Williamson Maurice: Land Transport Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Williamson Maurice: Land Transport Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1238] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I make it very clear to the House from the outset that the National Party will cooperate in trying to get this bill right. I also make it very clear to members of this House that I was a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that considered the original bill. The members of that committee worked very well together in trying to get the legislation right the first time and they were aware of why there were problems. The moment we ever draw a line in the sand there are always some people just on the other side of that line who can be affected and if we take them into account there is a person on the other side of them as well. I am sad to say that there may have to be a toughening up in terms of saying we are sorry that a handful of people may be caught by this but the legislation needs to remain reasonably strong in order to achieve its ultimate goal. 
What is the ultimate goal of the bill? The ultimate goal of the original legislation was to prevent unsuitable people from holding a passenger service licence. That is something I think every member of this House would want. We do not want young daughters sisters and so on going out at night and jumping in a cab in front of Bowen House or wherever knowing full well that the individual driving the cab has in the past been convicted of rape or murder. 
My first concern about this amendment today is that it starts from the position of going too far in that it allows anybody to apply for consideration. I hope the committee will tighten that up straight away to exclude those who are convicted of murder or rape. Then we get to the tough situations. This House knows full well that hard cases make bad law. If a young boy of 16 had sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend 40 years ago and went on to marry and live a life of blameless excellence like Steve Maharey has done one might find it hard within oneself—as I do—to say that that man should be excluded from driving taxis. But if the offence he was charged with and convicted of was the same offence as that of a dirty old man of 48 who had sex with a young under-age girl behind the school bike sheds—because the offence does not take account of the age of the perpetrator when the charge sheet is done—one might say that the guy in the second case should not get through the gate. 
The select committee had problems to tackle and I swear to members of this House that when this bill is before the committee those same blurry delineations will still exist. I reckon there will be 120 different views—actually with the overhang it will be 121 views—of exactly where the line should be drawn. The National Party thinks that maybe we should be reasonably conservative and quite strong on where we draw the line at least for any new entrants who have any sexual convictions. Let us remember to whom the Act applies. I remind members of the House that the Act that came into effect on 16 January prohibits people who have been convicted of murder or sexual offences punishable by imprisonment for 7 years or more from holding a P endorsement. No offence punishable by 7 years’ imprisonment or more is trivial. I promise members there is not one. Again I think that specified serious violent offences should be included. 
I am happy to talk right now to this House about the case I heard raised—I think it was Chester Borrows from Wanganui who raised it with me first—about a 16-year-old boy who had sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend who was only 3 weeks away from turning 16. Her father found out and in order to punish them he involved the police. They charged the boy and he received a conviction but the couple went on to marry and live a happy life ever after. He has been driving a cab. I do not want that person excluded. However I am very very nervous about creating a regime that also gives discretion to the director of what used to be the Land Transport Safety Authority. I can tell members that when I was a Minister the one thing I would never have done was to give discretion on any of this stuff to the people who were running that outfit. 
I am also worried about the ability to appeal to a court. This amendment allows a court appeal—a provision that the select committee had taken out of the bill. The select committee did not just make mistakes. I have heard a number of people say that us guys really cocked it up. No I can tell members that Mark Gosche the chairperson did a fabulous job of trying to go over and over this issue. I know that Peter Brown thought we had probably gone too far but the problem was that if we went to the point that Peter Brown would have liked us to which a lot of people would advocate we would also have allowed in some people who I and I think most members of this House would say were undesirable. Do we want Graham Capill to be able to drive a taxi when he gets out of prison? I tell members right now that I do not. So we have to be very very clear about granting discretion in very limited ways. 
I think the Minister should be a bit embarrassed about some of the poor writing of this bill. The second bullet point of the explanatory note states that this bill will: “expand the criteria that the Director is required to consider” but the paragraph before the clause by clause analysis states that the bill tightens the criteria the director should take into account. If new members of Parliament think they can have a quick read of the explanatory note to see whether the amendment bill tightens or expands the criteria they will be absolutely flummoxed. What are the criteria? The explanatory note states: “The Bill also tightens the criteria that the Director is required to consider when deciding whether to reinstate or issue a P endorsement to someone with a specified conviction to include—the period of time elapsed …”. But is there any difference between say a 16-year-old boy having sex a year ago with his 15-year-old girlfriend who 3 weeks later turned 16 and a boy who did it 40 years ago? I do not think there is much difference. I do not think many people think that that is the biggest offence that can occur. On the other hand if a person murdered somebody then I do not care that it happened 50 years ago. If that person has been convicted of murder then he or she should be ruled out. Let me say to all the murderers out there: “I’m sorry but go and drive a truck go and drive a bulldozer but don’t want to keep driving a passenger vehicle where you may have one female passenger late at night and have the access to something where you’ve already proved you’ve gone beyond standards of behaviour that this Parliament accepts.” 
I finish as I began by saying the National Party will cooperate in a fairly truncated select committee process but I warn every member of the House who thinks that this process is easy. It is not. I received calls as did Harry Duynhoven asking why we did not just fix it. So I asked the question back: “So you would be happy to do this?” and the callers said they would. But when I told them that that meant more serious offenders would also be able to get a P endorsement they replied: “Oh no not them.” So I said: “OK tell me how you word this in order to stop one offender but not the other both of whom were charged and convicted of the same offence despite the fact that most of us can live comfortably with one of the offences while most of us would think the other was a pretty heinous crime.” 
The moment the courts are allowed in I worry because one of the reasons the first bill was passed was that the court had let this Parliament down; the discretion had been given to the director who had declined a particularly grubby individual. That individual made an appeal to the District Court. The court overrode the director and instated this guy with a P endorsement. Again I would be very happy if time permitted to give members the facts and details of that individual. I would like to see any members of the House put their hand up and say that they would be OK with that guy driving a taxi because I can tell them that they would not. It was the courts that overrode the will. 
So if Parliament is going to have some control on this I want to know that the bill when it is reported back from the select committee will be as tight as it can be—that it may be different for those who are already in the industry and have a livelihood compared with those who may want to enter the industry in the future so that we keep at least future entrants clean and tidy. I want to know that the powers and discretionary ability of the director are kept very very tight—as tight as a drum. Also to some of those offenders such as those who commit murder we must just say no. 
I am happy to draw up a black a white and a grey list—it can be like the foreign withholding tax. The black list is murder rape and a number of those offences and those criminals must not get a P endorsement. The white list includes a number of other offences that are quite minor in which case those people most certainly will get a P endorsement. I want the grey list to be as tight as narrow and as carefully defined as possible so that most members of the House know that when their wives or daughters or themselves—such as female members of the House who leave at night—take a taxi it will be with somebody who is safe.