Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill

It is a pleasure to take a call on Part 1 of the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill. Labour supports this part, although, as we have said before, we have serious concerns about the expectation raised by the amendments in this part among the communities that have been suffering harm from illegal street racers. We also have some concerns, which we have expressed, about its companion legislation regarding vehicle confiscation and seizure. However, we believe that this bill has some useful powers that will enhance the ability of enforcement officers to deal with the menace of illegal street racing.

Part 1 is the guts of the bill, and its measures aim to reduce the harm and nuisance caused to the community by illegal street racers in terms of road safety, noise, public nuisance, and disorder. The bill strengthens the power of the police, local authorities, and other road control agencies to deal with boy racers and their antisocial behaviour. As I said, we have concerns, and I will get into those. But I reiterate that we have enormous sympathy for those submitters and the other people who are suffering from the harm caused by illegal street racers. I refer particularly to those who came to the select committee to talk about the measures in Part 1, the residents of the so-called four avenues of Christchurch who described to the committee the recurring nightmare of the congregation of boy and girl racers in and around their streets, with noise, drunkenness, and bad behaviour disturbing their sleep. Anyone who has had occasional experiences of loud parties, or cars going up and down their street, will have some idea of how the heart sinks when the noise starts up, and how the deep bass of the music or the noise of the revving car going past seems to get into one’s bones, and one has to steel oneself for yet another sleepless night. For me, fortunately it happens only occasionally. For those residents who submitted to the select committee, it is occurring every Friday and Saturday night. It is awful.

The bill does indeed give police more powers, but the question yet to be answered—and I ask the Minister in the chair, the Hon Steven Joyce, whether he might want to respond to this—is whether the police having those extra powers means that they will be accompanied by additional resources. What will the Government put in place to make sure that all of the powers in Part 1 can indeed be resourced properly by the police so they can do their job?

One of the things in Part 1 that I want to talk a little bit about is the definition of “cruising” in the interpretation clause. This attracted quite a lot of attention in the select committee. People were confused about the clause and had concerns about it, and many of the submitters made suggestions about how we could change it. I still find it quite bizarre that Parliament seems to be adopting a street language term. When I look at the plain meaning of “cruise”, it means coasting, going on a journey, gliding, speeding, going on a tour, or going travelling. The only time I have heard of “cruising” is in relation to illegal behaviour by street racers. Probably earlier in our day cruising meant that men got in their cars—look at Mr Mallard; he knows all about it—and crawled along the kerbs of the streets trying to pick up chicks. That was what they were trying to do. I want to know why the Government has decided to adopt street language and to use the term “cruising”, which I would be worried about because it might just encourage the boy racers and the not-so-young men racers.

Although the select committee did propose some amendments to the definition of cruising, surely driving backwards and forwards over the same stretch of road is just as much “cruising” as repeatedly driving over the same stretch of road in the same direction. Labour wants some clarity in this area. It seems pretty stupid as it stands, and we do not want a law that gives racers the ability to thumb their noses at police officers by saying they are driving backwards and forwards, rather than in a circle.

I will take just a brief call on the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill. This bill is one that many people around the country have been looking forward to for a long time. It will be something for which the Government will take a lot of credit, in being able to work towards providing some solutions to the many New Zealanders who feel their lives are intruded upon by those who engage in activities that predominantly disrupt their nights.

I thank the Labour members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for the way they worked on this bill. It was a committee that worked well. Even though there may have been some disagreements and different points of focus, the committee members worked well together, and constructively, to get the best result for New Zealand’s residents, so I say thank you to those members who did that.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Oh, there’s more?

Yes, there is more. I say to the member across the Chamber that I am sure there will be more from his electorate, as members of the Canterbury community will take great delight in seeing this bill go through the Committee.

Let us look at some of the key concepts of this bill. In Part 1, the definition of “cruising” is an important definition. There is also quite a focus on by-laws as a mechanism to achieve the goals that have been seen to be needed, in regard to the ability to control activities in these circumstances. There is also a lot of talk about closing some of the loopholes that may have existed in the past, which may have been used by drivers to avoid the full force of the law. Those measures are predominant in this part. There are prohibitions on the sale and disposal of motor vehicles to close the loopholes that were being used in the past.

Overall, Part 1 is quite a substantive part. It covers the major concepts of the bill, which both major parties will be supporting, and which reflects the community’s desire to have real action on this issue. We congratulate the Minister of Transport on bringing that action forward at a time when the public desires it.

I join other members in stating that the Labour Party will support the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill, as we have said in the past, but we will raise a number of issues. I congratulate the Minister of Transport on the way he has managed this legislation. Unlike his counterpart Judith Collins, this Minister has been rather considered in the language he has used and the expectations he has raised.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: He’s the Minister of Transport, that’s why.

It should not really matter what portfolio one has, I would have thought. What matters is the substance of one’s argument.

On the issue of benzodiazepines, Labour will support those measures. There is some merit, I think, in what is being proposed.

I want to concentrate on a couple of things that were raised by my colleague Darien Fenton. The first is one of police resourcing. Everybody agrees that this issue of street racing is a pretty ugly issue around the communities. There is a bit of a myth perpetrated by some that it is related to Christchurch, maybe Hamilton, and one or two other places around New Zealand, and that everybody else is immune. I recall that when I launched the legislation that I introduced to the House, I launched it in Hamilton because on the main drag of Hamilton—I cannot recall the exact—

💬 David Bennett: Te Rapa straight.

I am indebted to the member. Te Rapa straight had become a drag-strip and “hell on earth”, as one motelier described it for me. We support these measures, but there is an issue around police resourcing. It is OK to put forward ideas and to write legislation, but the question then is how one will enforce it, and whether police will have the means necessary to do so. A large amount of money, several million dollars, has been taken out of the road patrol budget. We know that there has been a requirement for a $21 million cut in police resources, even though the Minister, Judith Collins, denies it. We have a document from the district commander for Canterbury, Dave Cliff, in which he notes that fact, and we have the transcript where the Commissioner of Police alludes to it. We know that 340 vehicles, or around 10 percent of the police vehicle fleet, are gone. We also know that despite the promises made by the Minister of Police, a large number of front-line vehicles are in that fleet. If an officer ain’t got a car, it is pretty difficult to chase down some of the people who are perpetrating these crimes.

I note from Supplementary Order Paper 78, which the Minister of Transport has introduced, that he has brought in measures where, as I understand it, a car can be seized if, basically, someone does a runner from police. I support that, but the question is whether vehicles will be available to enforce it. We know, for instance, that a large number of front-line cars have been removed from the fleet. Police themselves have said that to me directly. Police themselves have scratched their heads and said that every car in the vehicle fleet is a front-line car, whether it be for youth education, community policing, youth aid, or patrol.

In fact, I was sitting in Belfast in my mobile electorate office bus some weeks ago, holding a clinic, when a highway patrol officer, I will not say who, pulled up behind me. I knew I had not committed a crime, because the keys were out of the ignition and she was stationary. He called me over and looked around—he did not want to be seen too quickly talking to a Labour MP, because he knew the National Party bosses would be after him. I said to him that it was great that he had a vehicle. He said—and this was some weeks ago—that the highway patrol car, which was a brand-new Holden and was badged up and designed to chase down people who were speeding, was “gone”. I asked him what he meant by “It’s gone”. He said “It’s gone. It’s being taken away.” The Minister of Police and, I believe, the Minister of Transport, told Parliament repeatedly that any cuts in the vehicle fleet would not be from front-line resources.

I make the point to the Minister that although we support the bill, legislation is only as good as the way it is implemented by the courts. In fairness I do not think that the courts have used in the past the strength and powers that they have to enforce existing legislation. That is to their detriment, and certainly it is to the detriment of communities. But, equally, if police do not have the resources in respect of vehicles, they will not be able to implement this legislation to the satisfaction of Parliament or of the communities. That is no disrespect to them. Sadly, the men and women in blue, as is starting now and has already happened over the last few weeks since the vehicle fleet was cut, are starting to get it in the ear from the public when they cannot turn up to enforce the laws of the land.

Even in my patch we have already had people complaining. Two people in my patch discovered a burglar and asked for police assistance. They could not gain that assistance in what they felt was a reasonable time, and they were disturbed about that. I do not blame the police in my area—this is in respect of Papanui and Redwood. They are sound human beings and highly professional. But the truth is that we know that in Canterbury alone, 32 vehicles have gone. That is from the district commander, Dave Cliff. He says that 32 vehicles have gone. They are out—gone.

We know there are difficulties—because police have told us—in the shift changes. When one is waiting for a vehicle and for the next shift to come along, crime does not just stop at the end of the shift. The job has to be dealt with. Officers are waiting for up to 2 hours, I am told, to get access to a vehicle on a shift change in order to implement legislation like this.

I will also touch on the definition of “cruising”. One of the things I was concerned about when my legislation was passed was that some innovative person who had committed an offence would go to court to contest one of the definitions—say, for instance, the sustainable loss of traction—and a judge who, quite rightly, is charged with interpreting the definitions of that legislation might depart from Parliament’s intention and make a different ruling or water down those clauses. In talking to the police, one of the difficulties I have with this is that the police have said they are not quite sure how they will be able to be enforce the definition of “cruising” as it sits in the legislation. This is not a political dig at the Minister in the chair, the Hon Steven Joyce, because I think this is a very, very difficult issue to try to write into legislation.

When 300 or 400 hoons are cruising, to use the term, around Cathedral Square in Christchurch, which is in my patch, they might be driving at the speed limit, they might be legally licensed and registered, and the drivers might well be, and probably are, sober, but they are making one heck of a nuisance of themselves. But if we look at the definition, we see that it could be interpreted in Christchurch as looking for a car park. A member of a vintage car club said to me that that is what vintage car drivers do. They get in their vintage cars and go cruising. They do it legally; they do not make a nuisance of themselves. So although, in fairness, I congratulate the Minister on making a decent effort to try to crack the nut of the definition of that behaviour, I am concerned that if this is put to the test, a court may indeed reinterpret the word in a way where innocent folks who are not part of this sort of behaviour get done over.

Some young people are car enthusiasts. They call themselves boy or girl racers, but they do not actually break the law. They do not do the sort of stuff that upsets our communities. A group of them came to see me in my electorate office and said they were car enthusiasts who had put a lot of dough into their cars. They go to Colombo Street and sit on the side of the road. They do not leer it up, they do not speed, and they do not make a noise, but they just sit there and they show off their vehicles and what is under the hood, as is a time-honoured tradition between young men and women. They brag about and have pride in their vehicles, and that is OK. But one woman made the point to me that they are treated the same way by the cops as the hoons who stuff it up for the rest of them. She conceded that that is a difficulty for the police, because they cannot differentiate.

The point I make to the Minister—and I would be grateful if he could perhaps give us some legal assurances—is to ask how confident he and his officials are that the definition of “cruising” will be able to be enforced. I also ask whether his legal officials have given him any idea as to whether the definition is likely to be tested in a court. If it is, I ask what the likelihood is in various scenarios of the definition being watered down.

I tell the Minister that we support the legislation. We think it has merit and some strong provisions, unlike the companion legislation put forward by Ms Collins. Now that we have seen the detail of that bill, we view that bill as a weaker bill in respect of third parties than is the case at the moment.

I would also be grateful if the Minister could perhaps give us a reassurance on the issue of police resourcing. We were given commitments in this Parliament that of the 340 vehicles, no front-line vehicles would be lost. The Minister of Police said she envisaged that it would be vans going. I will tell that Minister what the problem with that is. In Rangiora the youth aid officer now drives a van. It is called a police prison van, because he had his youth aid vehicle taken away from him. I suspect he will find it rather difficult running around catching crims who may break the law in respect of this legislation, in a big hulk of a police prison van. The Minister of Police said that that would not happen.

I will make just a couple of comments in response to previous speakers. Firstly, with regard to police enforcement of the proposed new law, the police budget for road policing has been increased by 16 percent over the next 3 years—as opposed to what happened during the last 3 years—subject to agreement between the police, the New Zealand Transport Agency, and the Minister. That agreement will allow the police to enforce the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill and to go about the rest of the road-policing programme.

The second point I will make in respect of enforcement is that one of the points of this legislation is to provide the police with sharper tools, so that things, and perhaps boy racers, stay where they are put. It tries to address, and I think it will go a long way to addressing, operational issues that have arisen from previous legislation. We went to Christchurch, sat down with police, and got their opinions on measures relating specifically to illegal street racing. We then had good discussions with transport officials, justice officials, and members of the police in Wellington about the approaches that would make a difference. The result, in the transport sense, is this bill. It has a total of 15 changes, and includes such things as demerit points.

In terms of the definition of “cruising”, I think it has been improved by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. It is now pretty straightforward. I fail to see how somebody parking a car could be caught under that definition. I fail to see how a vintage car enthusiast could be caught under that definition. Of course, the police are not going around hauling people off the streets for the sheer sake and enjoyment of it. The definition states: “ ‘Cruising’ means driving repeatedly in the same direction over the same section of a road in a motor vehicle in a manner that—(a) draws attention to the power or sound of the engine of the motor vehicle being driven; or (b) creates a convoy that—(i) is formed otherwise than in trade; and (ii) impedes traffic flow”. It is one of those things that we know when we see it, and we can see it in the four avenues in Christchurch and in Victoria Street in Hamilton on any night of the week. This legislation will give the councils and the police a tool so that they can to work together to get rid of that antisocial behaviour.

Let me join my colleagues in acknowledging the very real problem that so-called boy-racers create for our society. We do not underestimate that problem, which is why we support the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill, albeit with some concerns about particular points. I will address a couple of those points in a minute. Real efforts have been made to address the boy-racer issue, and I particularly acknowledge Clayton Cosgrove’s work in that regard. Real efforts have been made to try to sort out the issue, and I also accept that the Government is trying to deal with the problem further. My concern is that I am not sure whether some provisions in this bill are as improved and as straightforward as the Minister in the chair, the Hon Steven Joyce, has just said. I will talk about those shortly.

But I also think the real issue that we are trying to address is that of noise. When we listened to the submitters to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on this legislation, we heard that the things that really came through, when it was all boiled down—and they were probably in this order of priority—were noise, issues around antisocial behaviour, and then issues around road safety. All of the things in this bill are, if you like, proxies for dealing with those particular problems. They do not actually address those problems themselves.

The issue of cruising is a case in point. Part 1 talks about cruising, and I will look at the definition of that term again. The definition of “cruising” in clause 4 refers to the act of “driving repeatedly in the same direction over the same section of a road in a manner that … draws attention to the power or sound of the engine of the motor vehicle’’ or that “creates a convoy that … impedes traffic flow”. The issue is to do with the phrase “repeatedly in the same direction over the same section of a road”, which was the change made at the select committee. The Minister said it is one of the improvements to the bill. That is fine, but, potentially, driving backwards and forwards over the same stretch of road raises just as much concern about cruising if the issue is about the sound of the motor vehicle. Many submitters also raised genuine concerns about lawful activities being captured by the definition. Maybe the activity of parking a car is a bridge too far and maybe the Minister is right about that, but other lawful types of activities could potentially be captured. For example, somebody could be taking part in some sort of legitimate convoy, as might happen during an election campaign. Convoys of vehicles go around in that instance. So-called car enthusiasts might go around in their hot rods, and they quite often like to draw attention to the power or the sound of their vehicles.

I am a bit concerned when the Minister says we will know a vehicle is cruising when we see it. I am not sure whether that is good law. I am not sure whether we should make it a discretionary thing, whereby the police can say a nice 50-year-old man in his flash hot rod is not cruising, but a 20-year-old in his or her souped-up car—whatever young people drive; a Nissan, or whatever it may be—is cruising. So I do worry about the definition of “cruising”, and I think there are a number of areas we need to look at. The first of those, as I have already said, is the issue of why driving repeatedly in the same direction is covered, but driving backwards and forwards is not similarly deemed to be cruising. I think that is still an issue. The other issue is the question of legitimate activities. We do not want to have definitions that effectively enable boy racers—I use that term advisedly to include girl racers and everybody else; we know whom we are talking about, as the Minister says—to thumb their nose at the police because the definition allows a great deal of legal debate about what we are trying to capture here.

A significant number of submitters raised their concerns about the definition of “cruising”. One of the problems was around the committee process itself. These issues were raised, and we had a very good process around the hearing of submissions. I think everybody would agree with that. One could not help but be moved by some of the submissions we heard, and the problems with regard to boy racers became very apparent. But I think the select committee got into a bit of trouble with the really rushed process in the consideration and deliberation phases. These sorts of issues were flagged, but finding solutions to them was done in a very rushed manner. Officials were put under a great deal of pressure to produce answers to questions like the ones I have just raised about the definition and the issue of whether legitimate activities might be captured. The officials were put under a great deal of pressure to come back to us and give us their advice. In respect of the drafting, we were under real time pressures. We were receiving the documentation in very short order indeed. I do worry that the definition of “cruising” will come back to bite us, if you like, and I really think it is a shame that we did not spend a great deal more time on getting that particular bit right.

The way that the “cruising” definition will be put into place will be by the use of by-laws, so Part 1 of the bill provides for road-controlling authorities to make by-laws. Those by-laws will include ones to specify areas of roading on which cruising can be controlled, restricted, or prohibited, or ones to specify the amount of time that must elapse between the successive times a vehicle can be driven along a section of road before it would not be regarded as repeatedly using the same section of road. I think that is quite an interesting point. One wonders what the science is behind that measure. Will the interval be 1 minute, 5 minutes, 10 minutes, or 15 minutes? The question is really about noise. If the cruising occurs in the middle of the night, regardless of whether it occurs at 5-minute intervals, 10-minute intervals, 15-minute intervals, or 20-minute intervals, arguably it is still equally disruptive. Again I say I do not think we really got our heads around some of these issues.

The issue of by-laws is interesting. The thing I found fascinating was the number of submissions made by local authorities who did not want to be given the right to make by-laws. Here we were putting up legislation, and most of the local authorities that submitted on the bill said they did not want to have the right to make by-laws, and they thought it was a matter of providing nationally consistent legislation.

I will talk a great deal more about the issue of by-laws and give members a flavour of some of the submissions on the issue of making by-laws. For example, the Waimakariri District Council said there may well be difficulties with the definition of “cruising”, and particularly with the use of the word “repeatedly”—that relates to the question I raised about the amount of time—with what we mean by “the same section of a road”, and with what we mean by “draws attention”. The submitters raised at least three areas of concern around the definition. Mr Parker, from the Christchurch City Council, said the bylaw-making provisions will be ineffective. In fact, the Christchurch City Council opposed their introduction. As an alternative, it suggested having either national legislation that applies to certain roads or legislation that councils can opt into. The council also felt that the definition of “cruising” may well be ambiguous. We made a change to the definition after the submission period, but I do not think it captured all of those concerns. Dunedin City Council was concerned that legitimate activities—it used the examples of car rallies and Christmas parades—should not be captured in the definition of “cruising”. The Waitakere City Council thought that the by-law approach may not be effective and could lead to displacement for boy racers. It thought, like one of the other councils, that there needed to be a change to the existing legislation.

I bet that members would be really interested to know what Local Government New Zealand thought about the legislation. It said by-laws will be costly to establish and there is no requirement for councils to implement such by-laws.

I am very pleased to speak to the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill. Labour supports the bill. We want to see enhanced powers for the police to deal with the issue of boy racers, and no member of this House knows that issue better than I do.

I want to ask the Minister in the chair, the Hon Steven Joyce, the Minister of Transport, a very serious and important question. I have looked through the bill and its accompanying legislation for the commitment that was given by the National list MP Nicky Wagner—

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Who?

Nicky Wagner; the member may have heard of her. Over the last term of Parliament, she gave a commitment to Christchurch that she was going to deal with the issue of noise. As members are probably aware, there are a few problems created by boy racers, but one of the most persistent, annoying, and vexatious problems to residents is the noise problem.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Anything in here to solve that?

Well, a number of things were promised in respect of it. A petition and a member’s bill were brought to Parliament to have the noise limit brought back from the excessive maximum level of 95 decibels—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): That is in Part 2. We are on Part 1.

Thank you. I would like to pose a question to the Minister in terms of general debate, because the bill deals with the issues created by boy racers. In respect of decibel ratings, why do we not have the measures indicated by the National list MP from Christchurch Ms Wagner? It is important that we know. Is it that the Government does not want to tackle the issue? Is it that it has received advice from officials on it? We have officials present here this afternoon who can perhaps assist.

I understand that the Government looked at the issue, and believes that the problem is that if we reduce the maximum noise level to 90 decibels—and this is a matter for the Minister to clarify—then we penalise a lot of people who are not causing a problem. Those who do cause a problem are those who roar up and down Bealey Avenue, Fitzgerald Avenue, and other wide major streets in Christchurch, and, indeed, many other streets of inner-city areas in this country. Those are the drivers who need to be targeted. I think the bill does that, and I acknowledge the Government for that. Obviously, and as noted by the Minister of Police, Judith Collins, these measures accompany and add to measures introduced by the last Labour Government. It is important that we as a Parliament acknowledge the need to deal with the issues created by boy racers. They are a menace and they need a strong response from Parliament.

But I suspect that the problem that the Government faced was that if it reduced, as had been pledged and promised, the maximum noise level back to 90 decibels, that would impinge upon the rights of thousands—indeed, tens of thousands—of New Zealanders who own a car slightly nosier than 90 decibels. They may, for instance, have saved up and bought themselves a nice V8 Holden and put a fruity exhaust on it. Somebody may have inherited a car with a noisy exhaust system, but is not causing a problem by driving up and down avenues at 2.00 in the morning. It may be that a motor enthusiast has a car configured for racing events, and occasionally takes it on to the street, but is not causing a problem. That is why I would like the Minister to give us some indication as to whether the Government considered those issues in the context of this bill and the accompanying legislation, decided on the matter in hand, and made a considered decision. As I said, we had repeated pledges and promises from a member of this Parliament that when the Government changed, this issue would be dealt with.

The past Minister in charge of transport issues, Mr Duynhoven, did address some of the issues, and this bill is building on some of his measures. One of those issues is demerit points. Many, many boy racers do not pay their fines. It is much better to acknowledge the fact that they do not pay fines, will not pay their fines, and sometimes cannot even be forced, believe it or not, to pay their fines. So we are seeing an extension of demerit points. Somebody who owns a $10,000 car fitted out for boy-racer activity really does not want to lose it. Demerit points are important because if drivers lose their licence, lose their insurance, they might still take the risk of driving on the road, but, firstly, they risk the full force of the law being thrown at them for being non-licensed drivers, and, secondly, they will not have any insurance cover. They may at times act like idiots, but they are not all stupid. So I think it is important that we see a continuing ratcheting up of measures such as demerit points.

But I ask the Minister to explain to us what happened to the issue of noise, because a very considered promise was made by a member of this House.

I want to return to the issue of cruising, as outlined in Part 1 of the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill. I was a little bit amazed at what the Minister said, and it was noted by Carol Beaumont, that we will know it when we see it. I am not a lawyer and the Minister in the chair, Steven Joyce, I suspect is not a lawyer. I note that Mr Finlayson is here, and he is an eminent lawyer, I am told by some. Others may take a different view, but some say he is an eminent lawyer. I just raise this issue again, but with greater worry. If the Minister is telling us that the legal basis from which either he or the department—I presume it was him—drafted this definition is that we will know it when we see it, then I offer some assistance from our side to the Minister. We have some lawyers over here who might be able to help. That is not how to make law.

As I turn to the legislation, the concern I had was about the definition of, for instance, “sustainable loss of traction”. We spent quite a bit of time on it. An eminent person—and I better not mention his name because National might hunt him down if it knew he helped me—within the ministry spent a lot of time tightening as much as possible the definition then of “sustainable loss of traction”. I know it might sound stupid to some but I remember quite a bit of fear being expressed by submitters from vintage car clubs and from all sorts of folk, including people taking part in the Christmas parade or other parades, who appeared before the select committee. There was the fear that even though their motives were pure, somehow inadvertently they may fall victim to this issue. There was even a fear that a young person, for instance, who squeaked his or her brakes at the lights, might hear a policeman saying “Oi, we got you”. I do not take credit for the legal drafting, and others should, but we spent a lot of time tightening the definition of “sustainable loss of traction”, in the hope—which proved to be correct because it was never tested in a court—that a judge would not take a case, make a terminology interpretation, and water it down. It was also to give confidence to those who were not the perpetrators that we were going after that they would not be caught by it. They were the innocent folk. But we are now hearing, regarding the definition, that we will know it when we see it. The Minister shakes his head, but that is what he said. Is he now denying that is what he said? He said it not two or three speeches ago.

In practical terms, I agree with the Minister that most police, I suspect, will know it when they see it. However, there is the unintended consequence. The definition draws attention to the power or sound of the engine. To what level, I ask the Minister? What is the test? Is it revving up? I suspect it probably is, but to what level? Is it somebody who revs up, and hits the accelerator instead of the brake? Will they be caught by this very non-specific definition? But the Minister says that we will know it when we see it. Maybe we should call this the “You’ll Know It When You See It Bill”.

The bill refers to “impedes traffic flow”. What does that mean? Does that mean they drive in a group at 50 kilometres per hour, which is the legal limit, as they do now? What is the difference between that and going around Hereford Street looking for a car park? Normally when I have driven around there at lunchtime on a Friday there are about 300 or 400 folks who are not breaking the law, who are driving legally, who are sober, and whose cars are registered and licensed, engaging in exactly the same activity. Despite the squawks we hear from the back row, I know that the Minister is well intentioned. But the point I am desperately trying to make—

💬 Hon Tau Henare: What? What is it?

No, I am not trying to make the point to the thing at the back of the Chamber. The point I am trying to make to the Minister is if this definition is not tight enough—

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Do you support it?

—it may cause an unintended consequence. But equally if it is not tight enough, there may well be a test case where a judge decides to water it down, or alter it in such a way, or let somebody off and sets a precedent. I would be obliged if the Minister could gives us some reassurance or clarify what he meant by saying that we will know it when we see it. If he cannot do that and he is not confident in his own drafting, I ask him perhaps to yield to that eminent lawyer Mr Finlayson, who I think could give us quite a good dissertation in respect of the definitions. He may well be able to give us some assurance. The problem is that this bill is not part of Mr Finlayson’s portfolio, but he is an eminent lawyer. Maybe the Minister could lean across the aisle to him and get him to pass a note to tell him that this is OK. I want to catch these people, just like the Minister does. Christchurch has had a gutsful of it, just like the Minister has, and as have other places.

I think we should have an assurance that this bill will do what we want it to do. Firstly, an assurance that it is strong enough, and, secondly, that it is blunt enough that a judge will not be able to make a strange interpretation of it that will water it down or capture somebody who should not be captured. We will then end up back here a couple of months after that common law precedent goes through, trying to pass amending legislation to get it right. This is not an uncommon practice, and I say this in a bipartisan way.

When I was Minister for Building and Construction, a judge—I think it was Justice Stevens—altered through a court judgment the compensatory benefits or damages payable to victims of leaky buildings. It was not what the Government—or the Parliament generally, I suspect, as a whole—had intended. On that occasion—and it threw a cat amongst the pigeons—we were advised by our departmental lawyers that it was as tight as a drum, it would be no problem, and it would be OK. From memory we had to suspend Standing Orders, come back, and blast through a bill consisting of three, four, or five clauses, or whatever it was, which I think all parties supported, to correct the record and to stop other members of the judiciary from using that precedent and perpetrating what Parliament did not intend. I think it is a fair question. The Government and we as a Parliament are going to a lot of effort and we are supporting this bill. To clarify it for that person in the back row, we are supporting this bill. But what we want to do is support a bill that gets it right.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Sit down and get a move on!

That sort of inane contribution from the back, which flows like verbal sewage, does not help the matter. If the member wants to make a contribution and help his colleague out—I take it he is not a lawyer either; neither am I—he could get to his feet and make a contribution, rather than making sounds akin to a belching noise down in the back row.

💬 David Bennett: Oh, that’s unfair.

Well, maybe it is not a belching noise; it could be another emission, but we will not go there. But I reiterate and say to the Minister that I would be grateful if he could readdress the point on cruising. We want to stop the sort of stuff that he is trying to stop in this bill, but I have a fear, based on his own words, which may come back to haunt him, that we will know it when we see it. A test case may be taken and this may be watered down or there may be an unintended consequence. Again I hope that Mr Finlayson, as a lawyer, may decide to take a call and provide us with that reassurance, but I think the Minister is duty-bound to address that issue.

What happens in a political campaign when members of the National Party, as they did on a number of occasions, drive down the middle of roads with loud hailers blaring and flags flying, drawing attention to themselves and the noise of their vehicles? Perhaps they are in a convoy, and perhaps, some would argue, they are impeding traffic flow. Could the Minister tell me whether that would be illegal under this bill? Will that be called cruising? What will the police do in that respect, for instance? What will they do if the cars are decorated, if the horns are sounding, and there might be a truck that has a bit of music playing on the back of it? Is that considered cruising if there are 20, 30, or 50 such vehicles heading down Hereford Street in the middle of an election campaign? I think that is a fair enough question. It probably arises out of self-interest; it probably concerns all of us, I suspect, if we think about it. Will the police take the view: “Don’t worry. The Minister says we’ll know it if we see it. We’ll put a finger in the air and try to define the law.”? If somebody takes a case against the police and embarrasses them as a police force, will the Minister stand up beside them and say: “No, no. I blew it in the Committee stage because I said you guys would know it if you saw it.” And that is the strength of the legal argument.

I want to get this right. Labour wants to get this right. Labour supports the Government in this, but we would like more reassurance, as would the communities in Christchurch, in Hamilton, in Dunedin, in Auckland, and in other places, that it is right and that when the police do see it, they will have the tools, the power, and the legal definitions to deal to those people. I do not think it is good enough for someone who is collecting a quarter of a million bucks and taking a warrant and the limousine to simply stand up and say: “Don’t worry, she’s right. They’ll know it if they see it.” I think those will be words we will be happy to use at future public meetings when people say that they did not see it, they did not know it, and we are still being harangued from pillar to post by these boy racers. Maybe we should ask Judith Collins in the next round if she takes the same view—that the police will know it if they see it.

I move, That the question be now put.

I want to take a reasonably brief call on Supplementary Order Paper 78. I appreciate the Minister’s explanation earlier on, and we support Supplementary Order Paper 78, but I do not want any rewriting of history around it. I am one person who has been on the select committee for the last 4 years and went through the submissions of the submitters—along with David Bennett over there, so I have no doubt he will agree with me on this—and the issue of benzodiazepine was never raised. It was never raised by any submitter, it was never raised by the officials, and we were never advised that it had been considered that it would make the scope too wide; there was never a discussion that I can recall on the issue of benzodiazepine. I want to put that on the record so that nobody thinks that the select committee in the last Government was not being responsible when it came to the implementation of the bill that Supplementary Order Paper 78 is amending.

We support the amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 78 but we do so with a little bit of caution. The caution I want to sound is that there are some issues around this, and we saw that in the media when it was announced. One of the things that gives me some comfort is the process in the bill—the process of testing whether people have drugs in their blood. If people are driving with drugs in their blood, the testing is for impairment. Also, before testing a driver for impairment, the police must have good cause to suspect that a person has consumed a drug.

However, the caution I would like to put on the record is that the test could be really difficult for some people—older drivers, people who could well have been good, law-abiding citizens all their lives. They could be suspected of having benzodiazepine in their blood, and that could be related to the fact that they were taking it according to a prescription. They would not be prosecuted but they could feel quite aggrieved against the police, so some care in this whole area is required. We accept that it is a problem; we accept and we completely support the previous legislation that Labour introduced, and that this Government passed, around being able to test for impairment when people have been using drugs, and not using them if they are impaired, and around not using them according to the prescription and their doctors’ instructions. Also, quite a lot of information recently from the New Zealand Drug Foundation states that the drug does significantly increase the risk of crashes, and younger users are at higher risk. So, obviously, those drivers need to be intercepted and that is why we are supporting the legislation.

Although the police can rightfully use this legislation to target drivers taking benzodiazepine, they should be careful that older, bona fide users are not being treated unfairly. We have to approach this with caution, and I ask the Minister to make a comment on whether there are plans for any public education on drug-driving before the legislation is implemented, because that is coming up fast. I ask what the plan is for that, so that people know about it, and they know how to interpret it, if they are taking any medication. All I can say is thank goodness Prozac is not in this list, because half the country is on Prozac, I understand. I would like to be reassured that leading into this legislation with the addition of benzodiazepines, the public is going to be properly educated and prepared for this. I would also like to ask the Minister to make a comment on his other Supplementary Order Paper, Supplementary Order Paper 66, which he has not done. Thank you.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 66 in the name of the Hon Steven Joyce to Part 1 be agreed to.