Borrows Chester: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Borrows Chester: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1945] 
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.