Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill

The National Party supports this title. We see very little that we can disagree with. In fact, we would like to talk more about what we do agree with. I say to members that the word “Unauthorised” was carefully chosen and carefully considered, because this bill is about protecting law-abiding road users. People who are engaged in authorised activities have nothing to worry about. In particular, I am thinking about car enthusiasts and people engaged in authorised rallies. It is those people who engage in unauthorised activities who should be concerned. I say to members of the Committee and to members of the public listening that if they are not engaged in illegal activities, then they have nothing to worry about. If they are not breaking the law while in charge of a motor vehicle, they have nothing to be concerned about.

This legislation is not—and the title reflects this—about catching drink-drivers. We have law for that. It is not about catching unlicensed drivers. We have law for that. It is about stopping people who are hell-bent on breaking the law in a reckless manner and putting lives at risk in a manner that will destroy the quality of life of people who, generally, should be able to have a quality of life that is undisturbed. For example, people who move on to lifestyle blocks should not be subjected to these types of louts racing up and down the streets or the roads and causing considerable distress. We support the title. “Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing” is exactly what we are targeting. With that, I commend it very firmly to the Committee.

Once again, New Zealand First notes that the bill as presented to the House in its first draft was entitled the Land Transport (Street and Illegal Drag Racing) Amendment Bill. It was interesting to read the second select committee report and to note that the second select committee, which had taken on the responsibility of dealing with the bill, came back to the House with the recommendation that the title be changed. I glanced through the rationale for the change of title to the Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill. Within that, there is a further explanation, not only as to why the Law and Order Committee came to that decision, but also as to the part we will be debating next, which is the purpose. It is, after all, the purpose that must be reflected in the title of the bill.

It is quite clear to most people out there who, like me, own property in a part of the country where street racers gather, that those races are unauthorised I own property out at McLeans Island, behind the Christchurch airport, and I have never ever known of an authorised drag race or burnout event there yet. The only burnouts that we have seen out there have been illegal and unauthorised, and they have always resulted in damage to property and the roads. I note that that is quite clearly what this bill is designed to put an end to.

It is interesting to read through the select committee’s report. I particularly note the discussion about clause 4 and new clause 5 on page 6 of the commentary. There was a lot of discussion about making sure that the bill did not capture legal or authorised events, be they motorkhanas or legal street racing like the type of street racing we used to have here in Wellington—sadly and disappointingly Wellington does not host the V8 racing any more. Fund-raising events and sporting events that are run by legitimate car clubs and racing clubs are not intended to be caught up in this bill. The new title makes it very, very clear that those people are not the people who are being targeted, and the necessary amendments in the bill from that point again reinforce that provision and ensure that those legitimate, legal racing events are not in any way entrapped by this legislation.

The title could well have been changed by many people who have been subjected to the antics of hoons and street racers over the past 10 or 15 years. Some of those people have recommended to me that the bill should be called the “Boy Racers (Car Crushing) Amendment Bill”. Those people came to me with those recommendations because they have had an absolute gutsful of the antics they have had to put up with at McLeans Island. There might well have been those who, had this bill not appeared, would have taken the law into their own hands, in which case we might have had a bill entitled the “Anti-Vigilante (Because We’re Out to Deal to the Problem on Our Own) Bill”. Those views were very, very well expressed to me on numerous occasions by people who have had a gutsful of the antics of these young people.

At the end of the day, I think that common sense, logic, and good advice from the advisers to the select committee have produced a workable bill with a meaningful, realistic, targeted title, and there it should stay.

There has been a lot of maligning of the ACT party and its stand on this legislation. I notice that a number of members are conveniently avoiding the issue we are addressing here. The title, Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill, should be the “Land Transport (Increasing the Powers of the Police) Amendment Bill, because that essentially is what this legislation does. At least Mr Ron Mark is honest and acknowledges that that is what it does—and good on him for acknowledging it and for standing up for what he believes in. I wish that other members of the Committee would be so honest, because they will not address that issue.

If people want to have a street or drag race, they have to get authorisation. They have to get permission from the authorities, because they will be doing things that in ordinary circumstances would be breaking the law. Measures therefore have to be taken to make a street or drag race an authorised event. Because people would be breaking the law in terms of speed, dangerous driving, and reckless driving, such events have to be authorised.

The key words in this title are “unauthorised” and its opposite “authorised”. This is why I object to this legislation. If a street race or a drag race is unauthorised, it is therefore already—before we even pass this bill—against the law, because it would involve excessive speed and breaking the speed limit. I see that Clayton Cosgrove is shaking his head. Does he not have any respect for the speed limit or for traffic regulations that already prohibit excessive noise? Those regulations already prohibit nuisance in terms of people who drive motor vehicles. We are not actually totally in bed, as some members so crudely put it, with the Green Party. Members of that party would probably have train drag racing, bus-dragging, or whatever—as long as it does not involve motor vehicles; if it is in trains or buses, it is OK.

I come back to the title, which is what I really object to about this legislation. If the title honestly reflected what this legislation is to do, it would state that it increases the powers of the police. Anybody in a democratic society should be extremely careful when they do anything to increase the powers of the police.

💬 Brian Connell: Zero tolerance.

We are the party of zero tolerance—for those who have broken the law, not for those who look as though they are about to break it, or, as that member said, for those who are hell-bent on breaking it. We do not increase the powers of the police for people who are thinking about breaking the law, or for those who look as though they might break it. That is excessively dangerous, and I caution this Committee to think very carefully about it.

Sure, the bill will go through—I accept that. But that does not mean I am not prepared to make myself unpopular by sticking up for those who are acting with authority—for those who are not breaking the law. That is why I say that the title of this bill is a misnomer. It should be the “Land Transport (Increasing the Powers of the Police) Amendment Bill”, and I challenge all those other members in the Committee who support this bill, apart from Ron Mark who is the only honest one in here—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): No, that is out of order. The member will withdraw and apologise.

I withdraw and apologise. I challenge all those other members when they debate this title to think about that word “unauthorised” as it relates to street and drag racing, and about what the opposite is. If a race is authorised, it is already authorised; if it is unauthorised, it is already outside the law, and we have legislation to deal with that. We should not be increasing the powers of the police.

The ACT member struggles with the title. Maybe she might reflect on a couple of points before she comes to speak on further aspects of the bill. As I recall, when the bill was introduced, Ken Shirley said: “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 on crime. Members of the House have probably seen our billboard campaign around the country—colourful, striking billboards calling for zero tolerance in crime. That is ACT’s message to the country and to Parliament. It will certainly be at the forefront in the election campaign.” I ask the member to reflect on those comments, which were made prior to her becoming a member of the House. Maybe she will then reflect on that further, as we go through the legislation. One would assume, from comparing the speech she has just given with what Ken Shirley said, that that is the reason the ACT party is at 6 percent in the polls, and hovering.

The name of this bill should be the “Let us Treat Our Disaffected Youth Differently Than We Treat Other New Zealanders Bill”. Do we Greens not care about street racing, etc.? Of course we do. I have been out there. I have seen the playing fields that I had responsibility for, as a councillor, chewed up by hoons in cars. I have attended meetings with disaffected citizens who have been kept awake until all hours. I have sat out there on the streets and heard the noisy vehicles. If we need a law to deal with that, then I think we already have it. However, if we cannot enforce the laws that we already have, what makes us think we will be successful in enforcing this one?

I have attended residents’ meetings. I have heard the talk, and I know what those residents are saying. They focus on this group of young people and say that those young people are the ones who are causing them problems. I say that if the police need more powers, then by all means let us give them those powers, but not the power to make the decision that those people deserve a penalty, and the police will impose it right now. Let us give the police the power to arrest—which they already have—and to put those people in front of the courts. The courts should then have the task of deciding on the penalty. If we think the penalty should be confiscation of the vehicle, then we should apply that to all such similar events.

This bill targets one narrow group of people in the community—the young. That group is no more responsible for deaths on the roads than anybody else. Those young people are not the only dangerous drivers in this country, nor are they the only hoons, but this bill very specifically targets young people.

💬 Hon Member: There’s no age limit on boy racers.

Yes, they are the ones. The message we are sending out to our young people is that they are the only ones who drive dangerously, so we should have the ability to impound their vehicles. We have a different law for drunken driving; we say that, yes, all drunken drivers can have their vehicles impounded. We also say that if a person’s vehicle does not have a warrant of fitness and should not be on the road, then we can take it off the road. But in this case we are being fairly specific in the target of this legislation.

I say that the laws are in place now to address this issue. If vehicles are too noisy, they can be stopped. I tell the Committee right now that the noise inspection officers simply go out and give a warning, and, if the warning is not heeded, they can then take the boom box from a party and tell the people there that they must do without it, and to go back and see the noise inspection officers on Monday. Maybe that is a reasonable way of doing it. [Interruption] I have sat out in the streets, and I have actually seen the same cars go past.

I come back to the title, which could be the “Let us Treat the Disrespected Youth Differently Than we Treat Other New Zealanders Bill”. Young people are the ones who have the noisy cars and go around annoying citizens with them. I grant members that that happens. I have seen those noisy cars go down the street one after the other over and over again, and down the same streets 5 or 10 minutes apart. I hear them and the police must hear them, but they do nothing. The laws are there, and the police do not impose the current laws. What makes us think the police are any more likely to enforce any new laws that we put in place? It is the courts’ job to decide on the penalty, and it is the courts’ job to impose it.

Green members are not unmindful of the concerns of citizens; they just do not believe that we need another law, when the existing law is not being upheld. They do not believe we need a law that places in the hands of the police the responsibility for imposing those penalties without the courts having their say on that.