Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill

Clause 1, of course, is the title clause of the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill. I confess that at the start of the debate I could not think of an alternative title or change until I heard the Minister in the chair, the Hon Steven Joyce, speak. He provided us with some very interesting titles, I think. One was with regard to the issue of cruising, which we had canvassed in quite a lengthy and serious way in order to try to elicit from him whether the definition of cruising would, to put it bluntly, stand up in court. Would it be possible for an offender to test it in court and water it down through case precedent? Would it be possible for police to enforce that particular clause, given its nature? Might it, indeed, have an unintended consequence for innocent folk who could be caught by it? I think the example I used, about which we did not get an answer, was that of an election campaign. That is something that is quite dear to the hearts of all of us here. It has been the practice of a number of political parties, including the National Party, to line up vehicles, quite legitimately, with loudhailers or music going—or, to use the definitions in the bill, by drawing attention to “the power or sound of the engine” from time to time—to then make a bit of a hullabaloo and draw attention to themselves, of course, and to move in a convoy. The question is whether that would be outlawed by this legislation now.

In response to the questions we raised about cruising and other aspects of the bill, the Minister’s response was to refer, presumably, to the police: “They’ll know it when they see it.” That was what the Minister said, so perhaps we should call this bill the “They’ll Know It When They See It Bill”. But that does not fill communities around the country full of confidence, because they want this bill to work. We want this bill to work. Communities that have to put up with this sort of stuff every night of the week around the country want this bill to work. That is why we are trying to test these propositions with this Minister, but we are getting no response. I am sorry; we do get a response, but it is not a response that fills us full of confidence, where he bolsters our confidence with legal argument from his officials and others, who can say definitively that the legislation will not be watered down by the courts—that it will not have an unintended consequence on the vintage car club or, indeed, force police perhaps to arrest folks who do not transgress the law but might transgress it technically. Instead of presenting us with legal arguments saying that boy racers will not be able to get around this legislation in court because we will nail them, the Minister’s response was: “They’ll know it when they see it.” I just say to the Minister that I do not know whether calling the bill the “They’ll Know It When They See It Bill” is very productive, but it makes the point. As I say, I think the communities that support these measures want to see them work, but they want the confidence to know that the measures will do the job that the Government and this Parliament seek to do.

We went on to the issue of noise, and I will not rehash those arguments; I am sure my learned colleagues will do that for me. Again, I say that if they will know it when they see it, as the Minister said, then, presumably, “They will know it when they hear it.” is the policy that he will put forward, or the slogan that he will rattle out, to explain why there is no clause in the bill that deals with the 90-decibel limit. In relation to “They will know it when they hear it.”, I say that people all around this country who put up with this noise day and night want a noise limit. As I said, Southern Cross Hospital in Mr Burns’ electorate—the example that was used by Nicky Wagner, and others—had patients who had to be moved to the other side of the hospital. Labour members recall having that example thrown up at us day after day. Well, there is an opportunity tonight—or there was, at least—to deal with that issue. Maybe the bill could be called the “We Sold the Folks Out Over the Noise Bill”, because that is effectively what has happened.

I suppose the other title we could use is the “Do the Police Have the Resources to Implement this Bill? Bill”. Do they? [Interruption] Well, the Minister shakes his head. Maybe I am not as eloquent as he is, but let us look at the matter in practical terms.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: That’s impossible!

At least I can look him in the eye when I am speaking. I do not have to look down at my desk and be ashamed of what I am doing.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: Ha, ha! He’s getting training on that.

My colleague said that he is getting training on that. The question is, of course, whether the police in the maestro’s electorate in Kaikōura, or on the North Shore in Mr Coleman’s electorate—I am not sure where that is—will have the resources to enforce the provisions in this bill. Will they have the resources with 340 cars going? It is a bit hard for the police to chase boy racers if they do not have cars. It is a bit hard for a police officer on a shift to have to wait for a vehicle for 2 hours when he or she comes in. A police officer does not say to the boy racer being dealt with on the side of the road: “Sorry, my shift’s over. I’m out of here.” The police do not do that. They conclude the investigation and conclude the processing of the crime. But the police are waiting, we now know, for 2 hours to get out there, do the business, help communities, support them, and clean up that sort of behaviour.

I cannot remember, but I am sure Mr Hughes will tell me, how much money was taken out of the road patrol. But several million dollars was taken out of road safety and road patrolling; I do not know the exact figure. Then, again, front-line patrol cars are going. One police officer in my electorate stopped behind my electorate office bus, and the officer said that his patrol car was gone. He was a badged member of the highway patrol. How will that officer have the resources to enforce this legislation? Maybe he will be able to take a cab or run after the boy racer. There is a gap here, I say again, between implementation and the resources to do it. I know the Minister will get up and say what he said last time—that the Government has increased the police budget by x, y, and z.

💬 Hon Steven Joyce: That’s right.

Yes. It is a bit like one of the Ministers who said that in the Budget the Government had given 43 new police cars to the police. A week later we found out that the Government wanted to take 340 police cars from the police—and it has done that.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: Terrible optics!

Oh, yes; optics is something that this Minister apparently specialises in—and I am not talking about fibre optics. The Minister will say that the Government gave the police a Budget allocation. Let him then explain why it is requiring the police—according to Dave Cliff, the Canterbury district commander, in an article—to take $21 million out of their budget when crime is going up, when illegal street racing is going up, and when we know that in a recession crime will go up. The Minister giveth with one hand and taketh away with the other hand behind his back, hoping that people will not see that he and the Government are doing that.

I invite him to explain why there has been a cut in road policing. He will say he has given road policing a budgetary allocation—fine. Why, then, did the Minister take money from it?

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: It was a reduction.

It was a reduction, my colleague says. That is interesting. It was a reduction. So I say to the Minister, in concluding, that it would be nice if he would rise to his feet. I know he will probably crack a few jokes. He has been fiddling away there, working out how he could crack a few jokes, and I am sure we will all look forward to those, as he looks down at his piece of paper and reads them out rather than looking at his colleagues on the other side.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: Radio jingles.

Radio jingles, perhaps! But I would like him to answer those questions we have raised about the issue of cruising, the issue of resourcing, and the issue of noise. I think they are fair questions to ask, as they pertain to the title in clause 1 and the commencement in clause 2—we see that the bill has a staggered commencement. I think they are fair questions to raise. Presumably there is no opposition to that, because the Government members on the other side are struck dumb. They are not saying anything, at all. They are not even trying to defend the Minister’s position.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: It’s like caucus.

It is like caucus for those guys. I think they are very critical questions that all communities have asked. I think that communities would extend quite a bit of goodwill to this Minister and this Government with regard to this legislation if they had those questions answered. But they are central and critical questions if people are living on the ground and in the communities where this sort of stuff happens. The activity has gone beyond being a pain in the neck. It has got to the point where there is some violence attached to this activity. I know that Mr Burns and others know people who have been impacted by that violence. But the simple issue around noise is not being addressed.

On the simple issue of whether the “cruising clause” will work, I will make a prediction. I do not reckon that it will, sadly, but I will support amendments in the future when we have to come back and stitch up what a court has unstitched, with proper amendments around that issue. I just hope that in respect of cruising we do not get unintended consequences.

In respect of police resourcing, I will make another bet with the Minister. The pressure will go on the police—and is already going on today—who are getting it in the ear because they cannot respond as quickly as the public would like. They are the ones who will get it in the ear, not the Minister. He will get an occasional letter from someone who is disgruntled, but, unfairly, it is the men and women in blue who will get it in the ear, as they did in Redwood when they could not respond to a burglary because they did not have the resources to do so.

I ask the Minister a final question. I ask whether, if this legislation does not work because of the cuts he has made, he will do what Judith Collins refused to do before the estimates hearing at the select committee. I ask whether he will stand up and say: “I’ll cop it. I’m the Minister; it is a Westminster system. I’m the person who required these cuts, I’m the person who required this legislation in the form it is to go through, and I’ll take responsibility.” Will he stand before the law enforcement agencies and say “No, no—you guys and girls do the job that I give you; I as the Minister will take responsibility.”? I ask whether the members for Hamilton, Hawke’s Bay and Kaikōura will take responsibility. No, the member for Hawke’s Bay is shaking his head and saying that he will not take responsibility. But I ask whether those members will take responsibility in their constituencies when the police cannot enforce the laws this Government puts upon them.

Clause 1 agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 66 in the name of the Hon Steven Joyce to clause 2 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Bill reported with amendment.

Report adopted.

Third Reading