Mapp Wayne: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Mapp Wayne: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20431] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 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. 
There actually is a big transport issue out there and it is not addressed by this bill. The big transport issue is whether the motorway system in Auckland will be completed. Will the western motorway—the one that could run through the current Prime Minister’s electorate—be completed before 2020? That is the big issue. Does the Government have any sort of plan for a second crossing across the harbour? What plan do the Government members from Wellington—the junior whip for instance—have for Transmission Gully? Has that member even thought about it? Has he told his voters what he thinks about it? Does he have a plan to do it? Is there any sort of plan for Tauranga the issue of great concern to the leader and deputy leader of New Zealand First? Instead the Government is presenting to us the minor the trivial and the technical and that tells us everything we need to know. 
This Government has run out of steam. The bill after all is all about technical amendments and the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee which has not had before it the bills that deal with the big issues spent months and months hearing evidence on things like bicycles—the electrical power of bicycles—and stationary engines. I guess one has to ask what sorts of priorities the Government has. What kind of agenda does it have for our country? If this is the best it can do and if the Evidence Bill is the best it can do then frankly it is time for the Government to go so that the nation can have a Government with a real agenda. There are however a couple of particular technical points—well one of them is not technical. One of them is quite big and important—it is a pity the Minister just glossed over it—and it is the protection of the public in relation to taxi drivers. 
It is clear that the Minister had not actually read the report of the select committee because if he had he would understand that this is quite a significant issue and I know that the leader of New Zealand First and indeed other members of the select committee will be dealing with it. The question is whether members of the public should have an absolute assurance that taxi drivers today—those who currently have licences—have not previously committed violent offences. These include very serious sexual offences and offences like murder—literally—or manslaughter at the serious end aggravated assault and a whole variety of sexual offences. Should the public be protected from such a person holding a P endorsement as it is known a bus driver’s licence or a taxi licence? The select committee heard evidence on this. It was not in the bill that came before us. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: Yes it was. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: It did not deal with current licensees who have committed those offences. We concluded by consensus—it was the unanimous view of the select committee—that the answer was yes. The Green Party would have allowed so many exceptions that its answer was effectively no but for the rest of us the answer was yes. 
The first issue is of course protecting the public. The second issue is this question: are there any people in that class who perhaps for 30 years have been safe notwithstanding the violent offence say 30 years ago and could nevertheless be permitted to drive? On balance we actually said no. There are too many examples of serious violent offenders assaulting women in particular. In a taxi one should be able to feel safe. One should be able to have an absolute assurance that the person in the vehicle does not have a prior serious conviction. There is one issue however. Should there be any discretion—any system—that would enable a review of that proposition? Other parties in the House—and I will not speak on their behalf because they will do so themselves—say yes. The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—and this is why I was a bit disappointed in the Minister—did not even refer to the issue. The select committee concluded that all members of the committee recommend that further consideration be given to the issue of whether there should be some form of appeal procedure. The Minister did not actually acknowledge that fact. So that was a little bit disappointing. I can understand that he was essentially standing in for the actual Minister so I note that particular point. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: You weren’t listening Wayne. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Well if I missed it then I did miss it. 
So that is probably in terms of this particular bill the single most important issue. The other issues as I said are fundamentally technical. They will not materially change the land transport industry in New Zealand and indeed neither should they. 
I have to come back to my initial proposition. For the last several weeks this House has not had before it any bills that speak of some large agenda that the Government might have—some indication of where it might take the country. So the only thing one can conclude is that the Government is going to say: “Trust us because we’ve administered the country for the last 6 years.” That is in essence the Government’s claim to govern the country for the next 3 years; just on the basis of what it has done in the last 6 years. Well we have news for the Government. We will actually deal with the big issues especially around transport and it is not about log books. It is about the roading system of our country— 
Darren Hughes 
: And the tunnel! 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: —and the tunnel. I will reply particularly to that point. I have this to say. There is a huge transport crisis on the North Shore. The motorway is jammed for hours and hours at a time. I have simply put to the country and to the citizens of the North Shore the proposal of Transit which is for a harbour tunnel from the northern abutment of the bridge to the southern abutment of the bridge. There is a way to pay for it and it would be self-funding by an average of a $3 toll. Is there a way to do it? Is there a precedent? The answer is yes. In Australia—in Sydney and Melbourne—that is how they solved their problems. New Zealanders know the reality of that. Aucklanders know the reality of that. Citizens of the North Shore know the reality of that. 
I have polled the residents of North Shore and let me tell the interjectors on the other side of the House that 80 percent of all people polled are willing to pay a toll to solve their transport problems. That is a simple fact. Eighty percent are willing to pay a toll to solve the problems to get a second crossing. What do I hear from the Government? Objection. Do I hear a solution from the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues? No. Do I hear complaints? Yes. That I guess says it all. Labour is the party of complaints National is the party of solutions and the public will be able to test that at the coming election.