Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill

I thank the Committee for the opportunity to make another contribution to this debate. I note that the commencement date will be 28 days after the royal assent. That will allow sufficient time, following the third reading, for the police to print the required notices of empowerment, and for other necessary administrative preparation to be completed. In essence, this is really just a logical, common-sense administration clause. Therefore, I support it.

It probably does not really matter if this legislation takes another month to come into force, anyway. I made the point earlier that this bill has been around now since it was reported back in November 2002. I have to take issue with the Government again over its delay on this legislation. The Government said it would push it through under urgency, and if this is an example of the Government’s urgency, then it is no wonder that this country of ours is burdened down with red tape and bureaucracy. This legislation is an example of how this Government acts in a very ponderous manner.

Dr Cullen needs to take some of the blame for the delay. I have already made the point that if he had agreed to have this bill bumped up the Order Paper, it could have been dealt with. If he had agreed to that, we would not be sitting here in urgency dealing with this matter, and peoples’ loved ones out there might not have been lost. The bill was only moved up the Order Paper after I and my National colleagues told the people who had come to us in their droves—and I repeat, in their droves—asking why the Government was not moving on this legislation, that they should telephone or write to Dr Cullen, because he was the person who was holding this legislation up and that if he said yes, then it would be dealt with. I know that some of those people wrote to Dr Cullen or phoned him, and that has made the difference. Dr Cullen has got off his high horse and at long last he is listening to the people. He is getting back in touch with the grass roots of this country, is listening to the people who are desperately concerned about boy racers and their activities, and is now prepared to do something about that. On that basis, we commend him.

I noticed the purpose clause as I glanced through the bill. It states: “The purpose of this Act is to amend the Land Transport Act 1998 to combat the problem of illegal street and drag racing and the practice of performing wheel spins and other dangerous stunts on public roads.” Some members of this Committee seem to be driving a perception that there is a law in place to cater for those types of activities. But there is not. If the police could act now, there would not be tens of thousands of New Zealanders out there at the moment asking for legislation to take care of this problem. The police who are listening to this debate must be absolutely cringing. The party that the police probably thought they could rely on—the ACT party, the party that was most strongly going to support the police with its zero-tolerance stand on crime—is the very party that is letting them down. The police must be cringing, and like me they are probably scratching their heads at that.

There is a perception that the issue is just about unlicensed activities—drink-driving, or speed. People can do doughnuts—that is the terminology—burnouts, put oil the road, and kill people by going from zero to 50 kilometres an hour, without breaking the law. When police apprehend people, their defence is that that is not dangerous driving. The lawyers who came to the Law and Order Committee and said that we were using a sledgehammer to break a nut are the very people who stand up and say those activities do not break the law, and are skilful rather than dangerous driving. The people who do those things thumb their noses at the police, and off they go. When the police do apprehend someone and give him or her a ticket, that person goes into the police station and is out again in 5 minutes. Those people then hold their tickets up like badges of honour. They get in their cars and continue with their activities, or a mate drives the car and they continue with their activities. The only way to deal with this problem is to take the cars off the road.

Therein is the point that counters the speeches made earlier on, and, in particular, the speech of the member of the Green Party. He said that this legislation was not necessary. He said that the police have all the powers that they need, yet during the time that I was on the Law and Order Committee we heard consistently—as did colleagues who took over on that committee for this term, and who continued to hear the submissions, to work their way through them, and to produce the report—that the law as it currently stands is not adequate. I will say that again: the law as it currently stands is not adequate.

I say to the good member of the Green Party that the people involved in this activity are not all young men. A lot of men in their 30s and 40s have hot cars and like to be out there displaying their driving prowess. They are not all men or boys, either. I say to the hoon over there on the Government side of the Chamber, Paul Adams, that he is a United Future party member and a road racer himself. The people involved get a buzz out of it. In a court of law, how does one prove that a car that is actually stationary—not speeding—on the road is being driven dangerously? The things that are moving are the back or front wheels; the car is stationary because it has no traction. What would we charge such people with? Would it be with exceeding the 50 kilometres an hour speed limit? They are not doing that! Would we charge them with driving in a manner that might have been dangerous? They would argue that the car was not moving, that they had full control over its front wheels, that they were doing a burnout in a static spot, and that they were in full control of the vehicle. They would also say there was no danger to anybody because they were doing that in a country burnout spot that they had chosen behind the Christchurch airport, where there were no members of the public present other than the other street racers, who were standing around watching, drinking booze, smoking dope, and having a great time.

They could argue in a court of law that they were not driving in a manner that might have been dangerous, and that the activity was not dangerous driving. The point is this: the law as it currently stands is not adequate for us to get the sorts of convictions that are required.

Let us go one step further. We already have laws, approved by this Parliament—I know Labour voted against them—that gave the police the power to confiscate the vehicles of unlicensed drivers. If it is OK for this House to give the police the power to confiscate the vehicles of people who are not licensed to be driving them, why is it not OK for the police to confiscate the vehicle of a hoon who is doing a burnout in a city suburb and keeping the neighbours awake?

This law has been redrafted and presented to us to give the police specific powers to deal with an issue that is vaguely interpretable. The bill has zeroed in on the offence of operating a vehicle in a position of sustained loss of traction. The purpose of the bill has been very clearly defined, and its terminology has been refined, to make sure that it captures only those people who are in the act of doing that illegally or in an unauthorised manner. The bill does not deal with, or aim to capture, rally drivers. It does not aim to capture the Christchurch City Council if it hosts a burnout competition on a street specially closed off for the event.

And here is the point: if people want to enjoy that activity with their specially tuned-up, hotted-up cars, then they should be able to go along and participate in any authorised, legal event that is hosted by a club. But they do not want to do that, because their very reason for being there on any particular night is to enjoy the illicit atmosphere that they indulge in. That is their culture—to be out there “sticking it up the nose” of authority, of society, or of whomever they got away with doing that to. What do we propose in response to that? Should we use the current law and give those people more fines, which they chuck in their glove boxes and laugh about? No. This law change allows the police to go that one step further, and, having caught the individual red-handed in the act, to execute straight away the law that allows them to impound the vehicle. That is what the country actually wants.

The purpose of this bill, as defined very clearly by the piece that is left—by that, I mean there has been a lot taken out of Part 1; there is only a very, very small part of it left—is to amend the principal Act, in order to address the problem of unauthorised street racing, drag racing, wheel spinning, and other stunts involving motor vehicles on roads. The other point that was very well dealt with is the issue of whether it is illegal for someone to tip diesel on a road. Can the police today charge someone who goes out and tips diesel on a road? After this bill is passed, they certainly will be able to do so.

I debate clause 3, the purpose clause, as a lawyer, and as one who came to the House from the background of a practice where I had not dealt with criminal behaviour for a long time. I look at the clause, therefore, from that background, to see whether the law can be clearly understood and whether the purpose is translated into the subsequent provisions. I am aware, of course, that in this part by part debate I cannot address the subsequent provisions, but when I see vague words like “combat the problem of unauthorised street racing, drag racing, wheel spinning, and other stunts involving motor vehicles on roads;” I see, essentially, political rhetoric, not law. I see, essentially, a series of slogans that are the sort of oratory or standard of English that people who work in these—

💬 Brian Connell: Like zero tolerance.

Zero tolerance has not been written into law. I tell Mr Connell that when that is translated into law it will be translated into provisions that are readily capable of application. What is really meant by this clause is the giving of additional powers to the police, which may be applied in relation to illegal acts, but which also may be applied against people the police do not like, or who give them lip. They may just be applied—

💬 Ron Mark: Do you support the police, or not?

Mr Mark asks whether we support the police. Of course we support policing. Of course we support using the powers of enforcement of proper law, but we do not support powers that entice the police into simply classifying a whole class of people as the enemy, and then harassing them.

💬 Brian Connell: You don’t trust them.

I do not trust anyone who is given excessive power, not to abuse it. That is why we live in a liberal democracy and we do not simply say: “Let us give wise rulers all the powers they ask for.” We demand that the people who are given the coercive power of the State—the people who can seize property, the people who can fine, the people who can send a person to prison—work within a framework of rules that say they will confine those powers to those who are genuinely criminal offenders. What we have here is the opportunity to say that wheel spinning—which may be antisocial, but so is blowing smoke in someone’s face, driving a diesel vehicle that is burning too much oil, or driving too slowly or too fast on the road; we have specific offences for those things—now becomes a reason for car confiscation. Wheel spinning may have absolutely nothing to do with danger at the time, it may have nothing to do with hazard, even to the people in the car, and it may be perfectly safe, yet wheel spinning is now seen as a problem.

💬 Hon Member: It is.

Wheel spinning is a problem to the people who spin their wheels. It is a problem of burning up rubber. There are all sorts of automatic sanctions. This law could have given enhanced powers of enforcement to the courts. It could, for example, have given powers that allow bailiffs and others to enforce fines. It could have allowed community work to mean something. It could have turned the stunts that involve young people, and that are criminal, into offences that could be taken through the courts. Only 2,000 of the 40,000-odd apprehensions of young people a year even get to the courts. No wonder there is an insolent attitude from so-called boy racers. No wonder the “stuff you” focus that has so enraged—and rightly enraged—New Zealanders is a feature of this conduct. It is just a symptom of an attitude that has been not just allowed, but encouraged, by this Government’s approach to youth justice.

This Parliament should do more than just run slogans. The purpose provision in this bill is just a set of slogans that allow Mr Cosgrove, and the members of the Committee who want to make capital out of looking tough, to avoid dealing with the real issues in youth justice—to avoid going back and asking why there are 6,000 family group conferences, many of them multiple, that have nothing whatsoever to do with families.

Firstly I acknowledge my fellow MPs Peter Brown and Ron Mark for their comments. As we all know, New Zealand First supports this bill. Before coming into Parliament, and obviously when reading about the problems with boy racers, I sat back in my house in the Wairarapa and thought: “Why the hang is nobody doing anything about this?”. I would like to thank Clayton Cosgrove for putting this bill together and taking it to the Law and Order Committee to receive submissions. I, as a new member, also thank Martin Gallagher for the way he conducted the select committee, and I thank other members of the committee, fellow MPs, and advisers. New Zealand First supports the commencement clause—that the Act comes into force on the 28th day after the date on which it will receive the royal assent.

I would like to move straight to the purpose of the bill, which is clause 3 in Part 1. Comments have been made with regard to certain activities described in the purpose clause. I am an ex-supporter or promoter of rally driving, and I acknowledge Mr Paul Adams in respect of his ability to drive fast cars under an authorised regime. Listening to some of the comments from some of our fellow MPs, and from our fellow MP from ACT, I hear that wheel spinning is not seen to be a dangerous activity. But I can reaffirm to all members that wheel spinning with bald tyres, once the tread parts from the main part of the tyre, can be dangerous, and tyre parts can hit people. So I would bring that member back to the point that wheel spinning is dangerous.

The use of lubricants was also mentioned as a dangerous activity, in respect of the different types used, such as petrol, diesel, brake fluid, and dishwashing liquid. A number of lubricants are being used illegally. A number of people are participating in this activity: in Auckland at times over 300 vehicles have been participating in drag racing.

In regard to unauthorised activity, the challenge to most of these drivers is not having an authorised pad but carrying out the activity in an unauthorised area, to challenge the police to try to catch them in the particular stunts that they are involved in. In some cases these vehicles, with their specialised seating and specialised braking, are worth in excess of $30,000. The fact that some of these vehicles do not have the proper equipment to allow them to stop after wheel spinning is a real problem. New Zealand First supports the bill, and supports the non-authorisation of drag racing.

We were questioned about the fact that the ACT party is opposed to this legislation. Let me reiterate that I am not at all opposed to the enforcement of legislation that already exists, and that is what zero tolerance means. It means the enforcement of things that are already against the law. If people want to talk about support for the police, why do they not talk about support for the police in terms of getting tough on bail conditions? What about support for the police in terms of getting tough on parole?

We are hearing a lot of talk about the purpose of the bill being to outlaw things like, as Stephen Franks said, the perceived problem of wheel spinning and other stunts involving motor vehicles on the road. What on earth does that mean? “Other stunts involving motor vehicles on the road” is such a wide definition. It could mean absolutely anything. It could mean just driving along in a convertible, with the top down, singing and having a great time. That could be a stunt. It could be dressing up as a Father Christmas and putting one’s head out the car’s sunroof. That could be called a stunt. That is what I mean. This legislation is so loosely worded that it covers all sorts of people whom we classify as people whom we do not necessarily like, whom we might not invite for dinner. We might not enjoy having people like boy racers, or hoons, or thugs on wheels to dinner, but we should not herd them all into a category and then pass laws to ban their activities.

With regard to getting tough on crime that already exists, the National Party member talked about people being taken to court and being let off their fines. I agree with him that that is appalling; it is dreadful. Just a week ago a person in the Hawke’s Bay had $19,000 worth of traffic fines wiped by the judge, because he was unemployed and unable to pay the fines. Instead, he was given 350 hours community service. That works out at $50 an hour. I would not mind a job like that. If we want to get tough on crime, if we want to support the police, we should be outraged at situations like that, but the ACT party was the only party that commented on it.

That is not the first time this has happened. Just recently a youth had $18,000 worth of traffic fines wiped. What happened? He racked up another $6,000 worth of traffic fines. As Stephen Franks said, it is no wonder these people have an attitude of contempt, of “up you” towards the police and towards society. They have been whacked on the back of the hand with a wet bus ticket and allowed to get away with it. Enforcing the law is all about upholding legislation—making sure people are accountable for their crimes and are held accountable.

There is a difference between the powers to enforce legislation, and having the resources to enforce legislation. A lot of people are confusing the two issues. Of course the police do not have the resources to enforce the legislation that we already have on our statute book. That is demonstrably shown every day. There is a severe shortage of front-line police in Auckland, and all we need is four homicides in one area, like south Auckland, and the police cannot deal with other important, urgent things that they need to send the target squad out to.

If we are talking about increasing the powers of the police, we should be talking about increasing the resources to the police and spending more of our taxpayers’ money on that. The State’s true and proper role is to uphold law, uphold contract, protect people’s property, and protect their rights. It is not there to seize their property just because a police officer has reasonable grounds to believe that somebody has broken the law. Someone asked why it is not OK to do a burnout in a city suburb. Of course it is not OK to do a burnout in a city suburb. No one in this party is advocating that it is OK to do that.

I did not intend to take a call on this part, but after listening to two ACT speeches I feel I have to add a degree of common sense to the whole debate. Mr Stephen Franks is a guy to whom I listen intently on legal matters. I respect the way he approaches the law and makes it easily understood for many of us who are not trained lawyers. But perhaps he is not aware that some years ago, I think in 1996 or 1997, Parliament in its wisdom agreed to write law in everyday English that the ordinary person could largely understand. I think this purpose clause fits very well into that sort of language. Everybody who reads it will understand what it is getting at. It is simply the purpose for introducing this amendment bill, and the amendment goes into the technicalities of the law. In my opinion it is exceedingly well written. People understand exactly what it means—even the words “other stunts involving motor vehicles on roads”. It disappoints me that Deborah Coddington somehow thinks that that refers to somebody driving a sports car with the hood down.

💬 Clayton Cosgrove: She’s out of touch.

She is clearly out of touch. I do not know whether ACT members know exactly what goes on. I do not claim to be an expert. I have a sports car with a hood, and occasionally I drive it with the hood down, but I do not want to get caught by the police.

💬 Lindsay Tisch: You would look pretty good in one of those.

I do look pretty good, especially with my cheese cutter on and grey hair waving at the sides. It looks absolutely first class. The people who get involved in these activities very often have radios. They listen to where the police believe they are, and then when the police arrive they park their cars, as I understand it, in a very sane manner and say: “Well, what are we up for? What are we doing wrong?”. Large numbers of the police are involved in chasing these folk around, trying to pin something on them. This bill, when it passes and becomes an Act, will give the police sufficient powers to deal with the issue more speedily and more promptly.

There are—and I think Deborah Coddington raised this point—other things that we believe the police should be doing rather than chasing those sorts of people. But the way she spoke was that it was an option: either this or that. I have to say to Deborah Coddington that the police want to police everything. If a person gets a traffic fine and gets off that traffic fine, that is not acceptable to New Zealand First. I do not think that it is acceptable to the average police person who is actually pulling those people up and issuing the fines.

💬 Stephen Franks: It’s acceptable to the Government, though.

It might well be acceptable to the Government, but that is no reason for saying that we should oppose this bill. I was in Katikati listening to Ken Shirley when some of the so-called boy racers came in, and I have to say that they were not boys. The Greens say that the boy racers are all young people, but some of them were well-established adults who should know a darn sight better, and they came in with an aggro-type attitude, challenging the meeting. I heard nothing from Mr Shirley that gave me any indication that the ACT members would be opposing this bill—nothing at all.

💬 Martin Gallagher: When was the Katikati meeting?

It was only a few weeks ago, well after this bill came back to the House.

💬 Clayton Cosgrove: Did the deputy leader get rolled then, in the ACT party?

I do not know what has happened to the deputy leader, but I would be interested to hear his comments with reference to the Katikati meeting. I would, sincerely, be very keen to hear Ken Shirley’s comments on this bill in the Chamber today. I listened intently to him, and he was certainly playing to that Katikati audience on how strong the ACT members are on law and order.

💬 Martin Gallagher: And he had this bill?

I would not like to say that Mr Shirley referred specifically to this bill at that time, but he certainly gave the impression that those boy racers, their activities and what they stood for, were unacceptable to ACT. Some of the boy racers spoke to the audience. Some of them spoke very well, but some of them were very arrogant and used language that is unbecoming to this House. The good folk of Katikati put up some practical solutions on how they should address the problem, but nobody in that meeting, which was well attended, gave any indication that there was anybody there who would not support this sort of legislation.

I move, That the question be now put.

I cannot, as an old boy racer, sit here any longer listening to this debate. United Future definitely does support this bill. It is a good bill. I have read the wording, and I think it is very good for the exact situation that it covers. I do get concerned, however, when I hear of all the young hoons mentioned, because, to be honest, they are not all young hoons. Everybody who runs a performance car, or a lowered car, or a fast car, is not a hoon. But unfortunately, there would be, as in most places, a 10 percent element that gives others an underserved bad reputation. I for one was very disappointed when they took the toll plaza down on our Auckland roads, not because I would not have to pay tolls but because I could no longer have a drag race out of the toll plaza, which, of course, I only did to 100 kilometres an hour.

💬 Peter Brown: The truth’s coming out now.

The truth is coming out. The element that this bill deals with is a very dangerous element, and it is a great concern to a large percentage of the New Zealand public. I share that concern. Some people have good intentions, and they even have many good skills on how to build and prepare a motorcar, but, sadly, they do not use those in the correct places. Right throughout this country there are small car clubs and large car clubs that cater for all types of events. If people want to spin their cars around on the grass, I would encourage them to join a car club and learn car control skills at the correct venue. But likewise, as we grow older, we realise that some of the things we did in our younger years were not wise. As parliamentarians we have a job to protect the citizens of this country, and that is why I commend this legislation. I think it is very good. It is legislation that is necessary to cover the actual problem we are dealing with.

A lot is spoken about wheelspin. A lot of the cars that we are dealing with are four-wheel drive, and therefore have extremely good traction. To spin the wheels, they are set up in position with liquids on the ground. They then become very dangerous. They can easily come off the slippery surface, get traction on a dry piece of road, and just fire off into the crowd, or a lamp post, or anything else, at the drop of a hat. Unfortunately, many of the young people who are doing this can drive in the conditions they are in, but as soon as that condition changes, they have got a ball of fire that they have no idea whatsoever how to handle.

United Future members agree with this legislation, and we support it. I would speak to the young people of the nation who are, perhaps, listening to the passage of this bill, and tell them that we are not against them. We want to encourage them to go to the venues where they can use and even fine-tune their skills, and have a lot of fun. But the public roads of New Zealand are not the place for this to happen, and, therefore, United Future stands strongly behind this legislation. It is necessary legislation, and it disappoints me when I hear parties standing up and not supporting this type of legislation when they know that this activity is going on, and know that it is lethal and needs to be stopped. Sadly, the only way we will stop them is to take their vehicles from them. There is no other way. So if they choose to continue to behave this way on public roads, we will remove their ability to do so. We support this legislation.

I move, That the question be now put. [Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The question is—

💬 Ron Mark: Point of order—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Can I just say to the member that under Standing Order 139 and Speaker’s ruling 54/2, I have decided to put the question.

💬 Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I called for a point of order before you actually started to speak.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I will hear the member’s point of order.

💬 Ron Mark: I want to point out to you, Mr Chairperson, prior to your deliberating on the motion that has just been moved, that we are taking this bill part by part. We are not taking it clause by clause. This bill has been in gestation for about 2 years. Two select committees have looked at it. A lot of members here have commented that they would like to take a call. New material has been introduced by various speakers, and it requires opportunity for members to counter those points. There are eight pages of deletions from this part of the bill. The committee has reduced Part 1 down, from eight pages, to half a page. I put it to you, Mr Chairperson, that before you decide to curtail the debate at this point, there is much more that could be discussed. I understand that if the debate is repetitive and if no one else is seeking a call, then you might well accept the closure motion. But right now I am getting a horrible feeling that there is an accelerated process here, which is about to curtail members’ right to speak to this bill, and to speak, in particular, to the eight pages that have been cut out of it.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the honourable member for his contribution, and say to him that Part 2 adequately covers the opportunity to widely debate this issue. I have accepted the closure motion.