|
|
|
||
|
|
|||
|
It is poor legislation that
requires repair on the eve of coming into force. The Land Transport Amendment
Act takes effect on Monday, primarily aimed at weeding out from the public
passenger licence list those people with convictions for serious violent or
sexual offences. There are about 36,000 "P" endorsements in this
country, of whom 400 have received post-Christmas letters from Land Transport
New Zealand telling them their right to drive buses or taxis had been
suspended. However, among the legislation's shortcomings, there is a limited
appeal process, so the suspension, for most, is really arbitrary cancellation
-- taking effect immediately. No doubt the industry is better off without
some dubious drivers who had previously slipped through a system that had
been only loosely guarded, but it has also netted some very small fish, with
the cruel result of ending the long careers of men with trivial teenage
indiscretions. As Transport Safety Minister Harry Duynhoven admitted this
week, "I don't think anyone realised where this (legislation) was going
to go". This is not an encouraging start
to the New Year's legislative process. The bill was considered for months
last year by a parliamentary select committee (of which Mr Duynhoven was not
a member), hearing public submissions and refining the proposal's intent and
legal application. In the wake of the previous year's Clean Slate law, it
seems obvious that minor crimes, which might technically qualify but would be
outside the bill's intention, should have got special scrutiny. Typical would
be the plight of a number of men now understandably protesting, who
consensually slept with their under-age girlfriends decades ago -- at least
one of whom later married her, and they are still married -- and yet are
deemed to be dangerous sexual offenders, in the same category as rapists and
murderers. If the stories are true and the men have led exemplary lives ever
since, then this is clearly absurd. For reasons that now seem to
baffle Mr Duynhoven too, the committee opted to ignore advice from government
officials, and instead made the legislation retrospective, without any time
limit. Back-dated law-making is always dangerous and especially reaching back
indefinitely. In this case, it is doubly unfair: crimes that would qualify
for being swept under the carpet under the 2004 Criminal Records Act are
resurrected for another piece of legislation; and crimes that would probably
not rate police prosecution today -- or, if they did, would result in
unrecorded youth diversion schemes and counselling -- are dredged up many
years later to cost jobs, careers and reputations. Some crimes do not exist
today -- homosexuality, for instance. Common sense and compassion seem to
have been seated at the very back of the bus when this legislation was
chugging its road of parliamentary review. Perhaps it had something to do
with the calendar. The Land Transport Amendment Act was passed in June 2005,
when the House was in giddy thrall of the looming election and could focus on
little else.
|
