Land Transport (Street and Illegal Drag Racing) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Land Transport (Street and Illegal Drag Racing) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. I would like to thank the Law and Order Committee for the careful consideration it has given to the legislation. This has been a high-profile issue that has attracted a lot of media interest. I congratulate the members of the committee on coming to grips with a difficult matter, and on working together in a spirit of constructive consideration. I am most appreciative of their efforts, particularly as it was a new committee with three members on it who were new to the House. I would also like to thank the 72 organisations and individuals who made submissions on the bill, and in particular those who took the time to travel to Wellington to present their submissions in person. I understand that the committee was impressed at the care that had gone into the submissions. Finally, I would like to thank the member for Waimakariri, Clayton Cosgrove, for the hard work and effort he has put into bringing this bill into the House, Martin Gallagher, the MP for Hamilton West, who went to New South Wales to have a look at the enforcement procedures there, and the various mayors and councils around New Zealand who have brought their concerns to the Government.

The bill was originally a member’s bill promoted by Clayton Cosgrove MP. It was introduced by the leave of the House on 14 May last year as a Government bill, and was referred to the Law and Order Committee. The purpose of the bill, which is inspired by successful New South Wales legislation, is to combat the problem of unauthorised racing and related dangerous stunts on public roads. That is often more than a road safety problem; it is a community and public order problem. The races take place mostly on Friday and Saturday nights. They attract large crowds of often-intoxicated spectators and passengers. Local residents have reported acts of vandalism, theft, assaults, acts of violence, intimidation, and, tragically, a growing number of fatalities. Substances such as diesel and liquid soap are poured on the road to facilitate skids, wheelspins, and other manoeuvres. That damages the road surface, and can create a major hazard for other vehicles. Further, racers’ vehicles may be illegal modified, with lowered suspension, non-standard exhaust systems, and changes to the brakes and driveshafts. Those modifications can turn a car into a death trap. The problem is not confined to the main centres, although south Auckland, Hamilton, and Christchurch seem to be the most badly affected places.

Attempts by local authorities to deal with the problems have had only mixed success. Councils have passed by-laws targeting the areas favoured by racers, but that has only displaced the racing and disorderly behaviour from one area to another. Some councils have, at significant cost to ratepayers, provided safe off-road facilities for racers, but many racers have preferred to continue to use public roads and streets. For some time now, local government has been calling for a national solution. The bill aims to provide that solution.

Overseas experience shows that the most effective way to deter that kind of behaviour is to target the racers’ pride and joy: their cars. The policy of on-the-spot impoundment of vehicles involved in street racing has been successfully adopted in a number of jurisdictions, such as New South Wales, the Australian Capital Territory, Queensland, British Colombia, and California. Under our own Land Transport Act, a vehicle driven by a disqualified or suspended driver, or by an unlicensed driver previously warned not to drive, must be impounded. Since the police were given the authority to impound vehicles in 1999, there has been a 30 percent reduction in the number of persons apprehended for driving while disqualified. Clearly, the threat of impoundment has been an effective deterrent. Accordingly, the bill proposes that the police be empowered to impound a vehicle for 28 days where there are reasonable grounds to believe that a street racing offence has been committed.

A street racing offence means, broadly speaking, one of two things. It can mean operating a vehicle in a race, or an exhibition of speed or acceleration. An exhibition of speed or acceleration has been held in the United States to mean an individual’s deliberate drawing of public attention to the vehicle’s quality of swiftness. “Street racing offence” can also mean operating a vehicle in a manner that causes it to undergo sustained loss of traction—that is, spinning the wheels of the vehicle. The select committee has endorsed that proposal, and has further recommended that the bill be amended to clarify the new street racing offences and make them subject to the same penalties as reckless driving offences, to require all impounded vehicles to undergo a full warrant of fitness inspection, to refine the rights of appeal against impoundment, and to clarify the courts’ powers in respect of the permanent confiscation of a vehicle. In addition, the select committee has recommended targeting racers’ support crews, by creating an infringement offence for the pouring of diesel or other lubricants on the road. I would now like to deal with those issues in more detail.

The select committee has recommended certain changes in order to address concerns that the bill might unintentionally apply to legitimate motoring competitions. In particular, the committee has recommended that where the activity is authorised by law, it is not an offence. In the case of races, “authorised by law” can mean that the vehicle complies with the speed limit and is operated in accordance with all other aspects of traffic law. It also includes a race on a road where it has been closed by the council for that purpose. Acknowledging that some racing activities may be authorised under the bill, the committee has also recommended the bill be renamed the Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill.

The bill as introduced would have created a new set of penalties for street racing offences. Those penalties were inconsistent with the existing penalties for reckless or dangerous driving. Some submitters, such as the Legislation Advisory Committee, were concerned about that inconsistency, since racing is essentially a type of reckless or dangerous driving. In recognition of that, the select committee has recommended that the bill be amended to empower the courts to apply the penalties for reckless and dangerous driving to persons convicted of street racing offences.

The select committee was concerned about modifications to vehicles, and in particular those that increase the noise of the vehicle. Because of that concern, the committee has recommended an amendment that requires the officer impounding a vehicle to issue a direction that the vehicle must not be driven before undergoing a full warrant of fitness test. That measure will require unsafe and illegal modifications to be rectified on the vehicle’s release from impoundment.

The select committee also considered the offender’s rights of appeal. The bill as introduced provided a separate appeal regime for the impoundment of vehicles involved in street racing activities. The committee felt that there was no need for that. The committee has instead recommended that the appeal provisions in the existing impoundment regime under the Land Transport Act be applied to street racing impoundments. The committee has also recommended two new grounds of appeal that are specific to the offences targeted by this bill. In summary, those are that the owner did not know, or could not be expected to know, that the operator of the vehicle would commit a street racing offence, and that the owner took all reasonable steps to prevent the operator from committing a street racing offence.

The select committee also recommended that the courts’ powers to confiscate vehicles be in line with the existing legislation. The bill as introduced would have empowered the courts to permanently confiscate a vehicle used by a person on conviction for a second street racing offence. Submitters pointed out that that was consistent with the existing powers of the courts to confiscate vehicles for other serious driving offences under the Sentencing Act. Recognising that street racing offences are a type of reckless or dangerous driving, the committee has agreed that the bill should be amended to be consistent with the Sentencing Act. That Act gives the courts discretion to confiscate a vehicle for a first offence, but makes confiscation mandatory for a second offence except in cases of extreme hardship.

In addition, the select committee has recommended an amendment so that to pour on to a road diesel or any other substance likely to cause loss of traction may be dealt with as an infringement offence. That will provide a more immediate alternative to court proceedings. The select committee has recommended that there be a defence of reasonable excuse, to acknowledge submitters’ concerns that occasionally substances may legitimately be poured on roads. For example, detergent may be used by the emergency services to clean up after accidents.

The Attorney-General has issued a certificate under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act advising the House that the empowerment provision in the bill is inconsistent with the right to secure against unreasonable search and seizure. In considering the bill the committee reviewed the balance between the concerns raised by the Attorney-General and the concerns raised by the community in respect of the public disorder and criminal offending associated with racer activity. The committee is satisfied that a fair balance has been achieved within this bill as reported back. The select committee has redrafted the bill extensively, and the bill is better for it. The bill has now achieved a balance between recognising the rights of law-abiding road users and responding effectively to those antisocial and irresponsible elements who have shown that they have no concern for the rights of others. I am satisfied that the bill as reported back will help to make our roads safer, and will also address the public disorder problems that have caused so much concern to communities throughout the community. It sends a clear message that antisocial and reckless behaviour on our roads and streets will not be tolerated.

In conclusion, may I go back and congratulate the member for Waimakariri, Clayton Cosgrove, who, as a Government back-bench member of Parliament, took up an issue that was of concern to communities, not only in his own area but also in other parts of New Zealand. He decided to do something about it, instead of whingeing and whining—which is typical of the National Party Opposition—and as a result, he decided to bring to the House a good piece of legislation that has been improved through the select committee process. Once again, I congratulate the select committee on the work that it has done, and the mayors and councils who have added their weight and support to this legislation. It is a good piece of legislation, and I commend it to the House.

It is with some irony that—I think it was the Acting Minister of Transport—rushed through his pre-prepared speech at some knots. He then sought to make some politics at the end of it. I remind the House that the only reason that this bill is in the name of the Acting Minister of Transport, Mr Paul Swain, is because it was the shadow Leader of the House, Gerry Brownlee, who sought the leave of the House to transform the bill produced by a private member into a Government bill. While Government members—including the Minister of Police and the Minister of Justice—were beating their brows about what they were, and were not, going to do about boy-racer bills, they took absolutely no action on progressing the agenda on to the legislative timetable. That did not happen until the National Party joined with New Zealand First and ACT to get leave to transfer the bill into being on the Order Paper and off to a select committee for consideration. That would probably explain the reason that the Acting Minister of Transport sped so quickly through his pre-written speech.

I would like to bring the House back to another point that Mr Swain made—that is, his comment that this bill has been substantially rewritten. It has indeed been substantially rewritten. My colleague Mr Connell and I were just talking while the Minister was speaking, and we cannot recall a clause of this bill that was not unchanged as a result of the select committee hearing. In the Minister’s own words, the substantial rewrite of Mr Cosgrove’s bill is for the better, and we certainly agree with the Minister on that. We also want to record yet again our gratitude to the National Party shadow Leader of the House for making sure that this bill was accelerated on the parliamentary agenda when this Government decided not to do that.

The National Party in Opposition is still concerned about the ability of the police to enforce these laws. There is no point in giving the police new powers to confiscate vehicles and apply substantial new fines when there are no police on the streets to actually do that. We know that on a Friday and Saturday night in greater Auckland there is a police force that is understaffed by between 130 and 160 staff. We know that on some nights in south Auckland there are only two patrol cars for the several hundred thousand people who live there. We say that if there is to be a burnout and a drag race, then just one cop car in the whole of south Auckland will not fix the problem. While the National Party is happy to support these new powers coming from the select committee in its multiparty recommendations, we would give one word of caution—that is, the public should not expect a huge and immediate change as a result of this legislation, because there are simply not the police numbers to mount a sustained attack on boy racers. It is sure that there will be an immediate flurry as the police use the new powers granted to them to deal with boy racers—and that might last a month or two—but because of the considerable underfunding, under-resourcing, and understaffing of police, particularly in Auckland, this legislation will not necessarily be the long-term fix that New Zealanders have been seeking.

The select committee did a very good job in listening to over 72 hours of submissions and deliberation, and it has substantially rewritten the bill from its original form. The police could use other powers against those boy racers. There is no reason that they could not be issuing fines up to $150 for noisy vehicles with exhaust problems, or issuing fines up to $600 for vehicles causing an annoyance. Those are some of the powers that the police have at the moment. Similarly, if fines were unpaid, there is no reason that the Department of Courts could not seize the vehicles involved and have them realised, pending the non-payment of those fines. But we have a dysfunctional Department of Courts that is unable to collect enforceable penalties against the public, and so the police and the public cannot rely on the laws that are currently there. I would draw members’ attention to the commentary from the select committee that says that while there are sufficient powers at the moment, particularly for confiscating vehicles, there are some limitations on those powers, which usually relate to drivers who are unlicensed or who have had their licences suspended, and also to difficulties in enforcing vehicle noise standards.

I want to draw to the attention of the House the fact that the select committee spent some time in clarifying rule changes that the Land Transport Safety Authority is making in respect of excessive vehicle noise. The problems with boy racers are not limited to burnouts and racing, but to the associated noise of boom boxes and excessive exhaust noise. That is all part of what irritates and concerns the public about the whole boy-racer issue. While we have provided some strengthened powers for the release of vehicles once they have been confiscated and are due to be returned upon the payment of a penalty, it will be the responsibility of the Land Transport Safety Authority to enforce stricter rules with regard to boom boxes or stereos, and similarly with exhaust systems. The draft vehicle equipment rule being worked on by the Land Transport Safety Authority under consultation is expected to contain requirements to ensure that the level of noise emitted from new or modified exhaust systems is less than, or similar to, that of the original exhaust system. I think that that will fix a substantial part of the problem. What is of concern is that these changes, particularly those related to devices such as boom boxes and exhausts, may not come into effect for some time.

We know that the Minister of Transport was previously the Minister of Commerce. It has been reported that one of the reasons that he was dumped as Minister of Commerce was his inability to progress anything through his department. What concerns me about Mr Swain as Minister of Transport is the question of how long it will take him to do anything about the excessive vehicle and boom-box noise associated with the boy-racer problem. He has a record of not being able to deliver speedily in areas like that, and that is another concern that the National Party in Opposition wants to raise with Parliament.

Concern has also been expressed about the role the Attorney-General has played with her opinion in respect of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I disagree completely with the advice of that Minister, Margaret Wilson, that this bill was a breach of that Act. Many of her opinions have become a suitable device for imposing her politically correct views on the House. In fact, I cannot recognise one member of this House who would think that the rights of the community should be stomped on, in order to protect the rights of boy racers to speed up and down the country, to create mayhem, and to disrupt communities. Margaret Wilson’s opinion was specious, completely unjustifiable, and totally unnecessary. I cannot understand the logic that would lead her to want to table such an opinion.

In conclusion, National Party members are pleased to have been able to work with other parties to rewrite this bill completely and make sure that it is more appropriate than originally proposed. It was the National Party - led Opposition that saw this bill accelerated up the parliamentary agenda, turned into a Government bill, and debated today. Without the National Party and the other Opposition parties pressuring the Government to bring this bill to the fore of the parliamentary agenda, we would still not be debating this topic today. It took the National Party in Opposition, with the support of the other parties, to bring this legislation to Parliament.

Finally, we also want to bring to Parliament’s attention the fact that there is no point in giving the police these new powers if they are insufficiently resourced to enforce the laws we are giving them. We must say that we have that very real concern.

It is with great pleasure that I rise to support the bill. As I have said on a number of occasions, this is one of those rare occasions in Parliament when to some extent politics—apart from parts of the previous speech—have been put aside. As MPs, we have done what the country wants us to do, and that is forget about who thought of the idea, forget about which party thought of the idea, put all the politics, the rhetoric, and the showmanship aside, and do what is right.

I start my speech today by acknowledging, in fairness, the way Opposition parties and Government colleagues—apart from the Greens—have assisted in facilitating this bill. I think it is right that we acknowledge parties, because we have done what people wanted us to do, which is to get on with the job. Today we are putting in place a measure that has overwhelming community support. In that regard, I also want to acknowledge United Future. The truth is that United Future also assisted in a major way in facilitating the promotion of this bill.

I refer to Mr Ryall’s comments. He is a bit like a general. He arrives at the battle after the war is won and bayonets a few wounded. I remind Mr Ryall that his party had 9 years in Government. I am no genius, and I acknowledge that. I do not think of all the good ideas—no one person does—this problem has been around for many years. I just remind Opposition members that they were in Government for almost a decade and could have produced a member’s bill or a Government bill to fix this problem. Unfortunate though it is, I think the real reason that this bill has been promoted the way it has is that Parliament is attempting to save some lives.

In my city of Christchurch on the weekend—apart from the chaos, which is unacceptable, and the beer bottle through the back window of a police car the night I was out—we had the tragic death of a young man, but, God willing, hopefully the three other occupants of the car will survive. A large number of people—brothers and sisters, wives, husbands and loved ones—have been killed in this country as a result of this activity. When I started campaigning on this issue 3 years ago—and this is no disrespect to the fourth estate upstairs—it was considered to be a bit of a giggle. I had the odd media commentator say to me: “Oh, you’re just a killjoy. What are you doing this for? It’s been around for years. It’s a bit of a giggle.” That stopped the day two young people were killed in Motueka through drag racing. Suddenly, someone in the fourth estate realised this was not a stunt; this was not a bit of a politicking; this was about saving lives.

I want to thank a couple of people. A lot of the credit goes to a uniformed police officer in my patch, Sergeant Geoff Kenna. I mention him at the introduction of this speech because Sergeant Kenna, head of the North Canterbury highway patrol, went to New South Wales, found the legislation, brought it back, thought it was a good idea, and flicked it to myself and the Minister of Police. That was the germ of the idea that has brought us here today. I want to take the opportunity to thank Sergeant Kenna and his team in Christchurch, and around the country, for what he and they did to create this idea. I want to thank Hugh Hannah, a senior lawyer with the Ministry of Transport, who provided a lot of assistance in the drafting of this legislation, together with Superintendent Steve Fitzgerald and his police officials, and also Martin Gallagher. I launched this bill with Russ Rimmington, the then Mayor of Hamilton, in Mr Gallagher’s electorate, because he had a huge problem with this activity, and still does,.

I also thank Sir Barry Curtis. Probably the catalyst for getting the bill into the House and to a select committee was the shooting in Manukau City, where groups of these lunatics shot firearms at each other. That was a sad day for Auckland. Every time we have had a debate about this bill, another local authority has given myself or colleagues, on either side of the House, a call and said: “We have a problem here, as well.” The objective of this bill is about saving lives. It is about giving back to our communities their roadways and properties—releasing them from the siege they are under through this lunacy.

As I have said, the origins of this bill are to be found in New South Wales, where the legislation has been effective. I travelled there, and I know that members of the select committee travelled there also and talked with senior New South Wales police officers. The legislation there has knocked the problem on the head. The bill, however, will not be a panacea; it will not solve everything. We have laws on murder, but, tragically, we still have murders and killings in this country. But I think the bill will go some way to alleviating the hoon problem. What is the difference between this activity now and 20 years ago? When our dads or mums, or whoever, had a beer and went out and did a donut on the footy field, they were not driving souped-up, high-performance motor vehicles; they were not in numbers of 200 or 300; they did not assault people, and they did not engage in property damage. Sure, there were probably a number of deaths—more related to alcohol, I would say—but the carnage in which young people are being killed was not as frequent as we have today.

To my Green colleague across the aisle, I say that when he is talking about human rights, I will be amongst the Green Party members and others in this House who will stand up for the human and civil rights of any community. But the innocent people who are killed, and the innocent people who are victims, also have civil rights. Their families also have civil rights. Every sister, brother, mum, or dad who has had somebody killed or injured as a result of this activity also has civil rights. Every person who has been done over, or whose property has been done over, or who has been assaulted, also has civil rights. Where I part company with my Green colleague is that he never seems to speak about the civil rights of the victims and the responsibilities of the offenders. He never completes the circle of the argument. That is where I draw the line with him.

Last night I opened an art exhibition by Senior Sergeant John Robinson. My colleague Ron Mark attended, as well. Senior Sergeant Robinson is a highway patrol member in Rangiora, who has spent many hours taking photographs of the white crosses we see on our roadways all around this country. There are 450 of them in his exhibition. I want to pay tribute to him and all the uniformed folk, because as I said last night, they are the people who, literally sometimes, have to go and pick up the pieces—in some respects, grotesquely, the body parts. They are the people who have to knock on the door of a mum or dad, a wife or husband, and say: “ I have some bad news.” I pay tribute to those officers.

The clear objective of this bill is to lessen that work, but it is only one part of the whole road safety issue. It will not be a panacea, as I have said, but as New South Wales police told me, the thing that will strike fear into the heart of a hoon, the irresponsible driver, is when the tow truck rolls up, the car is hooked on the back and rolled away. The big, flash, souped-up $20,000, $30,000, and in one case, $80,000, vehicle—the prized possession of the hoon—goes. I believe that will have an impact. All the advice we have from the Ministry of Transport, police, and the officials is that that will have an impact, and the international evidence agrees with that.

The clear message to these people is that if they are going to act irresponsibly on our roads, where they endanger the lives of themselves and other people, then they do not have the right to a motor vehicle. I will be the first person to put up my hand and advocate more burnout pads and resources for these people—if they act legitimately. Football players do not play football on State Highway 1; they join a club. If these drivers join a club and act lawfully, I will put up my hand—as will other colleagues—and advocate facilities for them. But I am not having my community and other communities around New Zealand stood over by these people. We saw it on the news on Saturday night: traffic through the Lyttelton tunnel in Christchurch was brought to a standstill. I am not having communities stood over and placed under siege by these people. The clear message to the hoon is: “Stop the activity while you have got a car to stop with.”

I conclude by again thanking our United Future colleagues and the National Party, New Zealand First, and other parties in the House that have supported this bill. I make a plea to my Green colleague that when he stands to speak, he will remember the 450 crosses on the roads down my way, and the young people who have been killed. He is the youth spokesperson for the Green Party, so he should also stand and be an advocate for the mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters of the young people who have been killed. I commend the bill to the House. It is a good bill.

I rise firstly, of course, to express New Zealand First’s ongoing support for this bill. But first there are a couple of things that need to be done, and I want to start with the credits. I congratulate the member for Waimakariri on bringing the bill to the House. It is disappointing that on an issue that was felt so passionately about by a Government member—an issue where quite clearly there was a need to act, and act promptly—it had to be a member’s bill that brought the issue before the House. It is disappointing that this Government, for whatever reason—I still do not understand why—did not act with the resources it had. The Government had to be pushed and prodded by one of its members, a new member, who had to resort to the lottery draw of a member’s bill in order to have the issue brought to the floor of the House.

We must remind ourselves that this Government sat on that bill, let it languish in the ballot for a year, 18 months, and then 2 years. It was not until there was a shooting in the Auckland district and the member, Clayton Cosgrove, got the lead item on television, that the Government became embarrassed into realising that it had to do something. The question to the Prime Minister, to the Deputy Prime Minster of the time, Jim Anderton, and to the Minister of Police, George Hawkins, still remains unanswered. Why did they not act on this issue the moment their colleague brought it to their caucus? Why did they wait until a young man was shot? Why did they wait until successive accidents took place and young people were killed? I can accept every word that the honourable member, Clayton Cosgrove, has said, but it does not let those Government Ministers off the hook. They are culpable. They are responsible through their tardiness, and their inability to come to grips with this issue the moment it was brought to their caucus.

It is sad and tragic when a Government member brings an issue like this to the House, and his or her bill has to go in the queue of the lottery draw before it can come before the House. It was a tragedy for the Government—and, I have to say, a sharp move by the shadow leader of the House—that the shadow leader of the House had to stand and seek leave for the bill to be introduced as a Government bill, so that Government members were embarrassed and had to follow.

My congratulations to the member for Waimakariri on bringing the bill to the House. My congratulations to Gerry Brownlee from Christchurch on forcing the issue here, on the floor of the House, and, in doing so, making the bill a Government bill. My congratulations also to the following people: Superintendent Dick Trimble, John Sutton, from the New Zealand Police, Hugh Hannah, and Ian James, again from the New Zealand Police. I also congratulate the good assistance given to the select committee from the Australian side: Chief Superintendent Ron Sorenson, Inspector Dave Evans, Sergeant Craig Price, and Ron Dyer, all from the New South Wales Police.

Those of us who were on the Law and Order Committee met those people. I notice from the select committee report that the names of the select committee members who saw the bill through its final stages and produced the report are mentioned. But there were a lot of other people involved, because the bill took so long. It went over two terms of governance—into the second term—and had been referred to the previous Law and Order Committee.

I have to put this on the record. I was appalled at the cheap political stunt that was pulled by the Minister over this bill when it came time for the Australian trip. An offer was made for someone on the select committee to go to New South Wales to have the opportunity to talk with the New South Wales police, who enforce the Act upon which this bill is based. What happened? No one from the Government side of the select committee—and this is more evidence of those members’ total lack of support for Clayton Cosgrove—could go, or wanted to go. So I was asked whether I wanted to go. I stuck up my hand and said: “Yes, I’ll go.” At the same time Ken Shirley said: Hang on. If there is one seat available, I want to go.” That was a fair comment. But suddenly, mysteriously, in the blink of an eye, over a weekend, the chair of the select committee, who said she did not want to go, who told me on the phone that she did not want to go as she had other things to do, suddenly was required to go. Oh, yeah? And that was all about shutting out an Opposition member from taking the opportunity to go to Australia to talk to the New South Wales police.

Guess what happened? The upshot was that I decided I would go to Australia, at my own cost. I, Ron Mark, the New Zealand First member on the Law and Order Committee, decided that it would be a valuable trip and that I would go at my own cost. I arranged to stay in the same hotel with the team that had gone over to visit the New South Wales police; so did Ken Shirley from ACT. But here was the ripper. This one rips the nightie. When we arrived there, where was the Government member? Not a sight to be seen anywhere. She did not go. If that is the way in which this Government is going to behave, then God help this country. This is the way that the Government behaves on an issue that affects young people’s lives and affects families, and on which there is cross-party agreement in support of the Labour member who brought the bill to the House.

Government members played cheap political games in order to shut Opposition MPs out from an opportunity to visit the New South Wales police. But I have to say that the trip was valuable. It was worth the personal dollars I spent. The trip was at my own expense; I was not refunded. The trip gave me an insight as to how good the New South Wales law is, and how it is lacking. There is a view in New Zealand that New Zealand’s traffic laws are somehow inferior to Australia’s in that respect, and we found out that the Australians were looking at our laws and saying they wished they had our powers of confiscation right now. They wished they were not held responsible and accountable for the safety and security of the vehicles that they impound. They want the same system that New Zealand has, whereby people are contracted to take the vehicles, and the onus does not fall on the police to be responsible for securing the vehicles or to be accountable for any damage or deterioration that might occur whilst vehicles are impounded. It was a very valuable trip.

We also met the chairman of the Joint Standing Committee on Road Safety in New South Wales. We listened to numerous people from organisations, such as the equivalent of the Automobile Association in New Zealand—the name has gone out of my head at the moment. Again, it was a very valuable meeting.

I reiterate that this bill has been rewritten quite substantially, and it has taken some time to come to this point, partly because of the political shenanigans that have been pulled, and the Government’s total lack of support for Clayton Cosgrove, and also in part because a very good team from the New Zealand Police and the Ministry of Transport has spent quite some considerable time making it workable and just. I congratulate the entire select committee—the Labour and National members who sat on it. I remember, of course, that some National members of that committee are not in Parliament any longer. I thank them all for their very good work. We will have more debate during the Committee stage on the finer details of the bill.

I want to close on this note. I am one of those members who visited the opening of the Crossroads photographic display that Clayton Cosgrove spoke of, and spoke at so well. No doubt other members went, as well. I saw the fine work of the New Zealand Police, particularly John Robinson, and I had to walk out of the display. Those crosses reminded me of my nephew whose cross is at St Arnaud, where he was killed in a motorbike accident. It was a Boxing Day death. There is one thing that we must always remember. When people are drawn into playing stupid political games and mucking around with select committee personnel over the politics of an issue, they should stop and think why the member brought the bill to the House. He brought it to the House because it involves real people. He brought it to the House because it involves tragedy. He brought it to the House because he knows that the antics of young people who are out of control in this country need kerbing. I agree with him that the way to deal with those young people is to take their cars, their prized possessions, the things that they value more than anything else in the world. If I had my way I would crush those cars in a public crushing in Christchurch, in Cathedral Square. Maybe we can work on a Supplementary Order Paper that will do that. If those young people saw their prized possession crushed, after an illegal burnout at McLeans Island, it might have a greater effect.

I congratulate the member for Waimakariri. I also congratulate the select committee and the members of the New Zealand Police and the Ministry of Transport on fine work well done. I look forward to the third reading, because then, I know, we will definitely be on the way to enactment.

United Future members support the bill wholeheartedly. I personally do not care how the bill got here—I just want to know that it will be passed speedily before there is another death. I want to acknowledge the work of Clayton Cosgrove in bringing the bill to the fore, and the Law and Order Committee for doing such a fine job in giving some teeth to it. I am stunned to learn that the Greens and ACT have climbed into bed together and will be against this bill. Quite frankly, I cannot wait to hear their version of things.

💬 Martin Gallagher: That can’t be true.

It is true, and I cannot understand it. Nandor Tanczos comments in the New Zealand Herald that he does not think anyone would accuse him of being a petrol head. There is no room for petrol in his head, not with these quite dopey ideas.

Let me say once again that the debate surrounding the bill comes at a time of tragedy. At the first reading of this bill, a shooting had recently taken place amongst a group drag racing in south Auckland, and this time, at the second reading, a 24-year-old, Peeravet Suwannarat, died in Christchurch over the weekend after losing control in a high-speed inner city drag race in wet and dangerous conditions. Three other occupants were seriously injured, and remain so in Christchurch Hospital. There have been many other incidents in the interim. It was United Future that instigated this bill being advanced under urgency this week and put it up on the Order Paper, following on from the initiative of Clayton Cosgrove.

Street and illegal drag racing is a national problem. It is a people problem. It does not discriminate amongst parties, and I am glad to see that Labour, National, New Zealand First, and United Future have put aside this political party nonsense to put this bill together, and are keen to have it passed speedily. Local bylaws have had limited success in controlling unauthorised street and drag racing. Bylaws have displaced the problem to other suburbs, other streets, and other residents and communities. As a Christchurch MP, I am very familiar with the problem. I have had contact in my electorate with both public and the police, who are concerned about this issue. Both are frustrated by the inability to adequately address the problem within current law.

The problem is beyond the realm of reckless driving. These drivers are, for the most part, sober. It is not incapacity that warrants immobilisation of their vehicles; it is the reckless disregard for the public. Infringement notices have been nothing more than badges of honour, worn by the people who perpetrate these crimes. Often it is impossible to identify the driver in order to issue these infringement notices and impoundment notices, at night, in large crowds—something this bill does address. As deputy chair of the Law and Order Committee, and working with my colleagues across the House, I applaud the significant changes that have strengthened the bill. I believe it is good legislation, which should be pushed through.

Changes to the principal Act include the creation of offences aimed at unauthorised street races. Police are able to impound vehicles at the roadside when they are involved in unauthorised street and drag racing and related stunts. There is an extension of the length of impoundment to 28 days, which includes the right of appeal. There is a strong deterrence here. Most of these cars are a huge investment and the pride and joy of these thugs on wheels, and having the vehicle removed from them will be a strong deterrent.

The appeal rights are important. We have to recognise that the police are making subjective decisions on occasion, and that the car may not always be owned by the operator at the time of impoundment. There is protection for those vehicles that are stolen. We support the amendments that have outlined contributing factors in unauthorised street and drag racing. For example, it is now an offence, which can be enforced, to intentionally pour, place, or allow to spill, petrol, oil, diesel fuel, or other substances that are likely to cause a vehicle to lose traction, without reasonable excuse.

These people can, and will, incur fines of up to $3,000 and infringement notices of $600.

It is important to note that United Future is aware that the Attorney-General has reported that impoundment for 28 days is not a proportionate response and is a breach of human rights. Again, I echo the comments made a little earlier by Clayton Cosgrove, in asking whose rights we are talking about. It ought to be the rights of communities, the rights of the public, and the rights of those people who are most at risk that are put to the fore, not the rights of these thugs on wheels. In response, we continue to support this period of impoundment, based on the deterrent effect that it will have—and it will—recognising that fines alone will have little effect, and that there is a right of appeal. It is also possible for police not to follow through with prosecution if they find reason against doing so. We strongly believe that having a vehicle automatically out of service, once green-stickered, is a window of opportunity. This forces impounded cars to undergo warrant of fitness checks and to comply with noise standards, though not to the extent that we would have liked to see—but we understand that we will be addressing this in other legislation later.

This provision specifically addresses the submissions concerned with cars being placed back on the road at the end of the seizure period without addressing residents’ concerns about modified exhaust systems, and so on. It also follows for other modifications to be equally checked—seating, for example. In other words, to be reclaimed, these cars will have to undergo warrant of fitness checks all over again, at additional cost to the offenders.

Of particular importance in this bill, and reflected in the submissions, was the need to recognise authorised street racing so that it would not be captured. This bill has made the necessary distinctions. It is of paramount importance to distinguish motor enthusiasts, car shows, and motor club events from unauthorised events. Obviously United Future is very supportive of organised motor events. Our president, Inky Tulloch, is the Australasian supertruck racing champion, and our own MP Paul Adams was New Zealand’s first professional rally driver. It was hard to get him to look at this bill, to be honest.

But United Future is disappointed that the bill did not coordinate efforts with the Land Transport Safety Authority to have simultaneously developed policy on the road-user rule and the vehicle equipment rule to introduce with this bill. It is unsatisfactory that noise, which many submissions complained of, is not effectively addressed in this bill, particularly with regard to boom boxes, etc. But we will be following this up in the consultation process, with rules regarding the latter.

Originally, at the bill’s first reading, we were concerned that confiscation alone would not contribute to an increased feeling of public safety, but we have changed our views, and we are confident with the strengthening of this legislation. United Future supports the second reading of this bill. We believe that the new powers for the police will help to control unauthorised street and drag racing, through infringement notices, court fines, and the ability to impound at the roadside. We intend to continue working with the Land Transport Safety Authority to ensure policy is developed to standardise noise levels, to address residents’ concerns more directly. Again, we say thanks to Clayton Cosgrove and the Labour Party for bringing this bill forward, and thank you to National and New Zealand First. I now hope that everybody can have a very good laugh at the new relationship between ACT and the Greens.

The ACT party did support this legislation going to select committee. We believe that that is an important part of the democratic process. It allows the public to have their input. But we do not support this legislation now. We see the bill as a stalking horse for increasing the powers of the police. That is what it is doing. There is no doubt that these so-called boy racers, so-called hoons in motor vehicles, so-called thugs in cars—whatever these people like to label them in this sort of discriminatory way: bogans, petrol heads—do cause problems in some parts of the country. But we already have legislation to deal with them if they break the law. Nothing under the laws on reckless driving or dangerous driving prohibits the police from arresting these people and convicting them.

💬 Marc Alexander: So why did the police ask for more powers?

Because this Government gives the police only $6 a day, as opposed to giving the Department of Social Welfare $72 a day. So members should ask themselves why the police cannot cope with these problems when there are problems.

But let us get back to this legislation. Yes, nuisance, noise, offensive—a lot of people out there upset us and disturb our peaceful lives. But do we pass laws to ban them when they have not even broken the law? This is what we are doing here. How do we define a boy racer? How do we define a bogan? Is it someone who wears a mudflap hairstyle, a mulletee in black jeans? One member said he wanted to ban boom boxes. Are we going to ban people wearing stonewashed black denims? I can remember a few years ago, when we were all getting up in arms about window tinting.

If we turn to page 3 of the commentary we see that the bill does define who these boy racers are. It states that they come from middle-class or affluent families. Well, we cannot have that, can we! That is fine—the Labour Party can pass laws to ban people if they come from affluent families; that is all right, then!

We have a problem in this country that occurs in various sectors of the community, and the whole country throws up its hands in horror and says: “Let’s pass a law under urgency to ban it.” It is an unseemly rush to increase the powers of the police. It is not even clear in this legislation what we are seeking to ban. This Government would happily pass laws making us criminals if we discriminate against thin, pretty, female, young, heterosexual secretaries. It is happy to be the thought police when it comes to our private lives, but it now wants to pass a law that discriminates against those whom we might not like and whom we might find offensive.

I did a very quick search this morning and there is evidence that people who break these laws are being dealt with. In South Canterbury in March, just this last month, a 19-year-old Timaru youth was sentenced to 9 months in prison when Judge David Holderness said he wanted to send a stern warning to boy racers. The youth was charged with dangerous driving causing injury. There is legislation to deal with this. The judge said the community was becoming increasingly concerned with the dangerous conduct of young speeding drivers in city and country areas.

Just in case Government members thought they were not being discriminatory enough, it is not just boy racers, it is girl racers as well. In a recent Christchurch court case a 19-year-old girl was jailed for 15 months for being a street racer and breaking the law. So I get back to my point that there is already legislation. We do not have the right to speed up and down the country, break the law, and drive at excessive speeds. The bill acknowledges that the current laws can deal with that. The bill deals with something called “difficulty for the police in identifying the offenders”, and that is one of the reasons the Government wants this bill passed.

Nothing in this legislation makes identification of the offender any easier. What will happen is that if the car is seized for 28 days—which the New Zealand Law Society and the Automobile Association have said is far too excessive in terms of the crime we are talking about here—all the police have to have are reasonable grounds to believe that the person, first, is the offender, and, second, is breaking the law. The police are there to enforce the law. Under this legislation the police become the law. That, to me, is a glimpse of a police State, and I think it is a very, very dangerous road to start going down.

A third party should be involved in the right of appeal. That does not happen, so we will have the police acting as the enforcer of the law, the judge, and, in a way, the executioner of the law in terms of seizing the car. The person is guilty until proven innocent.

What about after the 28 days when a person is proven innocent and the car is returned to that person? It is a serious breach of the property rights of people going about their legal business if they have their car taken off them. Often it is a tool of their trade. Even under the bankruptcy laws, people are allowed to keep their tools of trade. As somebody pointed out, these are expensive pieces of property and this seems to be a justified way of, as someone said, hitting people where it hurts.

Let us take the analogy of the Resource Management Act. Under the Resource Management Act one might have reasonable grounds to believe that someone is doing something with his or her farm that breaches the Resource Management Act. Should we then seize that farm off that person and hold it for 28 days until he or she proves that the Resource Management Act is not being breached? [Interruption] I think the member is saying that I should not say that too loudly in case the Government gets ideas and passes a law stating that. The bill that the State can seize the property on reasonable grounds.

Clayton Cosgrove talked very passionately about people in his electorate who had died as a result of people breaking the law. He talked about people being shot. I congratulate him on being moved by that, but there is already legislation in place. Is he telling me that if I go out and do a drive-by shooting I will not be breaking the law? Is he telling me that if I go out and drive dangerously and kill someone, I am not breaking the law? Is he telling me that if I go on to Lambton Quay and pour petrol, diesel, or oil on the road, I will not be arrested? Hello! I think I would get arrested.

Is he telling me that if I go out there and do a doughnut on Lambton Quay I will not be arrested? Of course I would be arrested. Of course I would be breaking the law. I would be driving in a dangerous or reckless manner, and there is already legislation to deal with that. Nothing in this legislation defines things like “sustained wheel spin” or, as I said, “reasonable grounds”. The danger is that we will get ease of discrimination. Who will be prosecuted? Will it be the hoon in his WRX revving his engine and goading the police? Obviously he would be targeted. But I doubt whether a member of the Wadestown set on the way to the opera or the symphony orchestra in his or her Saab 9000 who is a bit late and who races off at the lights and does sustained wheel spins without traction, or whatever the legislation states, would be arrested. It is absolutely essential for there to be a third party in the right of appeal.

I believe that this legislation will increase contempt for the police amongst youth. I am not surprised that at the moment we have youth who—

💬 Marc Alexander: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is just a question as to whether Deborah Coddington has been reading the same bill that everybody else seems to have.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is a point of debate.

New Zealand youth are contemptuous of the law now because we have a useless youth justice system whereby youth are not held accountable. They have endless family group conferences. Out of 40,000 young offenders, 2,000 are taken through the court. This Government is not interested in fighting real crime and keeping citizens safe. If it were, it would increase the Police vote and give them more than the $6 a day of our taxes that it spends on police. It would increase front-line policing so that it is able to enforce the current legislation against people who do break the law and it would not go around arresting people who just look like they are about to do so.

Rarely have I been so stunned in this Parliament. I had assumed that the ACT party was some kind of law and order party. This afternoon we saw the ACT party go back to one of its roots, which Deborah Coddington well knows—that is, the Libertarian Party. I believe that the Libertarian Party is well known to that member. Where is Stephen Franks? Was he at the caucus on Waiheke Island? Rodney Hide had obviously popped out of the room when this issue was discussed. The previous speaker talked about picking on people in black jeans.

This bill is all about preventing mum and dad wearing black to their kid’s funeral. This bill is about stopping tragedy before it happens. It was my privilege and pleasure to talk extensively with the New South Wales traffic police in Parramatta. Far from gobbling up and absorbing extra police resources—as suggested perhaps by the previous speaker—this bill is about releasing police resources for other areas of crime. It gives a clear message to people not to use the roads of our country as some kind of speeding track and put other lives at risk. As the chair of the Law and Order Committee I look forward to the Committee stage of this bill. We will get this bill through under urgency. I thank all the other parties, except ACT and the Greens, for their cooperation. Let us get on with this bill, and save a few lives in the process.

The Greens opposed this bill at the first reading, and we continue to oppose it. That is not because we support car racing, but because it is bad legislation, it is unnecessary, and it is dangerous. I have been appalled at some of the previous speeches that have failed to address the issues, the genuine concerns raised about this bill, but have relied on personal insult and on emotional manipulation to try to make the point.

The select committee says that it has substantially rewritten this bill—Ron Mark made reference to that as well. I would say that it has not so much rewritten it, as tidied the drafting. Unfortunately, it has retained the poor policy intention of the bill. Ron Mark said that the select committee attempted to make the bill just. It absolutely failed. He then went on to talk about targeting young people and crushing their cars—does he mean all young people? This bill overturns a basic principle of justice that one is innocent until proven guilty. The select committee recognised that the advice it received from the Attorney-General was that this bill breaches the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Basically, the select committee said that it did not care that this bill breached our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, based on international conventions developed to protect the human rights of people around the world. It did not care. It did not think that that was important.

The select committee did not care that it breached the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and that is in the report. The select committee said that a right of appeal was sufficient protection against the misuse of these draconian powers to confiscate vehicles. How was that a protection against the misuse of those powers? It is seriously inadequate. There is no remedy for the loss suffered by a person who might have his or her vehicle improperly impounded or confiscated. There is no penalty—there is no deterrent to the police whatsoever to make sure that they do not improperly use that power.

What is more, when people go to appeal against the impounding of their vehicle improperly, what authority do they appeal to? The appeal goes to the police themselves. We are expecting that the police will police themselves, and we think that that is adequate protection against the misuse of these powers! [Interruption] John Carter may think that. Sometimes I wonder what planet some members of Parliament live on.

Then people can appeal to the District Court if they are not satisfied by the outcome of appealing to the police. By that time the car will probably have already been returned to them, and it would be a moot point.

The select committee should be ashamed of this report, and this House should be ashamed of itself in seeking to pass this bill under urgency. I know that some members of the Government and members of the Opposition are ashamed. I know that some of them do recognise that this is deeply flawed legislation. They are not allowed to say so in their votes in this House, but they know that, and they will talk about that privately. This bill is deeply flawed.

The select committee said that the police powers were inadequate—it took the word of the police for that—but it presented no credible evidence that that was the case. As Deborah Coddington has pointed out, all of the behaviours designed to be covered by this bill are already covered by the offences of careless and reckless driving, and those offences already carry serious penalties, including a potential prison sentence. Under that legislation, there is already a power to confiscate vehicles for people found guilty of those offences. The point is that the power exists after someone has been found guilty. The difference in this bill is that the police now have the powers to impound a vehicle before someone has been found guilty of an offence.

💬 Ron Mark: Yes!

Ron Mark applauds that. Ron Mark thinks the principle of being innocent until proven guilty does not matter. It is not important to Ron Mark. He thinks that is fine. There are cases where the police already have such powers to impound for certain breaches of the law, but those are of a different nature. Those are quantifiable breaches of the law. They are things like driving while disqualified or suspended. There is no subjective test. That is an objective breach of the law. The police can incapacitate a vehicle for driving that occurs while over the breath-alcohol limit. Again, that is a quantifiable breach of the law. For people who breach the laws relating to careless or reckless driving, or commit offences covered by this bill, there is a subjective test of guilt—someone has to judge whether someone is guilty of taking part in a legal race, or one of those kinds of things. That should be up to a judge or a court to decide. It should not be up to the police. This bill makes of the police the judge, jury, and executioner.

As I have said, under the Transport Act all of those kinds of offences can already result in a vehicle confiscation, after guilt has been properly found by a judge. That is appropriate. If those powers were used, those powers would provide an adequate deterrent, which is what this bill was intended to provide. The problem is, the powers are not being used by the police now. The police say that it is difficult to identify offenders. This bill will do nothing to address that. It will do nothing to make it easier to identify offenders. This is about making the Government feel good—and about making Clayton Cosgrove feel good.

Clayton Cosgrove said this is not about politics. This is all about politics. This is about responding to a media-driven hype. The media told us we had a massive problem with boy racers, and the police were caught with their pants down. When they looked at it, the police were doing nothing to address the problem. What did the police say? They said: “Oh, we need more powers. That is the problem.” [Interruption] Marc Alexander said “Why did the police say that?”. When did the police ever say they do not need more powers? That is the police response to everything—that they need more powers. The problem is that the police have not been using the powers available to them.

Tony Ryall made the point—and he was absolutely correct—that if there is not resourcing for the police to deal with these kinds of offences, nothing will happen. Whether or not we pass this bill, if the police are not resourced to deal with the issue, the issue will not be dealt with.

💬 Ron Mark: The police don’t have enough resources to deal with violent crimes.

Conversely, if the police put the resources into investigating the offences, they would deal with the problem. Ron Mark raises a question. I tell Ron Mark that the point is that if the police are not investigating crimes of violence, the answer is not to change the law, the answer is to resource them adequately to address the problem. That is exactly the point being made. It is not the law that is at fault, it is whether the police are putting the resources into addressing the problem. If the police would use the powers available to them, we would not have to pass this unnecessary legislation. Clayton Cosgrove says that this bill is about saving lives, and he talks about over 400 people who have died. Those people did not die in drag racing.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: Not boy racers.

Exactly. Those people did not die in drag racing. It is part of the emotional manipulation. We all feel bad about people who die in road accidents. There is not a person in this House who does not. But passing this draconian and unnecessary legislation is not the answer.

I received an email today, as I am sure probably all members of this House did, that put forward the figures of people who have died as a result of racing, wheel spins, intimidating driving, etc.—responsible for 0.4 percent of injuries, and 0.7 percent of fatalities on New Zealand roads. The person who sent the email told us that those figures are less than those that attribute death or injuries solely to the poor condition of New Zealand roads.

If Clayton Cosgrove is serious about addressing people dying on the roads, why does he not do something about better funding for maintenance of roads? Even better, why does he not do something about the overwhelming car culture that exists in our country? If we had an adequate public transport system, and we got people out of cars and into trains, buses, and other means of alternative transport, we would then start to address deaths on roads seriously. The majority of people who die on roads do not die from drag racing and those kinds of things. They die from our dependence on a fossil fuel - guzzling, outmoded means of transportation. As Tony Ryall said, this bill will do nothing to address the problems it is intended to address, and this Government should be ashamed of trying to pass it under urgency.

I rise to speak as the chair of Labour’s Auckland caucus committee to support this bill and to recognise the member who has brought it forward. This is the very model of how a member’s bill can work. I compliment the Government on giving it the priority to get through all its stages today. I am fascinated to see that curious combination of ACT and the Greens confused with some perverted sense of liberalism.

Before the election, when this bill was topical, the Hon Ken Shirley said as follows: “The ACT party supports the introduction of this bill. We welcome tougher measures to deal with illegal street drag racing. Indeed, this bill is in keeping with ACT’s campaign for zero tolerance in crime.” Or is that something they say before an election? Now, “Deborah Mollycoddlingthem” has changed their view. Nandor Tanczos always stands up for the criminal, and never the victim.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member should use the correct name of the member.

I do apologise. Mr Tanczos has defended the criminal and not the victim. The argument here is in favour of the families who have lost family members, and the people of Endeavour Street, Taunton Avenue, Halsey Drive, and The Avenue, Lynfield, who cannot sleep, whose babies are woken in the middle of the night, because of hoon cars running up and down their street. I have news for those “better than thou” ACT folks. My west Auckland constituents want to get beyond the reputation of black jeans and mullets. They want neighbourhoods where they can sleep at night. They are sick to death of hoons on their streets. Seventy-five of them met in Blockhouse Bay to call for this bill to be expedited, and that has been done.

I have to say that I am scratching my head after having listened to members of the Green Party and the ACT party speak in total accord. It must be something of a red-letter day. I am taken back a little bit, and, yes, Mr Prebble should hang his head.

I am pleased to say that I was a member of the Law and Order Committee, which helped to draft this legislation. We took a unified approach to it. It is only fair and reasonable that I acknowledge the contribution made by Clayton Cosgrove in bringing this bill to the House in the first instance. The bill is a good initiative, and deals with an issue that is causing great consternation across the country. It is a good example of an issue that has been elevated to a governance issue, and, for once, we have been able to leave the politics behind. The bill has been substantially rewritten and I think it is the better for that.

I also need to acknowledge my colleague Mr Brownlee. It was through his efforts that the bill got the full force of the officials by being put on the Order Paper, and it would be inappropriate if we did not recognise that.

I also note that this legislation is based in significant part on the New South Wales legislation. Although I acknowledge that that is its genesis, it would have been inappropriate just to pick up that model and try to impose it on this country. The work done by the select committee in that regard has been first class.

The bill is known around the countryside as the boy racer legislation, and Deborah Coddington did make the point that that is a little bit of a misnomer, because 25 percent of supposed boy racers are actually female. I will say that this activity is not just about illegal racing. It is about curtailing activities that have a dangerous and social impact on law-abiding citizens. Boy racers congregate in large numbers to bait police, destroy property, cause traffic congestion, harass members of the public, and destroy people’s quality of life by road congestion and excessive noise. I have to say to the ACT party that I thought it was the party for zero tolerance. Maybe it is appropriate that its members get their heads together and have a little chat about it, because it is probably not too late for them to reconsider and take another call, particularly in the Committee stage.

I note that the legislation amends the Land Transport Act, and some submitters who came to the select committee thought that was not necessary. I put on record that they were in the minority by a very large measure. Some of the submitters who did not think that was necessary thought that the current Act contained prohibitions against dangerous driving and reckless operation of a motor vehicle. However, that Act is ineffective because it was not drafted with empowerment powers for street racing offences. Current penalties are not adequate deterrents, and there are practical enforcement difficulties. By example, I use identification of the driver. One might be able to take a licensed driver off the road and give him or her a penalty, but that does not go to the root cause of the problem, and that is the car. Unless the vehicle can be taken off the road, we are not sending any sort of message to those louts whatsoever.

In the end the select committee decided to use the word “Unauthorised” in the bill’s title. We wanted to send a very clear message to submitters that we were determined to deal with the boy racer problem, because it is an issue that is concerning the public of New Zealand in very large measure. This is a classic example where the rights of the community should be put before the rights of the individual.

Having said that, I do want to take a little bit of a swipe at the Government. I am sorry but I have to be true to form. The bill was reported back to the House in November 2002. The Government made big play of the fact that it would rush this bill through the House in urgency. When I sought leave of the House for this legislation to be put up the Order Paper I got a resounding no. Dr Cullen in particular was the person who objected the loudest. What he was saying to me, this House, and to the people of this country was that he had an arrogant disregard for the tens of thousands of New Zealanders who are concerned about the activities of boy racers because they are destroying their quality of life. I have been petitioned in droves by constituents in Rakaia, asking me to ask the Government to do something about this with urgency, and I have had to say to them—

💬 Hon Annette King: You got urgency.

We have urgency now! I have had to say to them that, yes, the legislation has been amended by the select committee, that it is in a form that I know members of the House will support, and that all we now need to do is to get it back before the House and get it passed. To be fair to Clayton Cosgrove I think he, in essence, actually said that, behind closed doors. Maybe we should give Dr Cullen some credit. Maybe that is why the legislation is now being heard under urgency. If that is the case, I am glad that Dr Cullen has woken up and smelt the coffee. I suppose we should really be thankful for small mercies. It is just a pity that this legislation did not come soon enough to save the life of a boy racer in Christchurch City last weekend. It is a pity that someone had to die.

Let us be clear about the activities that these people engage in. They have no real intention whatsoever to be law-abiding citizens. They congregate in large numbers to bait the police and members of the public. Their idea of fun is getting together in large numbers, blocking off a road, and posting scouts at both ends of the road. When the police come along to do their job, the boy racers are tipped off by telephone and disappear. If the police could stay at both ends of the road, apprehend people as they were coming by, and impound their cars, they would be able to enforce this law. The boy racers damage roads, and damage buildings with graffiti—

💬 Ron Mark: We need a tank!

Yes, we need tanks. Graffiti is one of the by-products of this type of activity. The spectators are generally unruly; they are the people who drink and engage in lots of violent activities. I am looking across at the Greens, and I would not be surprised if they were lining up, as well. Boom boxes are another issue that cause people to live under great distress.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: What?

Mr Prebble is wondering what boom boxes are. They are the instruments that these louts use to make a lot of noise. These instruments keep young children, mums, and dads awake at night, so they cannot enjoy a good quality of life. They have got to such a point of frustration that they are saying they will take the law into their own hands. Is it not a sad day for this country when we are encouraging law-abiding citizens to take the law into their own hands just so they can protect their property and their families from these louts? The civil libertarians, and maybe the ACT party, which I am still scratching my head over, are saying that we are taking a sledgehammer to crush a nut. If that is the case, then I say “Tough!” because that is what we need to do. I am sick and tired of these louts having their rights put ahead of those of the majority of law-abiding citizens in this country.

Councils have bent over backwards to try to accommodate these people. Councils have provided off-road racing facilities, but only about 20 percent of these people are interested in them. Unless they have an audience, unless they can disturb people, and unless they can bait the police, they are not interested in using those facilities.

I conclude by saying that I strongly support this legislation, and look forward to discussing it in more detail during the Committee stage.

I support this bill, which was introduced to the House by my colleague Clayton Cosgrove, and wish him well with it. I have only one thing to say to the House about this bill. One knows one is right on a matter when one has the libertarian Deborah Coddington hopping into the exact same political bed as Nandor Tanczos.

A few weeks ago I attended a meeting in Katikati on law and order issues, and Ken Shirley was there. The meeting was interrupted by some road racers, for want of a better term. Ken Shirley made it quite clear to that meeting—and I should add that the police were present and they made their view known—that the ACT party is 100 percent behind the police. Ken Shirley was absolutely categorical. A member of the community present at that meeting would have had no doubt that ACT would support this sort of legislation.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: No.

That is what I understood. We can expect the wishy-washy response from the Greens, but I am personally disappointed in ACT’s stance on this bill. I cast members’ minds back to a Saturday—I am certain it was a Saturday—just prior to the last election. The Greens encouraged people to go to the parks all over New Zealand and smoke cannabis. They forgot that the majority of those people would have to drive home. I was at a public meeting with Rod Donald, and he was bragging about it. He stopped short when I asked him how those people were going to get home after smoking cannabis in the parks, probably all day.

I read this bill with some interest, and I notice that neither the ACT party nor the Greens had any representation on the Law and Order Committee at all, not even in a non-voting capacity. There are fine noises outside the House, and fine noises inside the House from time to time, but when it comes to the detail, ACT could not front up with one member at the select committee to query what was going on.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Just as it is out of order to refer to a member being absent from the House, it is out of order to refer to a member being absent from a select committee, and especially in this case, as the House had not put the ACT party on the select committee. It is very unfair.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member is absolutely correct.

I am no way implying that ACT did not take its rightful seat. I am saying that ACT was not on that committee, and did not even ask to be put on the committee in a non-voting—[Interruption] I tell Mr Prebble that it goes before the Business Committee, and we are all aware of when people ask to be on a committee in a non-voting capacity.

Driving on our roads should be regarded as a privilege not an absolute right.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: That is nonsense.

Mr Prebble says that is nonsense. He believes that every Tom, Dick, and Harry should be able to drive on the roads, never mind what condition they are in, what attitude they have, or what condition their cars are in. I am saying to this House that we have to have stringent transport laws, and to ensure that people honour and respect the road code, if we want to save lives on the roads.

We heard the same wishy-washy arguments from many people in this House when we tried to introduce the photographic driver’s licence. We were told we were impinging on people’s rights and goodness knows what. But at the time of the introduction of the photographic driver’s licence legislation, approximately 50 people a year were dying as a result of being in a collision with a non-qualified or disqualified driver. The police came to the select committee and made it quite clear that if they had a better licensing system where they could identify the drivers, they could keep, to a considerable degree, non-qualified and disqualified drivers off the road. If my memory serves me correctly, that 10 percent has now gone down to something like 6 percent. That represents something in the vicinity of 20 people per year alive today who would not have been alive had we not changed that licensing system. If one takes 5 or 6 years, one finds that the number is getting into the hundreds. Frankly, my party pushed for that legislation, and we are proud that it went through.

Equally so, we are pleased to support the honourable member Clayton Cosgrove’s initiative. We compliment him on taking the initiative. But before his ego gets too big, I want to say I have just read this bill, and I cannot find much left of the honourable member’s first bill. Even the title has been changed. I think the first bill had eight pages, and eight pages have been struck out and replaced by a further eight pages. But if it were not for his initiative—and I do recognise that he had the initial desire to push this issue—we would not be here debating this bill now. So I do compliment him on presenting this bill, and I compliment my parliamentary colleagues on this side of the House for supporting it.

Drivers who want to get involved in street drag racing should know that the practice is anti-social, with all the noise and the carry-on. They should expect that sooner or later society and, as a result, Parliament will want to do something about it. It is not acceptable. I have had several people contact my office, and I know that my leader has had even more, particularly in respect of the events over Christmas—the drag racing type of carry-on that occurs in Mount Maunganui on fine summer evenings. It is a dangerous practice, and it should be stopped. Roads generally are dangerous places. This sort of carry-on makes them very dangerous places.

Some mechanics tell me that cars used in drag racing become less than safe in themselves, and should not be used on the public roads. Therefore, it is debatable whether people who get involved in that sort of activity—even if special tracks were set up—should ever be allowed to use a car in drag racing, then drive it on a public road. We have some real concerns about that, and people with greater mechanical expertise than myself have made that view very clear to me.

New Zealand First introduced legislation that gave the police powers in 1998 to impound vehicles and suspend drivers’ licences. Society has benefited from that sort of legislation.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: How many cars have been impounded?

Several hundred cars have been impounded, most of them deservedly. A few might have a question mark over them as to whether they should have been impounded, but the Act has provisions for people to appeal, and I notice that the same sorts of rights to appeal are in the bill that we are debating today.

We support this bill. New Zealand First supports tough, fair laws that “encourage” proper and safe driving, and a responsible attitude towards driving on our roads. We cannot stress strongly enough that people get only one chance on the roads when things go wrong, and if they are in the wrong place at the wrong time and a drag racer comes by, they are likely to pay the penalty with their lives. That is not acceptable to us, at all. We believe that if we are to err, we should err on the side of caution. In other words, if we think somebody is going to be up to this sort of drag racing carry-on, we should give the police adequate powers to deal with it. The police have asked for more powers to deal with it, and New Zealand First is a firm supporter of the police having the powers that they need. I have spoken to many police. I have a policewoman in my family, and I do not envy the task that those folk have when they go out on a dark Friday or weekend night and have to deal with youngsters who are, sometimes, the worse for wear from alcohol or drugs, and think they own the world and can get away with anything and everything. New Zealand First supports this bill.