Gosche Mark: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Gosche Mark: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1951] 
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.