|
|
|
||
|
|
|||
|
Charles Dickens could
have had the Land Transport Amendment Act in mind when he wrote "the law
is a ass, a idiot". While Parliament was
well meaning when it passed the amendment last year, what it meant and what
it has delivered are clearly two different things. It is yet another example
of legislation not being properly scrutinised. There is much good in
the changes which come into force on Monday, including getting tougher on
drink-drivers and noisy vehicles and updating some road safety laws. But in a
bid to exert greater control over who can hold a passenger transport licence
to drive buses and taxis, Parliament has got itself in a bind. On the back of
complaints about some dodgy types being bus and taxi drivers, MPs unanimously
agreed that people with convictions for sex offending punishable by a maximum
seven years in prison would not be able to hold a passenger transport
licence. The net has caught 285 drivers. They include a man who
34 years ago as a 16-year-old slept with his girlfriend, who was two days
short of turning 16. Another man was 18 when he slept with a 15-year-old
co-worker on a shearing gang. Forty years later the charge of having sex with
a girl aged under 16 has found him out. The main flaws in the
amending legislation are that there are no exceptions to the rule, and that
there is no restriction on how far the clock can be turned back. An added
complication is that the Bill of Rights might also be breached by allowing a
person already punished for a crime to be punished again. Transport Safety
Minister Harry Duynhoven has acknowledged the amendment goes further than MPs
intended. He has talked of having the provisions deferred until they can be
reconsidered; which would be nice except only Parliament can undo what it did
-- the law has to stand come Monday. How can MPs have got it
so wrong? By not understanding what they were doing. Already there is some
ducking for cover going on. The Greens say they were unsuccessful in having
some discretion built into the blanket approach, while United Future leader
Peter Dunne seemingly forgets what he voted for when he says "the
purpose of the legislation is clear but a very blunt instrument has been
employed to remedy the harm identified". In fact, the whole
approach of this particular amendment is out of step with the philosophy of
the Clark administration. Words like the rehabilitation of offenders and not
punishing people all their lives for one small mistake are suddenly strangely
absent. It is to be hoped that
at the second attempt, Parliament can get the meaning of the amendment
accurate.
|
