Well, we don’t hate them as much as we thought.
A change to laws for who may hold a passenger endorsement that banned anyone convicted of a sex crime or murder, and selectively banned people convicted of other serious violent offenses must have seemed like a slam-dunk both in terms of policy and popularity. We don’t like kiddie-fiddlers and rapists, and it does seem a little odd that someone with a history of sexual assault might be able to spend their Friday nights offering women a taxi service.
But not so.
It turns out the sex offender bit of the law may not be so well thought out. And, for the most part, I agree with the examples provided. It’s hard to see what risk to the public is presented by a bus driver who had sex with his just-under-16 year old girlfriend decades ago, and has no history of re-offending. Likewise someone who was convicted for having sex while being gay in the 70s. Not only is it questionable from a public policy point of view, but it seems likely that the public sentiment will be won over by these stories. That would be a nice victory of common sense over hysteria, if so (and not the only one of late).
One thing does chap my arse a little, though: back when Nandor Tanczos popped up his Clean Slate Bill, a broader effort on the same principles, recieved vigorous opposition from some quarters, especially United Future and ACT. It will be interesting to see how other parties line up with regard to Duynhoven’s efforts to set this law right. Will they, as with the Greens, be more interested in point scoring (at the expense of the drivers involved), or will they actually be looking for good governance?