Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill

Mr Chairman—

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: A few bald patches in this building!

That is the pot calling the kettle black, is it not? At least I am not trying to cover mine. There is a bit of fertiliser going around this Chamber as well, I would say.

The Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill is a companion bill to the one we have just debated, the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill. It is a companion bill because together they deal with the issue of boy racers. As Tau said, it is part of the wider whānau and how we are working together across all parties in this Chamber on this issue.

It is unfortunate that the largest Opposition party, which is all it is at the moment, has not been able to support this bill in the nature it supported the previous bill. That is to the detriment of this Chamber and of that party. It shows that those members are not serious about trying to find a solution to these issues. They are trying to over-politicise issues that the Government has made serious attempts to fix.

This bill has a number of parts to it, but one key bit is the crushing of vehicles. That is what it will be known for as a bill, but that is not the only thing that this bill deals with. However, it is something that many people will consider to be this bill’s legacy. If we look at Part 1 of the bill, we see that it basically deals with confiscation and destruction. Those are covered by new sections 129A to 129F of the Sentencing Act 2002, inserted by clause 8. They deal with some of the key elements of that concept of confiscating and crushing vehicles. There are a number of other offences in this legislation that deal with things such as the sale and disposal of motor vehicles and conditions on the dismantling, deregistration, and confiscation of vehicle. Essentially, Part 1 deals with the heart of the legislation, in the sense that it refers to the confiscation and deregistration of a vehicle, and the potential for the dismantling and destruction of a vehicle in certain cases. That is the nature of the legislation. It has a process that one has to go through.

This bill is part of the suite of legislation we have put together to deal with the boy-racer problem. We support it in this Chamber, and we look forward to the parties in this Chamber supporting it so we can deal with the issue once and for all for the good people of New Zealand. Thank you.

I begin where I began in the second reading of the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill, and that is to commend the Minister in the chair, the Hon Steven Joyce, for a couple of points. To be fair, there are a number of loopholes that are closed through this legislation. As I said in the second reading, when I tried to push my bill through, a number of years ago, I did not anticipate—I cop that, and neither did the police, or transport agencies who gave advice—the loophole regarding third-party ownership. I commend the Minister for closing that loophole. I think that is a good thing. I do not think it should matter who owns the vehicle; if there is an offence, it should be dealt with.

The second thing I commend the Minister for is the hardship provisions in the bill that have been tightened. I anticipated, as was the advice at the time from the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Transport, and the New Zealand Police, that judges would use the full powers of the legislation and confiscate cars, as they can do today, on a first offence and they must on a second offence. Sadly, as the Minister of Police has publicly said, and I think she is partly right, through the loophole judges have not been able to exercise the full option that they can. Also, judges have taken a view, as is their right and privilege, that permanent confiscation is a secondary or tertiary option.

Although we have some difficulties with this bill, we will show the Government the courtesy it showed me when I pushed my bill through, and we will support it. But we do so because there is an issue of accountability. We have put up Supplementary Order Paper 73 because although this bill does a good thing and closes a loophole, it goes further. It closes the third-party loophole and allows someone to potentially move on the vehicle owned by a third party. That is a person who has not committed the offence but one who owns the vehicle in which an offence has been committed. The difficulty is that this was trumpeted by the Minister when she said that all the boy racers would be closer to the crusher; they would have all their cars crushed. We will get to that little bit of idiocy in a moment, but the problem is that the current legislation says that the court may take the vehicle for ever from an owner and an offender on a first offence, but must take the vehicle—and that is the key point—on a second offence in 4 years. That is as it should be and that is how it will go.

But when we get to a third party, the Minister went further than just closing a loophole; she went and weakened the legislation. I quote from the Police’s own advice to the select committee: “If you are a third party owner and somebody takes your car”—and we know that over 50 percent of these vehicles are signed over in their mates’ names; it is not dad’s or mum’s car, it is their mates who sign their cars over in their respective names—“and commits an offence, firstly the owner gets a letter.” The owner will be shaking in his or her boots when he or she receives a letter to say that somebody has been very naughty in his or her car. Then there is a second offence. What happens? This is how tough this Minister is. On a second offence in 4 years the owner of the vehicle will get another letter saying that somebody has been very, very naughty in his or her car.

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Call your mum.

Yeah, right! Call your mum! The boy racers are shaking in their boots after two letters have been received by the third-party owner of the vehicle. Then, on a third offence in 4 years—and here is where the rubber does not hit the road—the Minister has taken away any reference to mandatory confiscation or even mandatory crushing. What happens on a third offence is that a court has the discretionary right, on a third offence, to take the car permanently and/or crush it. There is no “must take it”; there is no “must crush it”. After receiving one letter that says one is naughty, and then two letters that say one is naughty, on the third occasion a judge can toss a coin or do what he or she wants to do, and exercise his or her discretion.

The only defence that the Minister has put up to justify that is that it strikes a balance. We know the Ministry of Justice’s briefing is that that strikes a good balance. The little hoon who terrorises people around the show flicks ownership of the car into his mate’s name, because this is not about somebody taking mum and dad’s car. The owner then receives another letter, and then a court might do something. That is really tough, is it not? I am sure that when Judith Collins was wandering around saying: “I’m going to sort this out.”, when she was swaggering around with her six-guns saying: “I’m going to have all the cars crushed. I’m going to sort it out.”, communities did not know that there was no mandatory provision. If one is a third-party owner, the courts do not have to do anything in respect of crushing or permanently confiscating vehicles. Labour has introduced an amendment that simply says that if one is a third-party owner and somebody runs amok in one’s vehicle, that owner does receive a letter to say that if it happens again the car will be taken. A court must, and will, take his or her vehicle.

Every parent I have talked to has had this reaction: “Well, if my son or daughter took the car and I got a letter saying the car was going to go because of what they did, I’d sort it out pretty quick.” I think that strikes a fair balance. But really, this is not about striking a fair balance with mum and dad. We know, from the police evidence, that these kids do not take mum and dad’s car. They flick the ownership into their mate’s name. The Minister has said that many times herself. A fair balance would be: “Johnny, somebody’s run amok in your car. Here’s a warning. Next time, the court will take it.” Labour has put up that amendment, to be helpful. Labour thinks it is in line with the existing legislation that if one is an owner and an offender, the owner gets a warning and then the car goes. I think that is tough, and I think that is what the communities want. We offer that to the Minister in good faith. She said to me in the House: “You’ve never come to see me about it.” No. There is a Supplementary Order Paper here, and it is pretty simple if one understands one’s own legislation. It was on the Order Paper this morning, which is far more notice than that Government ever gives Labour members, when it drops hundreds of pages of Supplementary Order Papers on us.

The Minister and I will be on Morning Report tomorrow—we are going to duke it out on radio over this one. Labour does not support the crushing of vehicles, but it will not torpedo the bill. I will tell members why. It is because it does not work. What evidence do I cite, before Government members interject on me? I cite the Minister’s own words. The Minister, on Radio New Zealand—and we have the transcript—and in other places, when asked: “How many cars, Minister, will be crushed?”, do members know what she said? She said 10. But that was not the rhetoric that was used as she built up a big head of steam over months on the crushing issue. No, she said that everybody will be closer to the crusher.

I say to the Minister that in Christchurch there are 1,000 boy-racer cars a night, on a bad night, on a Friday or a Saturday night. I know that Christchurch is not the centre of the universe, so I cite Hamilton and other places. The Minister says that 10 cars a year are likely to be crushed. Then when pushed on it on Radio New Zealand, she said: “Oh, but I know the judges will do it.” I say to the Minister that she does not know that, I did not know that, and no one knows that, but I hope they will. The Minister is a lawyer and she does not know that the judges will do that. It is 10 cars a year that will be crushed, which proves it is a stunt.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: It’s more than you’ve done.

I do not have 10 cars. We can see the photo opportunity now, of the Minister hitting the button at the first crushing. I wonder whether the Minister would be prepared to tell us why crushing 10 cars a year is going to work. What sort of signal will that send?

Then there is the other issue, of course, about somebody whose vehicle might be the only asset that person has. The Minister has put out a press statement saying she is going to have cars recycled back into the community. If, by the Minister’s own words, only 10 cars a year are going to be crushed, then this press statement from her is bunkum; it is absolute bunkum. There is no evidence, and the police have produced no evidence, to say there will be recycling. We can dispose of the car any way we like. I say we should maximise its value, because most of these people have fines and court costs, and I do not think the innocent should pay the fines and court costs of the offender.

But there it is. Ten cars a year will be crushed. That proves it is a stunt. We have 1,000 boy-racer cars a night in Christchurch, and hundreds of such cars a night around the country, and the Minister is condemned by her own words. Only 10 cars a year will be crushed. How many people out in the real world actually thought, when the Minister was going around, huffing and puffing, that it would be only 10 cars a year? “Every car will be closer to the crusher.”, she said. She is desperate, absolutely desperate, to get this crushing clause through, so that it can be worn as a badge of honour. At the end of each year she will have 10 badges of 10 cars, as 500, 600, or 1,000 cars maraud their way around Christchurch. That proves it will not work, and that proves it is a stunt. I say to the Minister that even the Police Association, in its own submission—and the Minister is wont to quote the Police Association—said: “the car-crushing provisions are unfortunately ‘a side show that looks good’ ”.

It was very interesting to hear the Hon Clayton Cosgrove speak. He has taken the last two calls in this debate on the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill, and has talked particularly about his Supplementary Order Paper 70, which proposes mandatory confiscation of a substitute’s vehicle—that is, a vehicle owned by a third party—after a second offence.

What he failed to mention in his last two speeches was that his Supplementary Order Paper also proposes to omit the provision for the destruction of cars of recidivist boy-racers or illegal street racers. He has forgotten to tell the very good people who are listening to this debate that he is too scared to send these cars off to the crusher. Apparently it is all to do with the fact that he does not want to have stunts. It is a bit rich for that member to talk about stunts or strutting. I think we have all seen quite a lot of that from him.

This bill tidies up the loopholes left by the previous Government’s legislation, which was championed by the member who has just resumed his seat, Clayton Cosgrove. That legislation had the best of intentions, but it did not work because it had loopholes that one could drive a Mack truck through and still not touch the sides. National has listened to the people. I thank the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, and its chair David Bennett in particular, for the work it has done on this bill. This bill has come back to the House with amendments. I am surprised at the member Mr Cosgrove, who is now speaking so passionately about the bill, because he did not once attend a select committee hearing or listen to one of the submissions. If he was so interested in the bill he would have attended the select committee, but he did not. Instead, we now have a Supplementary Order Paper from Mr Cosgrove that simply does not deal with the issue.

The police are looking forward to this bill coming through in its entirety. They are particularly looking forward to having provisions with some teeth in them. We would like to see no cars crushed, because that would mean that this bill has done its job of stopping unwanted behaviour.

This bill is not about retribution; it is about public safety and about listening to the people. I believe that Part 1 goes some way towards giving back to the people of Canterbury, Hamilton, Lower Hutt, Dunedin, Palmerston North, Rotorua, South Auckland, and now west Auckland some of the power to have their roads used for legitimate purposes.

I want to respond on behalf of the Labour Opposition to the Minister’s comments, and to note that in her contribution the Minister failed to mention a couple of things. First of all, she did not mention that under the provisions of the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill there is no mandatory crushing or confiscation of cars. She can talk tough all she likes, and she can talk about loopholes—and Labour supports closing loopholes—but we need to be honest.

This Parliament needs to put on the record that this bill does not provide for mandatory crushing. It is all just a bit of a media stunt. There is a whole lot of talking up an issue that is important to a whole lot of people. I was on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, and I heard about how this issue is hurting people, and about the damage it is doing to them. That is why we have tried to be helpful to the Government by proposing an amendment.

I acknowledge my colleague Clayton Cosgrove and the work he has done over the years on this issue. It is not a new issue for members on this side of the Chamber. We have been working on it for many, many years. We hoped that we would get some cooperation from the Government in the interests of community safety, because we want to see this bill work. We want to see it do what it was originally proposed to do, and to see it close the loopholes that, we freely admit, were there. Another speaker said earlier tonight that we may have to be back in a year closing loopholes and addressing this bill again. Well, what is wrong with that? That is the nature of making laws. We do not always get everything right the first time, and I predict that we will not get this one right the first time either.

I feel very, very sorry for the people of Christchurch, Hamilton, and other cities who believe that this bill, which the Minister has gone through the country talking up and talking tough about, will not deliver. That is why, as I said, Labour members have offered a solution to the Government. We were looking forward to hearing from the Minister whether she would support it, but I guess we have gathered that she is not going to support our Supplementary Order Paper. The thinking behind our Supplementary Order Paper is that it does not really make a lot of difference to offenders whether their cars are confiscated or crushed, because, either way, they lose their cars for good. That is the point.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Just wind her up.

What is the Hon Tau Henare trying to tell me, over there? He is trying to remember his days in his V8, is he? He is trying to remember the good old days and to relive his glory days in the old V8 out in west Auckland—in the 1980s, was it not?

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Seventies!

Sorry, was it the 1970s? OK.

The only people who will suffer from the crushing of cars will be New Zealand taxpayers, who will essentially foot the bill for unpaid fines that cannot be recovered. The Minister likes to talk tough, but it turns out that the new confiscation and destruction order will be only a last resort. It is not mandatory. The court may order a vehicle to be destroyed, and it can do so only if the offender has been convicted three times within 4 years. That is a higher threshold than the current law has for mandatory confiscation of a vehicle.

We have, as I said, tried to offer a solution to what we see as an important issue. I think everybody on all sides of the Chamber is genuine in trying to find some solutions to this awful problem for communities. As I have said many times, I fear that the public have been led to believe that this bill is a solution, when it simply will not work.

This is what I do not understand: if a member admits that there is a loophole in the law that needs to be closed, why would the member table a Supplementary Order Paper that reopens it? If a member wanted to strengthen the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill, why would the member put in a Supplementary Order Paper that weakens it? That is what Supplementary Order Paper 75 does. It really underscores the confusion that Labour members have concerning this part of the legislation. The Labour minority report from the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee said that this bill would amend the situation around section 129. It does no such thing; the provisions in section 129 that relate to the owner and offender remain. There is the mandatory confiscation of the car if the owner who was an offender commits a second offence. The member Clayton Cosgrove, by his own admission, said there was a loophole: people were selling cars to each other and they were transferring ownership willy-nilly. This part of the bill will fix that. Why he would raise a Supplementary Order Paper that completely undoes that, I do not know. It would also put the vehicles back on to the market. Who is the market for illegal street racers’ vehicles? It is illegal street racers. So what are we going to do? We will have the situation where cars are completely recycled, and I cannot see that as being an improvement whatsoever. So we really have to shoot the Supplementary Order Paper down in flames, and see it for what it is: a confused response by a confused party to very clear legislation that will improve things.

I also strongly endorse the Minister of Police’s comments around the number of cars that are crushed. How can a party possibly think that a high number of crushed cars is success? Surely, the opposite applies. The magic number would be zero, because that would mean we had improved compliance and reduced illegal street racing. For that reason, I cannot support Supplementary Order Paper 75, and I strongly support Part 1 of the bill.

I start by saying that Labour members are supporting the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill with amendments. We will continue to support any genuine efforts to make progress in this area. That is because this is a serious issue. All of the speakers from this side of the Chamber and, frankly, all the speakers from that side of the Chamber have acknowledged that this is a serious problem. I acknowledged when I spoke last time not only my colleague Clayton Cosgrove’s effort but also the fact that the Government is doing something in this space.

We are trying to raise areas where there are concerns. I think that Mr Woodhouse’s contribution was a little confused. He started out by saying that Supplementary Order Paper 75 weakens the provision, but that is actually one of the Government’s Supplementary Order Papers. We put forward Supplementary Order Paper 73, and we intend to put up a proposition to toughen this bill.

I also start by acknowledging the people who submitted to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on this bill. There were 58 of them. A lot of those people did not actually support the crushing part of the bill. Those of us who looked at it carefully saw that there are some very useful things in it; I want to add my comments to those made by Mr Cosgrove about the closing of the loophole regarding third parties. I think that is a very sensible move. That is a very good part of this bill.

Basically the bill has a number of provisions. They include strengthening, supposedly, the powers of the court to order confiscation; empowering courts to order destruction; and strengthening provisions to seize motor vehicles to enforce collection of unpaid fines. I will focus particularly on the first two of those provisions in this initial contribution. As it stands at the moment, the focus has all been on the crushing provisions. Those have been, if you like, the window dressing that has shown the Government being tough. Already we have heard quite a clear contribution from Mr Cosgrove. He pointed out how tough, in fact, the legislation is. It says that offenders have been bad; then it says that they have been very, very bad; and then police might think about doing something about it. We need to be looking at real progress that builds on the legislation that was put in place by the previous Government, the Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Act of 2003.

We should also—and the police supported this—be looking at why the courts have been so hesitant in this area. We did not have a lot of conversation on that area in the select committee. We did not really nail what the issue was there. Basically, the rate of confiscation under the provisions of the current law is less than 2 percent. It begs the very real question that the police raised: if the courts are not using those current confiscation powers, what makes the Government think they will use the new destruction powers?

💬 Michael Woodhouse: Closing the loopholes.

The loophole is one part of it, and that is a positive, as we have said. That will deal with one of the issues, which is cars being registered in someone else’s name. But that is not the only reason why rates of confiscation are so low. We think, and this is the reason for our Supplementary Order Paper, that the focus should be on toughening up the current law so that vehicles are confiscated on a second offence, as the law intended. Really, it makes very little difference to the offender whether the car is confiscated or crushed because, either way, they do not have the car. I think that is the point.

We have talked about the fact that maybe 10 cars a year will be crushed. That does not seem to be all that tough. I think that the amendment that has been put up on Supplementary Order Paper 73 is worthwhile. I ask the Government to seriously consider supporting this amendment, because both the Government and the Opposition have said they want to deal with this problem. Both have said we should get tough on some of the people who are making other people’s lives a misery. Well, here is an opportunity to improve the bill that is before the Committee. Supplementary Order Paper 73 effectively provides for an amendment that will make it mandatory for a vehicle to be confiscated on a second boy-racer offence. That is what we will ensure. We do not agree with the crushing of cars, and we think that mandatory confiscation on a second offence—even when owned by a substitute for the offender, a third party—is a very useful contribution. I ask the Government to consider supporting it.

I am very pleased to speak on the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill in the Committee stage. I wish to make it clear that Labour supports this bill. The point we are trying to make in this debate is that the purpose of this bill was to toughen existing legislation that Labour introduced in its attempts to deal with the problems created by boy racers.

The Minister of Police, in her introductory remarks, talked about the need for behavioural change—not the need to be vindictive, but the need for behavioural change. I have to ask what behavioural change we will see from boy racers, who are smart, if somewhat ill-tempered people at times—

💬 Hon Members: Aw!

—and nasty, even; nasty! If we go through a process, when they have swapped their registration with their mates, where the first offence brings an “ooh-ooh” warning, then another offence takes place and another wet-bus-ticket warning arrives, and finally on the third offence there is a possibility that a judge may order the crushing of a car. What signal does that send to that boy racer? I do not think it sends a signal at all. When we are dealing with potentially 10 cars being crushed every year nationally, and my city of Christchurch makes up 10 percent of the national population, does that mean, I ask the Minister, that we will see one car crushed every year in Christchurch? What effect and what signal will that truly send when we have hundreds and hundreds of boy racers out on any given weekend around the avenues of Christchurch. Is one car being crushed a year supposed to create behavioural change?

That is why I support the Supplementary Order Paper from my colleague Clayton Cosgrove. I really believe that, as a Parliament, we are looking for an attempt to toughen the existing legislation. It is acknowledged that the legislation that is in place currently allows confiscation of cars on the second offence, but for some reason or other known only to judges, that does not seem to be happening as we believe it should be. Our Supplementary Order Paper simply says that a notice goes out to whoever owns the car, be it the mother or the mate of the offender, saying that if the offender does it again, the car is gone. There is no second offence warning; the car is gone. It is confiscated, and the car is either sold or it is dismembered and sold for parts.

The other point to remember about crushing, as we acknowledged in the commentary accompanying the bill, is, given we have a problem with fines being paid by boy racers, who will pay the cost of crushing? Who will pay the fines? I ask who will pay all of the costs involved. If the car is sent off for crushing, which will end up turning it into a metal cube of no real residual value, who will pay? That is why we are putting forward a Supplementary Order Paper in a genuine attempt to acknowledge that this bill has a number of good measures that pick up on the legislation introduced by the previous Labour Government to try to deal with the menace of boy racers.

We say let us not talk tough; let us truly get tough. Let us say to boy racers that if they are caught for an offence that can see a car being confiscated, they get one warning, and, on the second offence, that car is gone. It is “gone-burger”; it is history. I think that if the Minister is genuine in saying that she wants to see behavioural change, rather than taking some sort of vindictive approach or seeking a photo opportunity, this amendment will effect much more behavioural change, because there is no second chance. With regard to cars that are owned by mates or mums, when that first notice comes through the letterbox and says that this guy has done it and the car is history if it happens again, I think that will truly effect some behavioural change on the part of the people who own the cars.

We are saying, as an Opposition, that we support the bill. We want it to go further, and it deserves to go further. We do not want to see this matter back before Parliament again. That is what we want to see, and we will support this legislation.

I will start by quoting from the Police Association on this car-crushing bill, the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill. The Police Association said a very interesting thing in its submission to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. It stated: “the car-crushing provisions are unfortunately a ‘side show that looks good … but [which] in reality will have very little effect’.” That is what the Police Association said.

I will address what Mr Woodhouse, I think, said about the recycling of cars. We cannot have it both ways. If we want to prevent recycling, as the member said, then we would have the mass crushing of cars, which is what the Minister in the chair, the Hon Judith Collins, basically told everybody would happen. Everybody would be “closer to the crusher”, she said in baritone-like tones. But now that the Minister says only 10 cars a year will be crushed, I ask the member how that will prevent recycling. That is nonsense; it is complete bunkum. It is a complete stunt. Everybody out there thought that the Minister was talking about mass car crushing, when she said everybody would be “closer to the crusher”. Then she said—and we have the transcripts; she said this on at least three occasions—it would be 10 cars a year. Well, I am sure that boy racers will be shaking in their boots, knowing that 10 cars a year, out of the thousands that cause mayhem around the country damn near every day, will be crushed. I am sure they are shaking in their boots at the thought of 10 cars going per year. It is just illogical, and it is a stunt.

If the Minister wants to have any credibility in this debate, she ought to explain why she gave everybody the impression that there would be mass crushing, but now says it will be 10 cars a year. I tell the Minister that that is not being tough. That is being weak. That is being incredibly weak, and we know that this Minister really wants to appear to any audience to be tough. I bet that people out there did not quite realise, when she was scooting up the popularity stakes over this bill, that only 10 cars would be crushed per year.

I ask the Minister whether she will accept our amendment. The amendment simply states that instead of sending out two naughty letters—one letter to say somebody has been naughty, and then another letter to say a judge might actually do something by ordering that the car either be crushed or be confiscated car permanently—one letter will be sent to the owner of the car to say that if somebody runs amok in the wagon again, it is gone, and to say a judge will order that. The amendment takes away the option of merely not crushing the car, because if the car is not crushed it would be confiscated permanently. I asked the Minister whether, if she will not accept that amendment but is desperate to keep the crushing provisions in the bill, she will put forward an amendment to say there will be one warning and then the car will be subject to mandatory confiscation and mandatory crushing. She might have thought about doing that if she wanted to be really tough, but she has rejected that without giving any logical reason for doing so.

There has been no real evidence of recycling. If anybody thinks that a boy racer who loses his $30,000 souped-up Nissan Skyline can nip around the corner to Turners Auctions and spend another $30,000 to buy it back, then I say that person should wake up. The car does not have to be sold as a whole; it could be disposed of in parts, as my colleague said. It could be disposed of in a number of ways, but the value would be preserved. We may wonder why we would want to preserve the value of a boy racer’s car, when he or she has gone around and made life difficult for people and caused havoc for the community. Boy racers, as a number of folk on both sides of the Chamber have said, normally have a heck of a lot of fines and owe a heck of a lot of court costs. If we take their car away from them, often it is the only asset they have. I am not getting teary-eyed over boy racers, but I think that the smart thing to do would be to utilise the value of the parts, the bits—or of whatever form the car may be in; I do not mind—to pay off the court costs and the fines, the tow truck fees, and the full disposal costs, rather than to have innocent folks in the community doing that through their taxes.

It will be interesting. Maybe the Minister will propose an amendment, if she is desperate to keep the car-crushing clause in the bill, to say there will be one warning, and then a judge must take away and/or crush the vehicle. That would give the Minister what she really wants, which is the photo opportunity with her finger on the button and her hands on the launch codes of the crusher. I ask her whether she will propose such an amendment. It would be really interesting to have her response on that.

I wonder whether Nicky Wagner, who did not speak in the noise debate—she was rolled on the 90 decibel issue—but who had put a stake in the ground and said the Government would sort the matter out, is prepared to go to the people of Christchurch and say that in the case of a car owned by a third party, the first thing that will happen if somebody runs amok is that the third party will get a letter to say somebody has been naughty. The third party will then get a second letter, maybe a letter from Judith Collins herself to really scare him or her, saying that somebody has been really naughty. Then on a third offence, Nicky Wagner will be able to tell her community, small though it is, that a judge may, if he or she sees fit on a good day, if the stars are aligned, take the car forever and/or crush it. But there is nothing in the bill in respect of a third-party owner that says a judge must act in the way I have described, whereby the car is taken, or crushed, or both. There is nothing in the legislation; it is entirely up to the judge.

I say to the Minister that I—even in respect of my legislation—and the police believed in our learned judiciary, and believed that judges would act on this issue. Even those people who did not go through the loophole that the Minister has quite rightly closed believed judges would act on the issue. Even the Police Association, as I have said, called the Minister’s crushing of 10 cars a year a sideshow.

I support the legislation, because I think what happens to our communities is an indictment of boy racers. We are offering goodwill on this side of the Chamber. We will support the bill, but we are offering an amendment. The Minister may want to put up her own amendment, which may agree with the provision in the amendment that relates to mandatory confiscation and crushing on a second offence. We are offering some assistance in this way, but it will be very interesting to hear the Minister’s explanations as to why a third-party owner receives one letter that says somebody has been naughty, receives another letter to say somebody has been even naughtier, and then it is all over to a judge. It is a lottery.

How does the weak Minister explain that? She wants to be seen as tough. How does she explain that, and how—

💬 David Bennett: Jealous!

I am certainly not jealous, I say to that member in all sincerity. I am certainly not jealous. That is a silly comment. How will Nicky Wagner or Gerry Brownlee in Christchurch, or other members, explain that the Minister is so tough that someone receives two letters and then the decision is up to a judge. Everybody thought that all the boy racers’ cars would be lined up, and maybe Gerry Brownlee would attend personally to do the crushing himself. People believed the cars would be lined up and crushed one after another. In the immortal words of the Minister, which are etched on to the memory of every journalist, every car was to be “closer to the crusher”. That is what she said. People thought it was a good thing.

I can understand why people want these cars to be crushed: they thought it would be done en masse, and they thought it would get rid of the problem. Now that the Minister has been forced to come clean, she said on Radio New Zealand National, when challenged about the 10 cars that are to be crushed per year, that she knew judges would order this. Oh, really? Well, maybe she has a crystal ball that the rest of us do not have. Maybe she has received commitments from judges who have said they will crush 10 cars a year. But the Minister cannot have it both ways. If Mr Woodhouse is worried about recycling, then why would we not crush the cars en masse? Why would we not make it compulsory that the cars be crushed? The bizarre schizophrenic argument that is now brought up is that the Government members do not think the mass crushing of cars is a victory. Well, the Minister did say it would be; it was a cause célèbre for the Minister. This was her big Clint Eastwood moment in the sun, in MGM gun-slinging style. Everybody believed that the crushing of cars en masse would occur. I thought that would occur until I saw the legislation. I could not believe what I saw, because I thought the Minister would be as good as her word.

💬 Paul Quinn: You can’t look us in the eye.

I can look that member in the eye. Absolutely! It is a pity he cannot make a decent argument.

I say to the Minister that members on this side of the Chamber have some goodwill. We have put up Supplementary Order Paper 73 in my name in good faith. If she wants to amend it to preserve her crushing clause, she could do it. My amendments say someone would get one warning as a third party, then the car would go for ever. That is far tougher than any clause in this bill. I do not beat my chest over that, but I offer that measure to the Minister. I ask her to give me a good reason why we should give someone two letters that say a driver has been naughty and then leave it up to a judge to decide what happens to the car, other than the Ministry of Justice advice that the legislation provides a good balance. Well, the Minister should tell that to the people of Blackett St in Rangiora, who are terrorised by a hoon each night. The owner will not control the vehicle, because the owner is a mate of the person who offends, yet the owner will get two letters from the police that say somebody has been really naughty and then it will be up to a judge. How tough is that? How will the Minister explain that to a person in Blackett Street, which is in my patch and has been particularly hit hard by boy racing? Is she prepared to give us an explanation now? Is she prepared to tell us why somebody should get two warnings, and then it is up to the lottery of a judge’s decision as to whether the car should be disposed of in any way? Is she prepared to answer that question? She is not so tough now. There is silence. There is silence from all of the members on the Government side of the Chamber.

But I want to be given an explanation. I really want to be given an explanation, and I know that the communities would like to be given an explanation. Maybe as the debate on this bill goes on, we will get one. The bill ain’t tough at all, and the Minister knows that.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 69 in the name of the Hon Judith Collins to Part 1 be agreed to.