Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill

As the chair of the Law and Order Committee, I will not take long to, if one likes, finish the job. I pay tribute to Marc Alexander and Georgina Beyer as the deputies, and to all the other members of the select committee. Brian Connell has made a very good contribution to this debate, as have other members. I think we worked well together. Nandor Tanczos made some implications about our sincerity. I do not for one moment question his sincerity. I believe that he has been consistent on this bill, and I respect that. The committee was very sincere in wanting to get a solution to what is a very, very serious community problem. However, what I do question—I am stunned and shocked and still cannot quite believe it—is the absolute double back-flip, somersault, forward-flip, of the zero-tolerance ACT party, which now opposes giving the police more power. I say that, yes, we do want to give the police more power. We want to give the police more power to make our roads and our communities safer.

Finally, I acknowledge former mayor Russ Rimmington from my community for his leadership. It was good to see that he was recently given a Queen’s honour. He led this issue in Hamilton. I also acknowledge the motel owners and the other members of the community who came to me. I also pay tribute to Clayton Cosgrove, who did great work on this bill. Sir Barry Curtis gave an impressive submission to the select committee. I only wish that Stephen Franks and the other ACT members had been there to hear that submission. Give the police more powers? You bet, if it is going to make the community safer!

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): The next call from ACT will be shared by two speakers. A 5-minute bell ends the contribution.

I am proud to stand and oppose this extremely bad legislation, which is nefarious in what is actually breaking the law in this bill. I am also proud to represent a party that does have strong principles on law and order, and zero tolerance of crime. That means zero tolerance of criminals; it does not mean total disregard for the courts, which is what this legislation is doing.

Every time we have a debate under urgency we see an incremental breach of individual rights. We saw it with the Local Government Act 2002 in which the police were given greater powers under that Act than they have under the Misuse of Drugs Act. It was only Stephen Franks who managed to insert some curbing of the powers of local authorities and the police by reference to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in that Act.

Ken Shirley said over tea that he was happy to be mentioned in dispatches, but he wanted to point out that, yes, he did support the introduction of this bill, as no doubt many members opposite have often supported the introduction of a bill and its going to a select committee so that the public can have their input. That does not mean to say that one supports it all the way through. It has never been an indication that one would support a bill all the way through.

He said in relation to his quotes that we need to get tough on those motorists who pose a danger, who drive recklessly, and who are unsafe drivers, that he has absolutely no problem with that. But that is not what this bill is doing. This bill does not deal with people who cause death. We already have legislation for people who cause death and injury on the roads, and I have no problem with impounding the vehicles of those people, which is what Mr Ron Mark rather mischievously referred to.

There is a total difference between someone who has had his or her licence revoked or cancelled, and someone whom the police believe is breaking the law. They have not been convicted. We are not concerned with the rights of criminals. We are not talking about just criminals here, we are talking about people who have not been convicted, and that is the big problem that we have with this legislation. There is a difference between impounding the vehicles of disqualified drivers, and impounding the vehicles of those who look like they might be about to break the law.

Dr Cullen once said to me—people go on about the left and the right—that on issues of individual liberty, often the left and the right converge. I know that there are individuals in both parties who are uncomfortable with certain aspects of this legislation, because they know, as I do, that this is a stalking horse for increasing the powers of the State. I have no problem, as I said, with dealing with those people who break the law. But this legislation, first, does not deal with repeat offenders, as has already been highlighted by Mr Mark, and, second, does not distinguish between those people who are breaking the law and those who are not breaking the law. They are all dealt with under the same legislation.

I bring it back to the words in the title—we should always be very careful when we say that those who are innocent have nothing to fear from legislation. That phrase was much used in certain parts of Europe in the 1930s. Doughnuts on the road—reckless and dangerous driving—are against the law. Excessive speed is against the law. Unauthorised racing on the road is already against the law. These are the people we should be coming down heavily on, with the legislation that we already have in place. We should be giving more resources to the police and more numbers to the police so that they can deal with that. We should uphold the courts. We should not disqualify people’s fines and let them off the collection of $18,000 in fines when they have breached the law, just because they are unemployed and cannot pay it. That is what zero tolerance for crime is about. It is about making youth accountable for what they do when they break the law, not putting them through endless family group conferences where 2,000 out of 40,000 get rapped over the back of the hand with a wet bus ticket. I say again to all those people who support this law, what will they say to their constituents when they say, instead of getting a $500 speeding fine, which was bad enough, “I had my car taken off me for 28 days. At the end of the 28 days I proved that I wasn’t actually breaking the law. Now who is going to compensate me for that confiscation of my property?”

I believe that my colleague Deborah Coddington put it exactly as it is. ACT supported the impounding of vehicles of disqualified drivers because as an objective fact a driver is either disqualified or not. There is no excuse for driving a vehicle if one is disqualified. It is perfectly appropriate and consistent with policing, for convicted criminals to have their vehicles taken. What we now have is a law that pretends to say, and encourages the police to think, that they can impound a car for someone who is accelerating unnecessarily. Can someone please tell us again? Accelerating unnecessarily! Anyone in a V8 is doing that. People could have a four-cylinder car. The United Future party says that this is preventive policing. That was a phrase that the Gestapo quite liked: “We are arresting you and giving you a little bit of torture because you were thinking about being bad.”

What this does may seem trivial to those who want to throw things like rights of victims, rights of the public, and references to deaths, but when there are deaths we have very longstanding law about liability for deaths. We have law about careless driving. We have law about speeding. We have law about all the elements that are concerning people. What we do not have is any commitment on the Government side to enforce existing law. What we have is a great rush to pass new law every time there is a bit of criticism, because that is much easier than putting on a few policemen to enforce existing law. It is much easier than collecting fines. It is much easier than getting rid of a youth justice system that tells young people that they can be insolent with impunity.

We know what this does. This is a sham. This is slogan law. It does one new thing. It says that putting oil on the roads is now an automatic offence. All the rest only work if there are other offences already being committed. It is an absolute sham to say that this deals with wheelspinning. It does not. People can wheelspin all they like up to 50 kilometres an hour. It does not deal with drag racing. People can drag race all they like up to 50 kilometres an hour—unless, of course, they are involved in dangerous or careless driving, in which case they are already culpable. It does not deal with burnouts, as long as people stay within 50 kilometres an hour if they are in an urban area, or 100 kilometres an hour if they are outside the town. It does nothing about boom boxes, I tell Dr Smith. It does nothing about trashing of parks. It does nothing about private property. It does nothing, generally, about enforcing the existing law.

So ACT knows that this does not get us a single vote. ACT does not come to this legislation in the populist way that parties that are willing to be utterly insincere about the law do. We oppose this because we stand for law that works, and this does not. We stand for law that means what it says. In fact, it is very hard to know whether any member in this House even has a clue what it says, because none of them even bothered to refer to it during the debates at any stage. I do not think that any member supporting this law referred to any of the words or attempted to deal with the legitimate questions or arguments of ACT.

We oppose it because we stand for punishment for crime, not for upsetting a policeman, or for giving a policeman room to attack a person because he or she has an unnecessarily powerful car, and can unnecessarily accelerate. We stand against this law because we are tough on crime, not on breaches of etiquette, not on the clothes people wear or the size of their mufflers—as Mr Martin Gallagher suggested, or was it Mr Connell, they sounded the same? We are tough on personal responsibility, and accordingly we oppose law that is simply a slogan. We are tough on lawbreakers, and driving while disqualified is lawbreaking. We think zero tolerance should mean exactly what it says, that there should be a consequence for every crime, not bulk discounts, not wiping off of fines, not community work that has no work and does not do anything for the family, not family law conferences that do not involve any families and do not mean a thing. We are tough on this because we think that the police should be upheld and supported in enforcing existing law.

When Parliament rushes through in one evening the stages of a bill that are supposed to be separated by Standing Orders by enough days for a little bit of prudent reflection, possibly even a bit of embarrassment when members hear their own speeches, then we believe that that law can be supported. In this case it is a scandal.

I rise to support this bill. I have listened to the speeches in the House. I have to say that when people have got passionate and strayed off the patch here, they have all talked about young people. That is one thing that has made me quite sad, in that young people are being stigmatised by this bill. I think what councils have to do—and we have to take great caution—is consider the needs of young people with the enaction of this bill, which I do support. I think councils need to look to their youth policy and give young people a place to go where they can have fun.

I support this bill because I am an electorate MP and I have had many people come to me, really concerned about what is happening on the streets, down at the lakefront, on high-density roads, and it is for that reason that I support this bill. I would never stigmatise our police, either, who were looking for an excuse to take people who know what they are doing on the roads, away from them. I am proud to support this bill. It has not been rushed through. It has taken 3 years since it was first introduced.

I would like to begin my speech with an apology to Martin Gallagher. Apparently I questioned his sincerity, and I certainly did not intend to do that. I would just like to give him my apologies. I do question his judgment on this issue, but not his sincerity.

I make the point that has been made before: that this bill is being rushed through the House under urgency—urgency agreed to by the United Future party. That shows a real lack of regard for the basic democratic process. The House does need urgency from time to time. It needs extended hours now and then so that we can deal with some of the backlog of legislation that builds up. The Greens have been known to give the Government urgency now and then, as well, but only for one reading at a time of a bill. To ram poorly thought-out legislation through all the remaining stages—the second reading, the Committee stage, and the third reading—under urgency is a travesty of the parliamentary process. As Stephen Franks has said, that does not allow Parliament to properly scrutinise and consider a bill, and does not allow us time to reflect. Perhaps that is why Ron Mark likes ramming legislation through under urgency so much.

This bill is poorly thought-out, and is unnecessary. Of course, the bill will pass this evening, but the inability of its supporters to argue their case in a rational fashion, and their reliance on personal abuse, put-downs, straw arguments, and generalisations has proved to me beyond all doubt that the bill is ill-conceived. Maybe the supporters of the bill just do not quite understand what it states. It certainly seems to have been easier for the supporters of the bill to put up a straw argument, to say the opponents of the bill are saying something and then to demolish that argument, than it has been for them to grapple with the issues that have been raised.

I have not yet heard a supporter of the bill deal with the issues—the real problems—that have been raised both by members of the Green Party and members of ACT. The supporters of the bill have been reduced to saying that if people do not like road deaths, they must support this bill. That is a pathetic argument. No attempt has been made to address the issues, and no answer on those issues has been forthcoming from the supporters of this bill except derision and ridicule. It is interesting that there has been more comment about which parties are opposing the bill than there has been about the arguments they have put forward. For the benefit of those who have not quite grasped the issues, I will reiterate some of those concerns. I challenge the supporters of the bill to stand up and refute these arguments.

The first concern is that the bill is unnecessary. As Deborah Coddington has said very clearly, all the offences covered by this bill are already offences under the Land Transport Act. The police already have the power to charge people for all those behaviours. Far from the police only issuing an infringement notice, as has been put forward so often by members of this House, the courts have the ability to both jail people and confiscate their vehicles when they have been found guilty of an offence. The difference between that power and the provisions of this bill is that under the current Act they have to be found guilty of an offence. Some members of this House want to do away with judicial process; they are not worried about having to prove guilt. But some of us do find that a serious issue. The Law and Order Committee stated that the only limitation the police have on the use of their current powers is the inability to identify offenders. This bill will not address that. If it is difficult to identify an offender at present, it will be just as difficult under this legislation.

The second concern is that the bill is an unwarranted breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Ron Mark clearly has not listened to the debate on that. Again, he has put up specious arguments. He said that the Greens were inconsistent in supporting the impoundment of vehicles driven by disqualified drivers, but, as has been pointed out, a disqualified driver is guilty of a quantifiable and clear breach of the law. Under this bill we are talking about someone having his or her vehicle impounded simply because an officer believes that the person has committed an offence.

💬 Brian Connell: We trust the police implicitly.

Mr Connell says he trusts the police to get that right, so why do we not just do away with all our courts? Why bother with the courts at all? Let us just say we believe that someone has committed a theft, so we will lock that person up without needing to prove his or her guilt. That is the implication of the member’s arguments, and it shows just how specious and flawed that position is.

💬 Brian Connell: No defence in the corporate fraud.

I would like to ask Mr Connell what he and his National colleagues would say if we removed the necessity to prove guilt or intent in cases of fraud or breach of trust. In cases of corporate fraud, what did the member say then? Would he have the same disregard for the same basic principles of justice and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act? No, he is shaking his head. We are seeing a double standard in this case.

The third point is that the bill is dangerous, because the provisions are so broad as to be ridiculous. Again, it has been mentioned numerous times that a police officer can impound a vehicle because that officer believes, on reasonable grounds, that a person operated it in an unnecessary exhibition of speed or acceleration. As has been pointed out by the ACT party, what is an unnecessary exhibition of speed?

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: Clayton Cosgrove running away from the television cameras.

I think he would probably consider that very necessary. The bill has the potential to be used to target people who should not be subject to the quite serious consequences of having their vehicles impounded. In a country where public transport is so pathetic and where many people are reliant on their personal transportation to work and earn an income, that is a very severe penalty for someone who is just suspected by a police officer of having committed an offence. That is one of the most problematic issues—OK, an officer believes that a person has committed an offence.

💬 Clayton Cosgrove: They see them with their eyes. They use video cameras and take pictures; wakey, wakey.

Clearly, Mr Cosgrove does not care what the bill states. He has not read the bill. He is not concerned about what it states; he is just concerned about what he thinks will happen. The bill states that if an officer believes on reasonable grounds that an offence has been committed, he or she can confiscate the vehicle. It does not state that the officer has to see the offence being committed or to videotape it.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: It sounds like Nazi Germany.

Exactly. One of the most problematic aspects of the bill is that a person who has been unjustly deprived of his or her vehicle has to apply to the police. If someone thinks a vehicle has been taken unjustly, he or she has to apply to the police. So the people who took the vehicle off that person in the first place are to be the people who will adjudicate as to whether that person’s vehicle has been unjustly impounded. One has to question what chance those people will have. To my mind, it is just inconceivable that Parliament is seriously considering passing this kind of legislation. In the unlikely event that the police do find that a vehicle has been unjustly impounded by one of their members and they return the vehicle, who will pay the towage and storage costs? The bill is silent on that. We have to assume that the aggrieved party—an innocent person who has had a vehicle taken off him or her for no good reason, and had that vehicle towed or impounded—has to pay for the privilege—

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: $160.

Obviously Mr Prebble has had more recent experience of that than I have. However, that sounds like something out of the movie Brazil. We are to charge people for the privilege of having their cars impounded by the police, all because when the media created the hype about boy racers the police were caught with their pants down, because they had done absolutely nothing about boy racers. Instead of the police saying that they would put more resources into that issue, they said that they would need more powers. As I have already asked, when did the police ever say that they had plenty of powers and we should take some away? That just does not happen. The police’s response to any criticism is that they need more powers.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: It’s a bit of a worry; you’re talking sense.

I thank Mr Prebble. That is a rare compliment from him. I reiterate to the House that this bill is unnecessary, unwarranted, and dangerous. I finish my speech by expressing the forlorn hope that members of this House will have some sense and oppose this bill.

I am pleased to rise in support of this bill. I join my colleagues who have spoken previously in congratulating Clayton Cosgrove on the effort he has put into this bill. I also congratulate my colleague Martin Gallagher, who has done a lot of work, along with Mr Cosgrove, with local government leaders throughout the country.

Like most members of the House and a large number of the members of the community, I am very grateful to the ACT party for showing its true colours. We should all be grateful for the dazzling display of policy acrobatics that ACT has shown since the earlier statements of Mr Shirley’s that were quoted so accurately. I do not think that anyone who saw the television coverage in the last couple of days of extraordinarily stupid, dangerous, and inconsiderate behaviour—uncharacteristically, of course, in Christchurch—would have any doubt that this bill will provide a really useful deterrent, enabling the getting rid of, and modifying, of totally unacceptable behaviour. I commend the bill to the House.

National supports this bill as a matter of principle.

💬 Stephen Franks: Which principle is this?

I tell Mr Franks that it is a very simple principle. I shall tell members what it is. The principle is that the right of people to live in peace is more important than the right of people to hoon. If Mr Prebble wants to take a call, he is free to do so. However, I want to go systemically through each of the six points raised by Mr Tanczos and to comment on them.

The first point raised by Mr Tanczos was that the bill is unnecessary. He is wrong. I have been out in my community with the police and the neighbours who put up with the nonsense of the hoons who are disrupting communities up and down New Zealand. People do doughnuts and wreck public parks, and are out there disturbing the peace through the squealing of the wheels of their cars, and the Greens and ACT say the law is adequate to deal with that at the moment. I say it is not; it is not working. Some members here in the Chamber want to believe that the police are hopeless and that Parliament has the law right. I do not believe that. I believe that we are providing legislation that is, indeed, necessary.

The second point made by Mr Tanczos is that under this legislation one is proven guilty before one gets to court. Somehow there is the absolute, pure view that we cannot do anything until such time as the courts rule. Members should hang on a minute and remember we have a law that states a person can be arrested if there is reasonable cause. That is a lesser test than that provided in this bill. Then we go to the issue that a person can be locked up before he or she is found guilty by a trial. The ACT party says we should not give people parole; it says they should be locked up, even though they have not yet been found guilty in a court of law. Why is that? Mr Franks takes the extreme, silly view: the sort of immature view that either it is all absolutely one position, or—I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Richard Prebble has been continuously interjecting, and I think the Standing Orders prevent that. I was challenged by Mr Tanczos to go point by point through his speech. I allowed him to make his contribution without that sort of interjection. I ask to be given the same right that he had.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I take the point.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: The member said to the House that I should take another call. Of course, the House knows that the ACT party has used its call. If the member directs personal remarks to me, then of course I will reply. If the member would stop making such an inflammatory speech, then of course—[Interruption] The member is saying that people should be put in jail without court cases, and he then expects members to sit in the Chamber quietly. Would any Parliament put up with that sort of rubbish?

Is not that contribution from Mr Prebble interesting?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I have to dispose of that point of order first. I will not take it any further. I thought that the volume of the speaker’s voice was so great that he was enjoying the debate—and I am sure he is.

💬 Nandor Tanczos: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise to the member for interrupting his speech. I thought that now would be a good time to do so; I did not want to interrupt the member in mid-flow. I make the point that the pronunciation of my name is Tanczos.

I just want to make this point about Mr Prebble: he could not be bothered to get himself down to the Chamber to participate in any part of the Committee stage of this bill, but he is happy to shout another member down. I say this House should be able to expect better than that.

This Parliament has to be practical. Just as Parliament is practical when it comes to people who are charged with serious crimes, and allows our police to lock them up until such time as they have a trial, so we need to be practical in exactly the same way on this issue. That is why National supports those provisions of this bill.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: Joe Stalin!

Oh, Stalin! Well, let us hang on a moment, while I ask—and this is the key point—whether it a great loss for a hoon to have his or her car locked up. Is that somehow Stalinist? Is that not interesting? I refer Mr Prebble to 5 November 1998, when we had the legislation that provides for the confiscation of people’s cars because a police officer on the side of the road has found out that they do not have a driver’s licence. That has not been proved in a court of law. Where were ACT members on 5 November 1998? They were in the Ayes lobby then; they thought that was a good idea. So I do not know what sort of principle the ACT party has now found that states it can accuse us of Stalinism. Is that what ACT was up to in 1998?

Then we come to the big issue that was raised by Mr Tanczos about the loss of cars. Somehow that is a great crime. But let us hang on a moment, because this bill states that someone can go to court the very next day and challenge the decision of the police, by saying that they took that person’s car unfairly. The very next day he or she can go to court and challenge the police on that matter, and I say that that is a sensible, practical provision. That deals with that great injustice that the ACT party and the Green Party have made so much of.

Then we are told that this bill is all about the media. Well, was it the media that got 150 people out in Branford Park just over 9 months ago? Was that just because of the media? Maitai Valley in the Nelson region has a population of 200, and over 100 people turned out there for a public meeting because they have had a gutsful of their neat community being disrupted by those sorts of hoons. That was not a media creation but happened because the problems that hoons have caused are a real issue for the people of that small community.

This legislation is a matter of balance, in terms of relative rights. I say that the loss of a hoon’s car for 28 days is not as big a loss as the peace and quiet that communities should rightfully be able to have. I said earlier in my speech that there were matters of principle and consistency.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: We are waiting!

I ask Mr Prebble again: how come he could not contribute in the Committee stage?

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: I was here.

Why did the member not contribute?

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: I did, by interjection.

Oh, that is the level of integrity that we have from the ACT party; Mr Prebble wants to pip-in, pip-out, but he cannot contribute to the debate. I ask which parties have been consistent? Do the Opposition parties just get up and oppose things for the sake of it? No, National and New Zealand First voted for the legislation in 1998 that provided for the confiscation of cars. Where was the Labour Party, including Martin Gallagher and Phil Goff? They were in the Noes lobby. We had speeches then from Labour MP after Labour MP, running the sort of argument that we have heard from ACT about the purity of not taking cars off people. Why has Mr Gallagher changed his mind on that? Well, those members throw their hands up in horror; they have no idea why they have changed their minds—no idea, at all. I say again that at least the people of New Zealand can rely on consistency from the National Party, which puts the argument of law and order ahead of other things.

As part of the report back of this bill, there was also the report back of a petition. I want to put on the record my thanks to Bob and Cathy Bowley from my own area, who collected hundreds of submissions and who came to the Law and Order Committee hearing at their own expense to support this bill, as part of getting a sensible change made in the law.

The last point that has disturbed me relates to what some parties believe of our police. I have great confidence in the integrity of the men and women who serve in the New Zealand Police, almost without exception—but they are human. I find the way the police conduct themselves to be one that every New Zealander can be proud of. I have seen those police officers—sympathetic to the views of my constituents who have their sleep disturbed night after night, and who find their park ripped apart by hoons every weekend—struggle to try to deal with that. I have seen a huge amount of taxpayers’ resources disappear as the police try to contain that problem. The difference in this debate is between those who trust the police and those who do not. I trust the police. I believe that they will use the powers that this legislation provides responsibly to confiscate cars from hoons who do doughnuts, squeal their wheels, and ruin neighbourhoods, and that they will ensure that the citizens who live in the neighbourhoods where that occurs have the right to live in peace.

Shall we get some common sense and some professionalism into the presentation? I want to refer to the bill again. [Interruption] I will have some words for Mr Prebble later. The commentary on the bill states: “Growing concerns about street racing activities relate both to the destruction caused by the activity itself, and associated crime. These events often involve large numbers of people, both participants and spectators, who occupy areas of road for the purpose of performing unauthorised high speed races and dangerous stunts such as ‘burnouts’ and ‘doughnuts’. … Local councils and residents report that the damage and disruption caused by street racers is significant, including damage to roads, signs and street lights as well as excessive noise and health issues, particularly distress and lack of sleep. There are obvious safety concerns due to the nature of the activity, the large number of spectators, and the likelihood of loss of control on the road,”.

We heard tonight from our fellow MP Paul Adams about drivers picking up speed, then releasing the clutch at high speed. Once the vehicle has travelled over the substance that has been poured on the road, the driver can lose control of the vehicle, which then makes its way over to the spectators on the side of the road. Also, the vehicles with unmodified brakes and suspension are not up to road safety specifications, and that causes problems, as well. Vandalism, graffiti, drunkenness, and litter are also problems. The current laws are not adequate, as the Law and Order Committee has recognised. The commentary on the bill states: “The Police report that their existing powers do not appear to have been adequate in dealing with the problem of unauthorised street racing and associated activities.” As the commentary on the bill also notes, research indicates that the so-called boy racers come from middle-class or affluent families, and can afford to own expensive, high-performance vehicles. As was mentioned this afternoon, vehicles worth up to $80,000 are currently being used in that activity.

The commentary further states: “As a result, a number of members of Parliament, namely Ron Mark MP (NZ First), Hon Ken Shirley MP (ACT)”—that party is now voting against the bill—“and the current chair of the committee, Martin Gallagher MP, have liaised with authorities in various Australian states to obtain a better understanding of the comparative problems experienced in Australian jurisdictions, and the success of legislative measures taken in those jurisdictions.” I say to Mr Prebble that I am mystified as to why a member of his party went on that trip to Australia and why ACT is now voting against the bill.

💬 Opposition Member: Probably to learn from it.

The member may have, but the Hansard that was read out today by my fellow MP Mr Ron Mark states something different. The commentary states that the original initiative to address the problem of unauthorised street and drag racing in a bill came from Clayton Cosgrove, and I congratulate Mr Cosgrove on bringing the bill to the House. I finish by saying that New Zealand First supports this bill.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: No one’s complaining. You speak for your whole time.

I say to Mr Prebble that during the election campaign ACT presented its “zero tolerance” law and order policy outside Mount Eden Prison. Now ACT is going against it, so I am sure that ACT supporters will be mystified at its stance on this particular bill. I am mystified by the Greens’ stance, but we cannot expect anything else from them. What can we expect from someone who has problems wheel-spinning his skateboard and plies himself with a substance so he can be effective?

I thank the House for the privilege of the final call. We have had a very interesting debate tonight, and I thank those Opposition parties that have made, throughout the whole process, over 3 years, a very constructive contribution to facilitate this bill. I also thank the United Future party, which only lately came into the House; it actively promoted this bill last week to get it up the Order Paper.

I turn to the ACT-Green coalition. I listened to the contributions of Ms Coddington, Mr Franks, and Nandor Tanczos. It was very interesting that none of them have had the time to go out—or, if they did, they never mentioned it—with the police on the streets to see what happens. Mr Franks, who is a bush lawyer, expounded all night on high-minded theories of what might be happening to our communities, but he did not go out with his local police to see the carnage that occurs on the road—the carnage that occurs when a family member is killed.

💬 Stephen Franks: Why don’t you do something about it?

I have done something about it—we are doing it now. Before Mr Tanczos of the Green Party made his first contribution to the debate, I asked him to say something about the victims, like the victim in Christchurch who was killed. I asked him to say something about the families who grieve when a family member is killed as a result of these hoons. There have been many such deaths throughout New Zealand. Mr Tanczos failed to do that. He bleated about human rights and about civil rights. I agree with human and civil rights, but they go both ways. I repeat what I said in my opening speech: the innocent who have been injured or killed as a result of these hoons have civil rights. [Interruption] Maybe we ought to get the breathalyser out for Mr Prebble. He should shut up and stop disrespecting those people who have died as a result of hoons.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That comment is grossly out of order.

I withdraw and apologise.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: I am still speaking on my point of order. That comment by the member is grossly out of order. I know he is withdrawing and apologising, but the sort of speech he is making is ridiculous. I draw to his attention that under his argument we should ban beds. Most people die in beds.

I withdraw and apologise. I want to address a couple of points made by ACT party members. One is their calling the police commissars. I will not say any more than that insult; I think we dealt with it, on both sides of the Chamber. Also, Mrs Coddington tried to compare a death resulting from a legal activity, such as rock climbing, with a death resulting from the illegal activity of street drag racing. I do not think that adds up.

I think we have done something in this bill—and many speakers on both sides of the Chamber have repeated this—that the community wants us as MPs to do. I am new in this place, and I do not have the knowledge of other, more senior members. But one thing I do know is that in our communities and in our electorates this issue is hot. People have said that they want this bill to go through, and the parties have, in large part, reacted well. In a bipartisan way they have put the politics aside, forgotten about who thought of the bill, and refined the bill, as the deputy leader of New Zealand First said—

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: I said “rewrote it.”

Yes, with some new ideas, too. That is a good thing because it proves that the select committee process works. The shame tonight is that certain parties have not listened to their communities or to the overwhelming view of New Zealanders, the experts, the police, and the Ministry of Transport. They have decided to make political capital out of this issue.

My objective when I drafted the bill was to save lives, and again I thank people like Senior Sergeant Geoff Kenna of Rangiora, who found the New South Wales legislation; Hugh Hanna, who worked tirelessly on the issue, and gave great advice from the Ministry of Transport’s point of view; Ian James of the police, and others; and George Hawkins and Paul Swain, the respective Ministers.

Parents and family members who have lost loved ones through this activity have telephoned me, and they wanted something to be done. I was out with a television camera crew on Saturday night, and one of the television people said to me that she was petrified because her daughter was 14, coming up 15, and coming up to getting her licence. She wanted this bill to go through so that it sent a clear message to her daughter that that sort of behaviour is unacceptable. She did not want her daughter to be part of the body count.

I conclude by thanking the various parties for their assistance and contribution. Unlike some members, most members of Parliament have taken this issue very, very seriously and want to see it resolved. I agree. I do not think this bill will be a panacea, or a total, 100 percent solution, but it will go some way to solving the problem. If it saves one life or one innocent person from being injured, then that is good. If it changes behaviour, then that is a good thing. If it stops one white cross from appearing on a lamppost somewhere around the country, then that is a good thing. I thank this House for its indulgence and for the cooperation from most members—there have been a few exceptions. I thank the Ministers and the officials for their assistance.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I will be very brief, but I think it is a matter that needs to be corrected in the House. The impression that has been left by several speakers this evening is that Labour voted against—

💬 Dail Jones: That’s not a point of order!

It is a point of order. The Assistant Speaker will determine whether it is a point of order. The issue is about Labour’s vote in 1998 against the impoundment provisions. We made it very clear at the time that it was not about that. We supported the bill. The vote was about the issue of licence costs.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): No, that is not a point of order.