he may have now been married for 40 years—a person who cannot be a taxi driver because he spent a month in prison. 
That is an absolute double standard. It is absolutely inconsistent. I know it is called by a different word in another place but I cannot use that word here. I urge National members to look carefully at their consciences. They should look at themselves in the mirror tonight and ask themselves whether they got it right. I know that someone will say: “Ah but it’s possible to have a rapist.” It is possible but there is no guarantee that such a person will get past the director. Indeed—[ 
Interruption 
] Yes the bill allows them to apply. The member is quite right and when he is quiet I will continue. The legislation that was reported back from the select committee last year allows violent offenders of any sort to apply. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Rapists could not apply. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: No no. Violent offenders who had been convicted of physical assault rather than rape could apply anyway. The member can dance up and down all he likes but the assurances given to me by several National members over the telephone when we discussed this issue were worthless. I say to members opposite that although this issue has not been easy for me or for this Parliament we approached it with goodwill to try to arrive at a solution. I want to thank the House the select committee the Taxi Federation the Bus and Coach Association and the Council of Trade Unions for finding the time to put in submissions and for working through this issue. Never have we seen such a difficult bill pass so quickly. Rarely has this Parliament acted so fast. I especially want to thank the officials of Land Transport and the Ministry of Transport who did so much to try to sort through the issues. This has not been an easy issue. Of course it is emotive but I guarantee I get a call from a National MP in the next week saying: “What about my bloke?”. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 For the benefit of listeners that was the Hon Harry Duynhoven. If they want to know why he is not in Cabinet that is the reason. 
What the Minister for Transport Safety has done is allow rapists to apply for a taxi licence. That is what he has done. I want to make it perfectly clear that that happens. The Minister should have listened to Chester Borrows who is an expert in this field has huge experience in it and knows that rapists have had sentences of less than 12 months. The truth is that those people do pose greater risks. [ 
Interruption 
] The Minister Lianne Dalziel who interjected was actually on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee last year and said that rapists should not be able to apply for a taxi licence. In fact she was really firm on that. She said that Deborah Coddington was absolutely right that rapists should have no prospect of getting a taxi licence. That is what she said then. I heard it myself because I was on the select committee. What has she said today? She has said: “Oh well they can apply. It doesn’t really matter very much.” Frankly it is absurd. 
I want to put on record that yes National has been concerned about the people who are affected by sections 134 and 135 of the Crimes Act. The Minister actually knows that. They are the vast majority of the people affected by last year’s amendment. Notwithstanding the concerns we had about the select committee’s report back we would have voted for the reported-back legislation on its third reading. We would have done that because it essentially fixed the problem. The problem now is that there is not just the Minister’s amendment—I concede that Mr Duynhoven’s had a degree of restraint because it was confined to sections 134 and 135—but the Minister foolishly has agreed to Mr Anderton’s amendment. I am being charitable in saying that clearly he did that in haste because it was tabled very late and he was possibly ignorant of its effects. [ 
Interruption 
] Why has the Hon Lianne Dalziel who was so firm in the select committee last year so absolutely convinced that no rapist should ever have a taxi licence in any circumstance—the Minister cannot deny that because she knows what I am saying is correct—flip-flopped today? I think that frankly is outrageous. 
The Minister for Transport Safety asked about the distinction between a sexual offender and a serious violent offender and that is a fair question. The evidence shows that people guilty of sexual offences—and I am sure Chester Borrows would affirm this—have a greater propensity to reoffend committing the same type of offence than do people who committed serious violent offences many years ago. I have heard Mr Chester Borrows say right now that that is so. The reason he can say it is that he is an expert in this field. He was a police officer of many years’ standing including as a detective. No one else in this Parliament can actually make that claim. No one else in this Parliament has had that close experience in recent years of what actually happens. 
Ignorant Supplementary Order Papers have been put forward particularly the one from Mr Anderton and it is frankly disgraceful that the Government allowed his Supplementary Order Paper to go forward and totally negate what the select committee did last year. I concede the select committee made a mistake. The recent report back from the select committee would have fixed that mistake. National members would have been prepared to vote for the third reading of the bill as reported back. We are absolutely adamant that we will not vote for rapists to be able to apply for a taxi licence. [ 
Interruption 
] 
I think this needs to be put on record. The person interjecting—for the benefit of listeners—is Mrs Jill Pettis. She is the previous member for Whanganui. She thinks it is OK for rapists to apply for taxi licences. I am not surprised that she was defeated by the very able and vastly more experienced current member for Whanganui Mr Chester Borrows. The voters had a very clear and obvious choice to make and it is hardly surprising that they voted for Mr Chester Borrows because the member Jill Pettis has proven to be such a failure. The more she interjects the more foolish she shows herself to be. 
National members are outraged at the range of Supplementary Order Papers put forward by the Government. We are amazed that other parties voted for Mr Anderton’s amendment. It is a disgrace. I would like to see the Minister for Small Business defend rapists being able to apply for taxi licences. She must know that is unreasonable because that is exactly what she said in the select committee last year. On the basis of trying to fix what is quite a narrow issue the Government has completely gutted the intent of protecting the public. That is why National members cannot support this third reading. We are very clear on that. We are saying: “Clean up the taxi industry and reduce the level of discretion of the Secretary for Transport.” We are saying that murderers rapists and other serious sexual offenders should not be able to apply for taxi licences and that if they have had them they should not have them for the future. This Labour Government is so morally bankrupt that it is allowing those people to apply for licences. I find that appalling. 
That was not what the concern of the public was. The concern of the public—and indeed the people affected—was real and genuine. I acknowledge that to the Minister and I had some of those concerns. We could have fixed them by a narrowly focused amendment and if we had done that— 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: You didn’t even vote for my amendment. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Because the Minister’s amendment was wrong but we would have voted for the report back from the select committee which was focused and had a bright line. I just want to restate it. It had simple principles. It stated that sexual offenders who had not gone to jail could apply to have their licences back and in all probability they would have got them back. We said that going forward we needed to have a firm policy for the future for the safety of passengers particularly young women in taxis. So we are saying—bright line—that an offender guilty of a sexual offence cannot apply. That was the stance taken by the Minister for Small Business. She has not just recanted as bad as that is; she has done a grave disservice to women and young people in New Zealand. She said she was going to clean up the taxi industry and she was proud to have done that. She has now opened the door to the very thing we opposed last year the very things in the industry that we tried to fix up. Now because of Mr Anderton’s stupid amendment the Government has allowed rapists to apply for taxi-driving certificates. Frankly I think that is appalling. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 The quality of debate has got down to a level that probably shows that it is 9.45 on a Thursday night when most members have normally gone home. I say to Dr Wayne Mapp that he should be flagellating himself for changing his position because he was on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee last time and that select committee exempted no one. I invite David Bennett and Bob Clarkson—new National members—to tell him off in the way he has been telling off members on this side of the House. Why did he wimp out? Why did he change his view between then and now? It is totally illogical to stand there saying that it was wrong to have amended this law in the way in which it was amended pretending that National had some high and mighty position—which it did not of course because the last time this law was changed National members voted for no exemptions of the nature they have been talking about as did every other member of the House. 
The truth of the matter is that when the law was put to the test in the real world it came up short. Tonight’s debate has been about where the line should be drawn. The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee tried to reach consensus—as I said earlier in the second reading—and did not quite do so. What the House has done by 70 votes to 46 votes is to draw the line in a different place as it tries to seek some justice for people who no one in this House actually believes should be caught by this law. 
However I want to stress again that the avenue available to people is still a very very narrow tight and difficult one—and so it should be. We all agree that people who drive taxis and buses should meet the highest tests. After this law is passed I suppose we will have to rely on the officials who have to administer it and the judges who have to make decisions in court—if cases get that far. I hope that we do not have any decisions going to the court. I hope that people will have to be squeaky clean to get past the director and enter into the rest of it. Because as the Hon Harry Duynhoven said earlier there is a “fit and proper person” test to get through as well as this criteria in the law. If people are true villains if they are menaces and if they are people whom one would not want to be driving taxis then they will get caught by the “fit and proper person” test anyway. If they have continued to offend they will not get licences because the director has the power to turn them down on that category alone. So if we look at the bill in a sober and sensible manner we will see that Parliament has improved the law tonight. The aim of the exercise in order to improve the law is for the safety of the public to be of paramount importance and that is what the bill has done. 
We heard a number of heart-rending stories from all sorts of Opposition members at the first reading debate. I remember that they clapped Harry Duynhoven on the back and said what a hero he was. How come that has changed tonight? Dr Wayne Mapp is now slagging off the Minister for doing his job and I find that extraordinary. 
Let us look at what the bill has achieved. It has widened the pathway in a very very small way with the passing of the amendments on the Supplementary Order Papers. Seventy members of Parliament voted for the amendments and 46 members voted against them. Some votes are missing somewhere and I will ask Deborah Coddington what she thinks about that because she was a very strong member of the select committee on this issue. I think she will ask her former colleagues what happened to the ACT party members tonight. Where were they when they were needed to fight the good fight that Deborah Coddington fought so well in the select committee and in the House on behalf of those people whom she felt strongly about? That is an interesting little aside but I am sure there will be legitimate parliamentary business that ACT members have been engaged in that has meant they could not speak in the debate nor vote in the House tonight. That is extraordinary for the ACT party which prides itself on being hard on law and order. So we will look to the ACT party for some answers when at some stage its members get a chance to speak in the House again. 
I congratulate all the members of the other parties who have made some wise and considered decisions on the Supplementary Order Papers that look to balance the scales between justice for the people who are attempting to become drivers and the passengers and the public whom they seek to serve. The bill probably does not go as far as some people would like. It probably goes too far for some people as well such as for Bob Clarkson and David Bennett whose speeches were much more considered than the speech of their senior colleague who was sitting opposite. They made their points very well. I like having a debate in which a couple of people who sat on the select committee with me actually say that the principle of what the Government is trying to do is correct but that they do not agree with it in terms of where it draws the line. But that is where those members left it. They did not have to get all personal towards the honourable Minister who has had to shepherd through this very difficult legislation. So I say well done to those two new members of the National Party. I am sure they will learn more on our select committee from this side of the House than they will from that fella over there. [ 
Interruption 
] Well I hope so anyway. 
This bill I believe should now put to rest a very difficult issue. Let us hope that we have given to the director the powers that are needed to clean up the industry once and for all—because it does need to be cleaned up—and that we have given to the director the powers to make the decisions so that hopefully the judges in the court hardly ever have to think about it. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 It feels like there is more love in this Chamber than in a Green Party conference! I would like to thank the Hon Mark Gosche. It has been a pleasure to work with him in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and it has been a pleasure to debate the issue tonight. National came into the debate with a very firm and fixed approach. We believe that the bill is really an attempt to balance two competing interests. The first is the need for justice for existing drivers in retrospective cases. They need to be treated fairly. Nobody perceived that the legislation passed in the House last year would have had the effect that it did. Those drivers were innocent people going about their business who were caught out. Nobody has a problem with trying to find a solution that assists those people. That is fair it is what the public wanted and it is what the Government should deliver. Both parties have represented that interest well and have shown the ability to make the right decision for the right circumstance. 
The other competing interest—the one we have tried to stress throughout the debate—is that of the spirit of the amendment bill of 2005. The spirit of that amendment bill was one of creating a system that provided for the protection of passengers and for the protection of the industry. It is not just about the passengers. The taxi industry and the bus industry need to know that their drivers are protected and have the support of the public. That is the only way those industries can operate. I gave the example of a Hamilton firm that lost that support because of a rape case that took place just before Christmas. That firm went under. Hundreds of drivers in that company lost their jobs when that happened. That is the kind of situation we need to avoid by having a stringent control on the rules and regulations in regard to driver endorsement. 
That was the spirit of the 2005 legislation. The members of the House who were there at that time should not forget the reasons that that legislation was passed. It was not a situation like the present one in which cases have come before members and people have felt aggrieved by legislation. It was a case where members were looking at public safety—those strong emotive issues that people like Deborah Coddington promoted in the House. People like Lianne Dalziel also promoted this issue. 
I quote Lianne Dalziel from  
Hansard 
 on 10 May 2005: “We made the point that this is not only about passenger safety—it is about public confidence in the passenger service industry. Everyone is entitled to know that he or she is not getting into a taxi whose driver is a murderer or a rapist. Nothing will change that.” Those were the words that Lianne Dalziel used last year. What has changed that? Two months of public opinion when there have been very few stories in the newspapers have changed that. There is nothing wrong with changing a bill when one gets it wrong. But there is something wrong with changing a bill for the sake of changing it and taking away the initial intent that was right. That is what National has been fighting for tonight. 
We put forward an amendment tonight on a Supplementary Order Paper that would have created a category for new and a category for existing drivers. That amendment would have satisfied public opinion and the needs of our constituents. For the new drivers we could have satisfied the rights of justice and fairness and had the emotive arguments that we need to have in this Parliament. That is what we were looking for tonight and we have been disappointed that Labour and New Zealand First have shifted their positions. I have been very disappointed in New Zealand First; it has put its roots in the ground with the Government over the last 3 weeks and it showed that tonight. This is the New Zealand First - Labour Government and it has made it quite clear that it is willing to work away from a principle just to look for votes. 
Has Labour been polling this or did it actually do this on purpose? This is a case where justice for New Zealanders has been sacrificed for the political expediency of two political parties. This is a case where consistency between bills passed has not been followed from one year to another. One year ago it was good enough for everyone in this House to stand up and say how great they were when they were out there protecting the rights of innocent people. But within a year they had changed that opinion and now they are saying how great they are and that they have looked after people in their time of need. Well what about the spirit of that imaginative legislation? That is what we should be debating in this House. That is what we came here for: to show the spirit to the people that we are there to deliver for all people—the people who get caught and the people who will be using those services. That is what being in Government is about and that is what we want to see delivered. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I have to ask the member David Bennett—and I could feel his passion from here—what he really believes he achieves for the public and for the taxi drivers who have been treated unfairly by voting against this bill. What does he achieve? I would give National Party members more credence if they had raised the issue of a crime of manslaughter. It should have been considered in this bill. Why did the honourable member not bring it up? 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Why didn’t you put it in last year? 
PETER BROWN 
: I know the answer to the question I say to Mr Tau Henare. I am asking why you did not raise it. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I wasn’t here last year. 
PETER BROWN 
: That is right but you are here tonight just making a noise. Why did you not raise the crimes of assault and violent assault? You just left the issue alone. But what the National member is prepared to do—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I think we have had a bit of fun. Would members give Mr Brown a chance to speak and allow others to hear him please. 
PETER BROWN 
: Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. What the National Party is prepared to do— 
David Bennett 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I do not know quite what the rule is but before you came in we were told that we should not be asking other members questions like that and Mr Brown has been doing it constantly in his speech. We expected him to come here to make a speech not just to ask questions of the National Party. We would prefer him to make a speech. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: As I heard it the questions were rhetorical. 
PETER BROWN 
: Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. I just make the point that National Party members did not give one iota of thought to extending this list of serious crimes to include manslaughter assault or violent assault. I know the reasons why the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee looked at them and avoided them. But those guys in the National Party particularly the new members are prepared to condemn a person who when he was young had a sexual relationship with a young lady under the age of 16 and who now wants to become a taxi driver 10 or 15 years later. National members are prepared to condemn that person to the scrap heap. I say to them: “Go look in the mirror and see who you really stand for.” 
David Bennett 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Members know that when a member stands for a point of order the member is entitled to make that point of order. 
Hon Member 
: He’s not standing; he’s wobbling. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: This is the final warning. I am on my feet and nobody should be speaking. I am now calling the member for his point of order and I warn members not to speak while a member is giving his point of order. 
David Bennett 
: Mr Brown was using that “you” context again and I would ask that he stop that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is quite right; Mr Brown is bringing the Speaker into the debate. However I think a lot of people in this House at the moment need a lesson in that. I have been reluctant to—[ 
Interruption 
] Does the member want to leave because I have just given a warning on that—I am giving a ruling. A lot of people have been bringing the Speaker into the debate over the last few days. All the presiding officers have been commenting on it and we were just talking to some of the whips about it. The member is quite right: members are not to bring the Speaker into the debate. 
PETER BROWN 
: Speaking to the point of order if I might and if I am allowed to— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: No because I have ruled on it. 
PETER BROWN 
: OK. Well I will make the point that I said the member should go to his mirror in the morning and ask himself: “What do you stand for?”. That is what I said. He could hardly be talking about you Madam Assistant Speaker—as I certainly am not—because I do not in my wildest thoughts think he would be seeing you in his mirror in the morning. 
We must remember that what we are doing tonight is to allow current taxi drivers who have been captured by the earlier amendment Act the right to appeal. We have not determined in our own right in Parliament whether they are suitable to drive a taxi—fit and proper crime-free enough or whatever. We have just said that this category of person can appeal to the Director of Land Transport—it is as simple as that. We are not making the decision on an individual basis on who will become a taxi driver and who will not of the 234 who have been affected by the current legislation. It is equally so with new taxi drivers; we are not determining whether they are suitable taxi drivers despite their criminal history. We have simply widened and widened a little further than New Zealand First wanted to go the criteria when it comes to examining the criminal background of who can apply to become a taxi driver—or to have a passenger endorsement to be absolutely correct. We did not support the Jim Anderton amendments. We think they would go fractionally too far. But we do note that the House has widened only the ability to appeal—not the criteria for becoming a taxi driver. The director has that responsibility and that responsibility is firmly put into legislation and will be firmly understood by those who come before him with an appeal. It is on his shoulders what he takes into account and whether he does the job correctly. 
As I said we supported the Harry Duynhoven amendment when it came before the select committee. We looked very closely at that sort of amendment in the select committee. But in the end because I was unable to consult my caucus I was not prepared to go as far as the Harry Duynhoven amendment does which extends the list to include a person who has served a term of imprisonment of up to 12 months. But I respect that the Minister for Transport Safety has done his job and we were prepared to support that amendment. 
We were not prepared to support the Jim Anderton amendments and we certainly were not prepared to support the amendment from the new member whose name escapes me for the time being. I cannot remember his name but he wanted to divide new and existing persons. His qualification for an “existing person” was a most unusual qualification. To be an existing person one had to have a criminal conviction. I suggest that we are all existing persons here. I have never seen a Supplementary Order Paper that was so confused and that so distorted English words. 
I hope this bill passes with a significant majority so that we can say to those people who are currently driving taxis and have been captured by the legislation that we put through in 2005 that we made a mistake we have tidied it up and we have given people a fair go. For people who want to get into the industry I say that hopefully the director will take a fairly objective stance on their criminal background and make his decisions accordingly. I think this bill needs to go through tonight and I am hopeful that it will go through with a significant majority. I am disappointed that National Party members cannot see fit to support it because they know in their heart of hearts I am absolutely certain that this issue has to be addressed. This bill will address the issues of concern in some significant manner. New Zealand First supports this bill. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I was interested when David Bennett criticised New Zealand First for shifting ground and voting for the last part and voting for the bill and for just now supporting it quite enthusiastically. He said that New Zealand First shifted ground to get votes. I thought it was a good tribute to the bill that the National member is admitting that the stand we have taken tonight is a popular stand out there in the community and is a vote winner. I am very pleased that he said that. 
The Green Party has been engaged with this issue to try to improve the legislation for some time including last year at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. I would disagree with the way that my friend Mark Gosche put in his comment earlier. He said that last year nobody voted for the exceptions. In fact I quoted my colleague Mike Ward who was on the select committee. Although it might not have been a question of voting on amendments or whatever it was quite clear from the section I read from the minority report in the report back on the bill which came from that select committee in the middle of last year that Mike Ward predicted exactly what would happen by not putting the exceptions in last year. 
Sure we did not put forward any amendments during the Committee stage and we did not vote in that respect but we made our position clear just as tonight—and Mr Gosche rightly indicated this tonight—there are some parties namely the Greens that would have liked to go a little bit further in this current legislation in terms of the power of the director to grant exceptions. But we have not put our wishes in the form of an amendment because we wanted to focus with others in the House on supporting Jim Anderton’s amendment. We made our point as parties often do without an amendment and without calling a vote on that. But the Green Party last year clearly signalled what would happen and the reason we did that is that we do very strongly support safety and justice going hand in hand. I think that is where the National Party does not really understand things. They are counter-posing one against the other. Either it is safety for the passengers or justice for some taxi drivers or bus drivers present or future. We say that the two things go hand in hand. The more that we have a society where we have justice for all and give everyone a fair go including bus and taxi drivers the more we have a society where people work together and where there is safety in the community. I agree with David Bennett that when we are talking about safety and justice we are also talking about the interests of the taxi industry and the bus industry. They want their drivers to be safe. That is very important. 
I think too that one of the problems with the National Party approach is that they were bending to the industry situation in the present and saying: “Look we might be able to keep the bus drivers and taxi drivers and their federations happy and keep drivers now in the industry happy by just dealing a bit with their concerns.” But if we are to be responsible as parliamentarians I think we have to look at our children our grandchildren our nieces and our nephews. If they in the future commit crimes in their youth or go a bit astray but later in life come right and want to do things such as drive a bus or taxi we have to look after them and not just look after a little section of the community right now. I think we have to give everyone those existing in the industry now and those who might want to enter it in the future the chance to put their case in the way this bill has come out before the Director of Land Transport and get the support of friends relations and workmates to prove that they have rehabilitated after the crime they committed in their earlier days. 
This comes back to a conceptual approach the Greens have. It was good to hear Hone Harawira mention restorative justice in his speech earlier. We support restorative justice not what National supports which is more retributive justice—just knocking people and not trying to restore them and rehabilitate them. We have to celebrate the fact when people are rehabilitated when they become complete again and become good citizens. That is the sort of society that the Greens uphold and are working towards. That includes people who commit all kinds of crimes including I say to Mr Mapp murder. 
Often the circumstances are very varied in the case of murder. Many people in this House will have known murderers and there are all sorts of circumstances. There are crimes of passion there is the whole question of voluntary euthanasia which Peter Brown has been dealing with and whether people in those circumstances have committed murder and indeed some people in those circumstances have been had up for committing murder. There are all sorts of categories of murder and those people are not essentially bad and evil for the rest of their days and they can come right. They can be rehabilitated. We should celebrate that and not say that people are bad bad forever which is behind the National Party approach to this bill. The outcome of this bill I think for the Greens is a big step forward over the situation that existed prior to tonight. We welcome that. It is interesting that United Future and New Zealand First have not gone entirely the way the Greens Labour the Progressives and the Maori Party have gone but they have supported some parts of what we have achieved tonight and that is very good. I think one thing this alignment tonight shows is a sort of natural alignment for progressive legislation such as this among Labour the Progressives the Greens and the Maori Party and I think we can celebrate that as we go forward. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I would like to make a couple of further points during the third reading debate on the Land Transport Amendment Bill. First I refer to the speech made by Dr Wayne Mapp a senior National Party member of Parliament and National’s spokesperson on this bill. During his third reading speech Dr Wayne Mapp told this House that the National Party was happy with this bill as reported back by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. He went on to say however that the National members will vote against this bill tonight at its third reading because of the amendments that have been made to it. 
I just draw Dr Mapp’s attention and the attention of the House to the fact that the National Party voted against this bill at its second reading prior to any of those amendments being made or even proposed. The people of this country call upon us all the time and ask us to please get rid of our hypocrisy and our cant from the parliamentary process. So I do not think I should just listen to Dr Wayne Mapp make those statements without pointing out that his words do not match his actions. Words are cheap. He does not bother to walk the talk and that is completely inconsistent. 
The second thing I would like to allude to is this. Dr Wayne Mapp as I have just said made it very very clear that the National Party members were prepared to support this bill as reported back from the select committee but that they were opposed to amending it. Yet tonight a member—in fact two members—of the National Party proposed amendments to the report back from the select committee. I do not know whether it is too late in the night for that guy—he has a lawyer’s brain and may be trying to be too tricky for his own good—but I think it needs to be put on the record that although those statements were made the actions taken by the party itself contradict the words. 
There is another thing I would like to mention in connection with this bill because I think it is quite relevant. I sat on the select committee last year and the year before when we were considering the bill to establish the Charities Commission. That bill had been drafted by the officials to exclude from the membership of charitable trusts anybody with a criminal conviction. That seems reasonable does it not? Why should anyone with a criminal conviction be allowed to sit as a trustee on a charitable trust? That was the view until of course the Prisoners Aid and Rehabilitation Society a charitable trust came along and asked us to hang on a minute suggesting it was actually a good outcome for society if a rehabilitated prisoner was allowed to participate in the direction of a trust. We took the point immediately and said of course it was. We asked ourselves how we could come here as parliamentarians and say that our goal is to rehabilitate prisoners harangue whoever happened to be the Minister of Corrections at the time about our failure to rehabilitate people and then refuse to accept by our actions that they can in fact be rehabilitated. 
 That point is at the heart of this issue. What Parliament forgot about when it got it wrong last year was that people who committed a carnal knowledge type of offence—which today we would regard as a pretty minor matter—40 years ago can in fact be rehabilitated and that it is fundamentally unjust to deny them that opportunity and take away their licences. We took licences—P endorsements; public transport endorsements—away from people who had that right. As a society we had given them licences—we had approved of them having licences—and as a Parliament we turned around and said we were sorry but their licences had gone because of something they did 40 years ago. That was absolutely and completely unjust and that was what we set out to rectify in this bill. 
Finally I say that I am disappointed that the bill is not being agreed to by the House unanimously. I said in my first reading speech on the bill that we really make only one mistake in life and that is one that we do not learn something from. I am disappointed that on this occasion the National Party—I think purely for political reasons of some sort—is not prepared to learn from the mistake that was made last year. We will of course vote in support of the bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Before I call the next speaker members might like to know that New Zealand has won its first gold medal at the Commonwealth Games: Moss Burmester in the 200-metre butterfly. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I would like to be the first to congratulate our first gold medal winner in the Commonwealth Games. That is very good news. 
I want to traverse the history of the bill— 
Gordon Copeland 
: I did not actually catch the name of the gold medal winner and I would like to know. There was a bit of noise around at the time. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Moss Burmester. Perhaps I could put it on the record for the House. Moss Burmester has just won a gold medal in the swimming—in record time I am told so that is even better—and we would all like to offer our congratulations. 
I want to briefly traverse the history of the bill. I have had to listen to the political correctness eradicator attacking me for supporting the bill in my position as Minister of Women’s Affairs which I think is somewhat ironic. Unfortunately Wayne Mapp has got a very short memory. The Act that we are amending tonight—the original legislation—actually covered a lot of different areas. This issue was only one small part of major reforming legislation. This is what Wayne Mapp had to say about that legislation: “I guess it is evidence that the Government has finally run out of steam when the only things it can bring before the House are the mundane the ordinary and indeed some might say the dreary. The kind of legislation it is dealing with does not speak of any grand agenda for the country. Here is a Government that is looking for a third term. Does it have any sense of an agenda to put to the country or is its greatest concern whether a bicycle could have a 200-watt electric motor or a 300-watt electric motor? Is that the only thing it can think of? Ms Lianne Dalziel’s great concern was stationary engines. We even had a video to that effect. So this is the sense we get of the agenda of the Government.”  
Was that somebody taking seriously the issues that the legislation dealt with? 
Jill Pettis 
: When did he say that? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: That was 10 May last year. He raised the question that we are dealing with here tonight but he thought that we had introduced the whole of the provisions at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. That is how much notice Wayne Mapp took of the whole bill. We had to point out to him that in fact there was an issue that the select committee raised. What we said as a committee was that we wanted to raise the bar for existing passenger service licence holders. That was what we wanted to do. The bill as introduced did lift the bar for prospective applicants for P licence endorsements and that is what happened at the select committee. 
We found out that even when the director had said that the driver was not a fit and proper person to drive passengers the court would invariably turn the director down. On many occasions the court allowed driver after driver to pick up passengers in spite of the offending in their past even though the director did not want that person driving passengers. We were told that a convicted murderer was driving a taxi in Christchurch. We were told that convicted rapists were driving taxis throughout the country. We were not able to give an assurance that a woman who had been the victim of a rape would not get into a taxi that was driven by the rapist after being let out of prison. We said that the Minister should make provision for people to have their licence reinstated. He did that but the provisions that he put in place were too tight. 
National members say that it is OK to fix the situation for historic offences that judged by today’s standards are minor but not for future offenders. I think we should discuss who they are talking about here. They are talking about under-age offenders. We have a member in the House with precisely the kind of conviction that they are talking about. He had sex with somebody who was under 16 and he has a conviction on his record for the rest of his life because of one mistake that he made when he was 17 years old I think. 
 I ask members to remind me but I thought that last year the Government tried to fix that issue. The Government last year introduced legislation to amend the Crimes Act by saying that if a person under the age of 16 had sex with somebody who was within 2 years of his or her age—so if the person offended against was aged under 16 and the offender was within 2 years of the age of that person—then criminalising that behaviour made no sense. Let us not have a criminal offence for kids who are experimenting in a sexual way. Instead we should have a law that is reasonable and respectful of that reality. We do not want people holding a criminal conviction for the rest of their lives for a silly mistake they made as a young person. 
What happened to that law? Did we proceed with that? No we did not. Why did we not proceed with that? Well what did National do? National went public with the view that the Government was reducing the age of consent to 12. That is what Tony Ryall said up and down the country. I am not surprised that he is now sporting a serious overuse injury because we have had enough of the sort of nonsense that we had to put up with from that individual. He said from one end of the country to the other that the Government was reducing the age of consent to 12. 
We could have fixed this problem. One of our own members did a silly thing as a young person. He did not in my view commit a criminal offence. Every single one of those members who have stood up to defend their constituents quite justifiably and said that they should not have the scar of criminal offences against their records for the rest of their lives because as 17-year-olds they had sex with 15-year-olds—people who were within 2 years of age of each other and who were basically experimenting with each other—has said that those people should be criminal offenders. I think there has been a little bit of hypocrisy in the whole debate outside this Parliament—because of course there has not been any of that in here. Outside Parliament people believe that National has had a consistent position on this. It has not had a consistent position on this at all. 
I am satisfied now that under law that existed when National was last in Government the director declined to allow some people to add a P endorsement to their licence. Those people would then go to court and say that they wanted a P endorsement and the court would say that they could have one. That is what we at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee found out last year and I am sure that Peter Brown would agree that that is what we were told—that the law was being applied in the breach and not in the spirit in which it was intended to be applied. 
 We set about fixing that law. We said that we would not allow people who had certain levels of convictions to be able to apply for P endorsements. The bill was prospective. We have now added into that the retrospective application of the law and that is right and proper. But we have gone a step further. We have said that if a person wants to have a P endorsement added to his or her licence and wants to apply for that then that person cannot have been jailed or had a sentence of 12 months or more. I think that is the protection that the previous law did not have in it. We have now offered a strong protection that says anyone who has been jailed for 12 months or more with those serious offences in his or her past will not be able to drive our taxis in the future. 
I think we have sought to strike a balance here. The balance is right and I endorse the Minister for the work that he has done to resolve a mistake that was made. It was a mistake made in a genuine way but nobody on that side of the House should pretend that what those members are arguing tonight has any validity in the face of their appalling behaviour over the proposed amendment to the Crimes Act last year. 
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
: 
 In speaking to this third reading I start by acknowledging the work of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and the Minister for Transport Safety who led that work in order to get this bill into shape and back into the House as soon as possible. 
I also want to acknowledge the taxi drivers and bus drivers in my electorate who were forced out of their business and their jobs as a result of the Land Transport Amendment Act 2005 which took effect in January. I have several in my electorate who have suffered great financial hardship as a result. 
But bad law is bad law whether it was passed last year or is passed tonight and I am positive that this House will be found guilty on both occasions. Last year Parliament passed the Land Transport Amendment Act and when the then Minister of Transport the Hon Pete Hodgson introduced the third reading—which is about the final shape of the bill to be passed—he said: “The bill prohibits persons convicted of serious violent and sexual offences from being a passenger service driver. That will address the risk to public safety from having those with such convictions in a one-on-one situation with passengers.” That was the original intention of the amendment Act that was passed last year. It was passed to protect people such as women young girls and boys and other vulnerable citizens who when they hop into a taxi or jump on to a bus have the right to be safe and to feel safe. 
But the 2005 amendment Act went off the rails. I quote again from the Minister: “The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee extended the scope of the provision in order to cover offences committed prior to the commencement of the bill which means that the provision will apply to existing passenger service drivers with convictions for serious violent and sexual offences.” I wondered why the select committee had done that. If it had not done it we would not be here tonight debating this amendment because that was the problem. Earlier this afternoon my colleague Dr Mapp quite generously I thought acknowledged that the select committee did not during that process closely examine the list of sexual offences that it was excluding from even the right to appeal. I thought that was pretty generous of him considering that it had wandered off the rails. 
But when I looked at what actually happened—and I went back to the third reading of the amendment bill—I saw that it was because the one-time ACT member Deborah Coddington had sailed into the select committee and said that as she said in her third reading speech what was dear to her heart was “cleaning up the taxi industry by not allowing those who have convictions for serious sexual abuse crimes to hold a P endorsement on their licence and be able to drive taxis or buses.” She went on later to say: “I think this legislation does actually make New Zealand in some small way a better place.” Well she was wrong but she is not here to clean up the mess. 
I am not a lawyer but I had not been in this House for very long before it was very clear to me that one of the most dangerous things we can do in this House is pass retrospective legislation. We are here tonight debating this amendment because driven by Deborah Coddington that select committee and this House passed legislation that retrospectively judged people and took away their ability to earn a living their ability to drive taxis or buses which many of them had been doing quite adequately for 20 or 30 years. We cannot say we are actually dealing with the law of unintended consequences because the select committee actually set out to do that. It might have been a matter of ignorance on the part of the one who drove the amendment but I believe that it was actually based on a rather shallow perspective and it did this House no credit it did Deborah Coddington no credit and it caused grief and economic hardship for some decent hard-working New Zealanders. 
If we have a look at what the changes last year did we see that all taxi or bus drivers who had been convicted of murder or of any sexual offence with a penalty of 7 years’ imprisonment or more were banned from holding a licence with a P endorsement and they could not apply for reinstatement. What the select committee actually recommended related to persons convicted of sex with a person aged 12 to 16—which are the cases we have been talking about—or convicted of indecent assault who did not receive a sentence of imprisonment. Originally letters that I had from both the Taxi Proprietors Federation and the bus association said that if we focused on the sentences that were given in the courts we would actually see the seriousness of the crime. So many of those people who were affected by that retrospective law had in fact not been sent to jail or to borstal. They had received very minor punishment and that reflected the seriousness of their crimes. That was a reasonable way to deal with it—if they had not gone to prison they could apply to the Director of Land Transport for reinstatement. National was very happy with that. We believed that we should be looking back at the sentences of those guys and that if they had not served a period of imprisonment they were suitable to carry on. 
The thing that concerned me about the select committee recommendation was that the rules for those with serious violent offences were not changed and they could continue to apply for reinstatement. What we have done now with the Anderton amendment is open that wider. We have said that right across the board any person with a sentence of 12 months or less—whether it was for rape a violent crime or a violent sexual crime—can now apply for reinstatement or for a P licence. I think that is appalling. When New Zealanders wake up tomorrow morning and realise that this law has been passed on the hoof tonight they will not believe it. The select committee spent a lot of time dealing with what are difficult issues. I think everyone involved in this debate knows how difficult the issues have been. But no amendments have come into the House tonight and at the last minute have been passed that actually do far more damage to the original intention of the Land Transport Amendment Act that was passed last year than the small mistake that was made—driven by Deborah Coddington—did. 
The temptation to wander off focus when we start fiddling with legislation has not been lost. We are here tonight trying to correct a glaring mistake that was made last year and we are compounding it and making it much worse. We have completely walked away from the original intention of the Land Transport Amendment Act passed last year and we have ensured that any young daughter young son or young grandchild of ours who gets into a taxi or on to a bus cannot know for sure that he or she is safe because we cannot have confidence that the person at the wheel—particularly the wheel of a taxi in a one-to-one situation late at night—does not have a conviction for a serious offence that could be as serious as rape. 
I am appalled at this legislation. I believe that National’s position has been quite consistent all the way through. We are concerned of course about the retrospective injustice that was done last year by this House and we are equally concerned about the terrible law that is being passed tonight that does away with the safety of individual New Zealand citizens using passenger transport. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak in the third reading of this bill. I sat on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee which considered the issue. It is a tough issue and it is an emotional issue. I understand the feelings that have been expressed from members on all sides of the House about this matter. But the thing that struck me was how we should deal with the people who many years ago in their youth committed a crime that was a relatively minor crime at the time and would be considered to be a minor crime today. For example the one that stood out for me was somebody who in 1964 received a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more and who would have been under the National Party proposals excluded from applying or reapplying for a P endorsement. That seemed to be incredibly unfair. Who of us can say that if we had done something in our past and have lived long enough for it to have been done as many years ago as that we should not be able to be reconsidered if we have done nothing else since then? 
We support this bill. I am pleased that it has got through to this stage. It corrects an injustice and I commend the House for its progress. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Land Transport Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand National 46. 
Bill read a third time.