Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill

In speaking to the bill I just want to cover some aspects quite quickly. Firstly, this issue does concern local authorities greatly. Therefore, it was no surprise to me to find that 25 local authorities had made submissions to the select committee. Secondly, I also know from discussions that took place at that time that a number of those local authorities were not happy with what they thought was light-handed treatment with regard to the possible consequences of street racing.

The Hon Dover Samuels and John Carter, like myself, will have received over recent months a great deal of correspondence from the Kaitaia district relating to these very matters. At the end, the inability, for various reasons, of the local police station to act, in the minds of people, correctly resulted almost in their taking their own actions with regard to matters of this nature, and similar. Therefore, I find it very surprising to come to the House and hear a determined call by the ACT party—which has some adherents in our district, for some reason, particularly in the Kerikeri district—to adopt a completely laissez-faire, hands-off, no-action approach. In fact, its zero tolerance is zero tolerance in relation to any ability to carry out what seems to me to be very sensible consequences, as outlined in the select committee.

There is nothing in clause 4 or clause 5 that should cause anyone any concern. There is no great attack there upon anyone’s liberty. In fact, with regard to the earlier debate about the purpose clause, the substituted clauses pick up exactly what was intended. In clause 5, subsection (2) of section 22A, which is about preventing persons from engaging in unauthorised street or drag racing, states: “A person must not, without reasonable excuse, intentionally pour . . .”—it covers that aspect —“any other substance likely to cause a vehicle to undergo loss of traction.” Again, subsection (3) states: “A person must not, without reasonable excuse, operate a motor vehicle on a road in a manner that causes the vehicle to undergo sustained loss of traction unless the operation of the vehicle in that manner is authorised by law.”

Some of the issues that were raised earlier, and are implicit here, are ones that should not cause any sound, right-thinking person any problem with regard to the retention of one’s personal liberty or one’s person. So I speak on behalf of New Zealand First to give further support to Part 2. Again, I express my surprise, living and working in the Northland district as I do, where the ACT party has some support, and had support at the last election, to find that ACT opposes this bill. I believe that its supporters, particularly those in Kerikeri, would be quite shocked at ACT’s extreme, liberal, no-care attitude in respect of an issue that in our district has caused great concern, and needs an appropriate remedy such as this bill intends.

I move, That the question be now put.

I wish people in the Chamber would debate the parts and stop making pathetic political points. I would like the Minister of Transport to stand and answer a question I have. It relates to Part 2, where section 96(1A), in clause 8(2), states: “An enforcement officer may seize and impound, or seize and authorise the impoundment of, a motor vehicle for 28 days if the officer believes on reasonable grounds that a person—(a) operated the vehicle in a race, or in an unnecessary exhibition of speed or acceleration, on a road in contravention of section 22A(1);”, then goes on to talk about loss of traction. I would like the Minister to answer whether this provision relates just to those people whom this bill identifies and defines as boy racers, or whether it will be applied to anybody who is exceeding the speed limit. Obviously, if one is exceeding the speed limit, one is exhibiting speed or acceleration that is not authorised.

This is going to catch everybody. There may be people in this Chamber who have never broken the speed limit, but I will be honest and say that I have, and I have had speeding fines, and I have paid them. I have accepted responsibility for those, because I accept the upholding of the law. I have given in gracefully—not without a bit of grumbling, I must admit—and I have paid them. I challenge anyone to say they have not broken the law, in terms of breaking the speed limit, whether or not they have been caught.

What does concern me—and I would like the Minister to stand and answer this—is whether this legislation will apply only to those people whom people in this Chamber dislike because they think they are bogans, or hoons, or thugs on wheels, or whatever; or will also apply to people like my mother, who is 82, who received a speeding fine the other day, too, and paid it.

💬 Hon Paul Swain: Was she in a race?

She could be called a “Go-Granny-Go” but she could not be called a boy racer. Seriously, though, this is an important issue that needs to be addressed. If the police have the ability, instead of issuing people with a speed camera fine, which is the normal course of events at the moment, to go further and take their vehicles off them and impound them for 28 days, then have them prove that they were not breaking the law before they can get their property back, that brings me back to this issue of compensation for property rights. If these boy racers do have their vehicles impounded for 28 days just because an officer believes on reasonable grounds that they were breaking the law—it has not been proven in court; it has not been shown that they were breaking the law, that they committed an offence—if they have their property taken off them, then they go through the system of proving that they were not breaking the law, and they get their property back; who will compensate them for that breach of their property rights? Will we see increased claims against the State? That is the second question I would like the Minister to answer. Will this open the way for more action against the police, and therefore against the State?

If it does, I think it is not too late for those who say they support this bill to pass an amendment. I must say that I think that National Party members would be surprised—those old codgers who are still alive, who remember that the National Party was founded on the principles of individual liberty and respect for the law—[Interruption] When was the National Party founded? The member cannot answer. I wonder what those people think now when they see that the National Party is supporting the Labour Party in terms of a person being guilty until proven innocent.

I ask the Minister if he could take a call and answer those two questions: one, whether this legislation allows the police to do away with prosecuting, with issuing traffic fines, and, instead, to use their discretion to take a vehicle—

I move, That the question be now put.

I would like to pick up on some of the points raised by Deborah Coddington, because I think that she has identified a very serious point in the bill that the select committee seems to have failed to pick up. She talked about the clause that allows a vehicle to be seized and impounded for 28 days, in certain circumstances. Clause 8(2)(1A) states that an enforcement officer may seize and impound a vehicle if the officer believes on reasonable grounds that a person operated the vehicle in a race, or in an unnecessary exhibition of speed or acceleration on a road, in contravention of section 22A(1). It does not just state a race, but also an unnecessary exhibition of speed or acceleration, and that is a very broad understanding of what we are talking about here.

Section 22A(1), which clause 8 refers to, simply states that a person must not operate a motor vehicle in a race, or in an unnecessary exhibition of speed or acceleration, on a road unless the operation of the vehicle in that manner is authorised by law. If a person is speeding, clearly that is not authorised by law. If a person takes off from a traffic light a bit quickly and breaks the speed limit, then he or she has broken that clause. According to the bill, that person’s vehicle can then be impounded for 28 days.

There is a limitation on this in section 96(9) of the principal Act, inserted by clause 8, which states: “Nothing in subsection 1A applies to a person operating a motor vehicle in a manner that is authorised by law within the meaning of section 22A(4).” I know that the select committee was concerned to make sure that people engaged in legitimate motor races were not picked up by this bill, and I think that is very good. However, all it does is say that if a person is involved in a race or exhibition of speed authorised by law, then that subsection does not apply. It still does not pick up on the point identified by Deborah Coddington, which the select committee, with all its consideration, obviously did not pick up at all—that is, that a person taking off from a traffic light a bit quickly, and who breaks the speed limit, can have his or her vehicle impounded by the police for 28 days.

Members are saying: “Don’t be pathetic; the police will not do that.” Of course they will not do that to a member of Parliament or a lawyer in a BMW, but when we listen to the rhetoric of members in this House talking about hoons and thugs and we think about the way in which this bill is deliberately designed to scapegoat a certain section of the population, then undoubtedly those powers may well be used against certain sections of the population—not the ones who are the friends of members of Parliament in general, but some sections of the population; the same ones who are targeted by the police in many of their operations.

Once again, let us remind the Committee that this is what was identified, in terms of advice to the select committee. The advice to the select committee was that this bill breaches the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Some members in this House seem to think that the Greens are very quaint. We think that if we have a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act we should adhere to it. There is a quaint notion in relation to human rights—that we can take or leave some people, when we choose to.

The reality is that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is legislation based on international human rights conventions, designed to protect the human rights and civil rights of people on this planet. This Parliament should think very, very carefully before making an exception in this case, when there is not a proven case that warrants that kind of activity. If we make an exception in this case, what are we prepared to make an exception for the next time? That is what this Parliament has to come to grips with.

We pass legislation, knowing that we are contravening the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act at our peril. [Interruption] I tell Lianne Dalziel that the difference with the breath-testing laws is that they relate to an offence for which there is no subjective test. If a person’s breath-alcohol reading is over the limit, that is clear, and if a person is driving while disqualified or suspended, that is clear also. There is no question of subjectivity. If a person is guilty of one of the offences under this bill it is a subjective test, and it should not be for a police officer to decide whether someone is breaking the law, and then punish that person before his or her guilt has been established.

The other point, which I raised in the second reading debate, is about who does a person who feels that he or she has been unfairly targeted by the police appeal to.

💬 Clayton Cosgrove: The courts.

To the police. I ask Clayton Cosgrove whether he has read the bill. That person would apply to the police. The bill states that that person should apply to the police.

I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): No, and before I call the next member I say to members on the cross benches that it is a longstanding convention in the House that they do not interject across the cross benches because it muffles the microphone.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Being a new member here, I do not understand what you mean by the cross benches.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The cross benches are at the back of the Chamber.

💬 Hon Paul Swain: Those ones that go across.

I thank the Minister for his help. I have a question for him, so he should stay in the chair. People are tending to read this legislation or history backwards. District councils and city councils have bent over backwards to try to accommodate boy racers, by providing off-street facilities. What has become very clear is that these hoons have very little interest in driving their cars in a dangerous way, unless they have an audience. In fact, the police in New South Wales report that the threat of impoundment has resulted in a reasonable uptake of alternative venues provided by clubs and local authorities. I think there is a message here for members of this House—if a deterrent is put in place, if councils provide off-street facilities, they may not be doing that in vain.

I have a question for the Minister, and it is not a question to try to trap him. As I was mulling over this legislation during dinner, it occurred to me that I did not know what would happen if the impounded vehicle is leased, subject to a hire purchase agreement, or financed through a bank.

💬 Hon Paul Swain: It doesn’t matter.

Maybe the Minister could take a call and tell me why it doesn’t matter, because I do not know the answer. Just how will that situation be dealt with?

The second issue I would like to raise is that the police respond to public concern. That is where they put their resources. If they are overstretched at the moment it is because this issue has high public interest. If one thinks it is an issue just for urban areas, it is not. This is an endemic problem that stretches from the deep South Island to the North Island. I have an email that I would like to quote from: “Vehicle noise pollution is becoming a very insidious problem nationwide. What on earth would a scrubby-arsed 1.3 litre car need a 150 to 200 millilitre tailpipe on a car other than to make lots of noise and be more of a damned nuisance?”. That is an issue of public concern and something that needs to be addressed.

As I cast through the commentary on the bill from the select committee I note that it states: “We note the New Zealand Law Society and the National Council of Women submitted that, if the police were resourced adequately and if they treated the issue as a priority, the existing law would be sufficient to deal with the issue. However, the police note that street racer activity tends to peak during the hours of darkness at the weekends, when other, more serious crime is also peaking.” The issue, then, is whether the police are resourced adequately. On reflection, notwithstanding the commentary on the bill, which I accept I was a party to, I am not certain that they are. It might be something that we need to address in this Chamber, to make sure that the police do have the resources to deal with an issue that has, as I said, become endemic.

I said that councils have bent over backwards to try to assist these people to pursue a legitimate interest in drag racing, and of course some have taken up that opportunity. Councils report that around 20 percent have taken up that opportunity. The bulk of the facilities though are left unused, and particularly when this activity is peaking there is no one on these drag strips. They prefer to go to town, harass people, block off roads, and cause huge problems. They destroy people’s quality of life. As I said before, people have petitioned me in their droves to take action to do something about this problem.

The commentary also notes that penalties imposed for these offences do not seem to act as a deterrent. People tend to get their fine, deal with it at the police station, and come out and wave it around as a badge of honour. Current law does not easily identify offenders.

I move, That the question be now put.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I think probably one of the things that brings issues of disorder to a head is when members feel somewhat aggrieved that the debate has been truncated. We are in the Committee stage and have already forgone the opportunity to debate this bill clause by clause. There is considerable dissent within the Committee amongst the parties. New material is being raised consistently. Nothing in the debate has been repetitive. For the record, and for good order, maintenance, and discipline, could you tell the Committee precisely how long we have spent on the Committee stage of Part 2 at this point in time.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the honourable member and refer him to Standing Order 139.