Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill

The debate on this part includes the schedule.

It was interesting to hear the Minister’s comments in respect of Labour’s position on the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill. She said we are being too tough. I find that a little ironic. I reflect back to the accompanying bill, the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill, which was passed last night, where we had another example of a party talking tough but going easy. Like this bill’s companion measure and the promises and pledges to deal with the issue of noise decibel ratings that failed to materialise in it, we have a similar issue here about how we are actually going to enforce the seizure and confiscation of boy racers’ cars.

The comments from the Minister about how the bill needs to be framed to make sure that grandad does not lose his car are interesting, because most of the cars are not owned by grandads; the boy racers do a swap procedure where one owns the other’s car and vice versa. The measures of this bill allowing three warnings before a car may—just may—be seized and crushed will hardly send the sort of message that the community is going to be frightened in its boots about.

When we talked earlier about the issue of cars under the alternative proposal of Supplementary Order Paper 73, tabled by my colleague Clayton Cosgrove and now defeated by the Committee, the Minister suggested that if cars were to go to auction, we could see a $20,000 car being sold for $300. It was interesting to hear David Garrett comment on that. He was talking about an old dunger—I presume he was referring to a car rather than himself—and how he had bought a $2,500 car for $1,200. I think that is more the order of things. We tend to be able to buy cars at auction at considerably less than their value, but certainly not at some sort of giveaway price in most cases.

💬 David Garrett: Mine had a reserve. Theirs will have no reserve.

Well, if finance companies were likely to have a very, very major interest in most of those cars going to auction, under the proposal that Labour tabled, does the member think that finance companies are going to let their interest in a motor vehicle disappear?

💬 Paul Quinn: That’s right. Now you’ve got it! You’ve finally worked it out, Brendon!

I ask Mr Quinn whether he can give me an example of where a finance company, on any piece of asset in this country, would allow its interest to be given away at some sort of fire-sale price. Not at all! There is no prospect of that, whatsoever.

The Minister then suggested that the police wanted the crushing mechanism because they said that it would deal with the concerns that they have. That is interesting, because my clear understanding is that when this issue first came up at the start of this year, the very clear call from the police in respect of how best to deal with the boy-racer issue was for the Government to introduce a cease and desist mechanism, whereby the issue of where boy racers assemble and congregate could be dealt with. The police’s proposal was that after a first gathering of boy racers on a street corner, at a set of traffic lights or wherever, if the police saw behaviour that was going to lead to disorder, they could issue a cease and desist order, and the next time such an assembly took place the boy racers would be walloped. So if the Minister is saying that she wants to be tough, and if the Minister is saying she is doing what the police asked, could she comment about what happened to the cease and desist order idea?

We have in its place a bill that says “three strikes and maybe—just maybe—you will be out”, but that was not what was indicated. I have a press report from earlier in the year reporting that when the legislation was introduced to Parliament in May, Judith Collins claimed: “every offence”—for street racing—“will bring them closer to the crusher.” Will they be closer to the crusher with every new offence? Well, we have discovered that that is not the case. What we will see is a “three strikes” policy, and maybe—just maybe—a person will be affected if the judge decides to be tough. That is why it was a shame that last night the Committee did not support the Supplementary Order Paper tabled by my colleague Clayton Cosgrove, because, as David Garrett has indicated, I think we will be back in the Chamber quite soon looking at these issues again.

It was interesting to note that Mr Garrett, as a member of a party that supports the “three strikes” policy, suggested that he would like it to be a “two strikes” policy. I say to the member that he had the opportunity last night to propose an amendment to amend Labour’s Supplementary Order Paper. He could have supported it, but he did not. So, effectively, he is voting for something that he does not have that much belief in. How can he and his party do that?

Part 3 is actually about the Privacy Act, but as the previous speaker, Mr Burns, has ranged wide and free, I think we should correct a few of the statements he has made. What he is doing, and his party has consistently done today and last evening, is to repeat the errors that they made in Labour’s minority report to the House. I hate to disabuse them of this, but, frankly, a substitute’s car—in other words, a car that is owned by someone else—can actually be confiscated on the second offence, after one warning. That is provided for in new section 128(2)(b), which is inserted by clause 6. Their comments show that, yet again, they have not read the provision. So whatever the Labour members on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee were doing, they certainly were not listening when the officials from the New Zealand Police and the Ministry of Transport were trying to tell them what the bill said.

Mr Burns has made some comments about finance companies. He seems to think that they will miraculously turn up at auctions and buy back cars or stop them being sold. It is a good point, except that under the legislation that the Government has inherited from the previous Government, the finance companies had no idea what was happening to the car, because nobody ever told them. What this legislation does by its written warning procedure is advise the finance company about what is happening.

In picking up on Mr Burns’ comment about finance companies, I believe that one of those written warnings, delivered by a member of the New Zealand Police, will make a very strong statement about the security of the asset. I believe that they will have it stated in their finance agreements, if they do not already, that if their asset is being used illegally, then they will take action.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Make it one warning. Why make it three warnings?

The member calls out and asks why we should give them three warnings. Well—

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Two warnings.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS:—two warnings, now he says. It is three warnings, rather than two warnings. I think it is very important that the member understands that it will take only one letter to make the message very plain to these finance companies, because, as Mr Burns rightly says, they do not want to lose their security. But at the moment they do not even know what is going on. They do not understand that the car is being confiscated or sold off. They do not understand what is going on, because, frankly, nobody tells them. How are they supposed to suddenly know that that is happening, unless we tell them? That is one of the very important provisions that we have in the bill. This is not about taking cars off people; it is not about any of that. It is about the behaviours, and the people most likely to influence behaviour are the people who have the right to take the car. In most cases we will find that finance companies can do that, if they know that their car is being used illegally.

I commend this part to the Committee. This part has amendments to the Privacy Act, but I think it is important that I correct some of the misstatements made both today and yesterday, and actually for the last 6 or 7 months, by the Labour Party.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I call Carol Beaumont but before I do, I just want to bring members back to Part 3. This part is very narrow, and I ask members to concentrate on that part.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I think there is quite a bit of precedent, and it happened in Part 2 when the Minister was the first to initiate comments that ranged far wider than the part. The Minister brought other material into the debate, and we must be able to address that.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I thank the member. I have allowed a pretty wide-ranging debate on Parts 1 and 2, and there has been a good exchange. But Part 3 has only two clauses. It is very narrow.

She didn’t have to say that.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The Minister was responding to the previous speaker, who had canvassed other areas, and she did say that, but she also identified that Part 3 was about privacy provisions. I am asking future speakers please to concentrate on the two clauses in Part 3.

I rise to speak on Part 3 of the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill, “Amendment to Privacy Act 1993”. Clause 29 states that Part 3 amends the Privacy Act. Clause 30 and the schedule amend schedule 5 of the Privacy Act, which authorises Government agencies to access law enforcement information held by other specified Government agencies. The amendment serves the purpose of giving the Ministry of Justice access to police records relating to vehicles impounded for 28 days and access to personal information on the drivers and registered owners of these vehicles. Labour members support these provisions. As a number of us have been saying throughout this process, we support a significant number of the provisions in this bill as part of a further strengthening of legal options around the issue of illegal street racing and boy racers. The reason we support it is that we understand the seriousness of the problem. Again, to set the record straight, I say that the previous Labour Government put in place very strong legislation, which still sits on the statute book and is stronger than what applies in Australia, for example. I acknowledge that work. The Minister has previously acknowledged that work, and I recognise that fact.

This is an attempt to close some loopholes and, in that regard, we fully support that work. That is not what this part of the bill is referring to, however, and I have taken on board the Chair’s comments. We are talking about amendments to the Privacy Act. We have no difficulty with these provisions at all, but in relation to the comments made previously by the Minister, I say that some elements of the select committee process worked a lot better than others. Certainly, the submission process worked very well. I think that everybody got a great deal of benefit from the process, both from the submissions of individuals affected by the issue of illegal street racing, which was particularly profound in Christchurch, and from the submissions made by various organisations, such as the Automobile Association, the New Zealand Police, and the Police Association.

In speaking to Part 3, I have to note that no submissions were made on this part. But I noticed that the select committee worked less well in some other areas, particularly around the deliberation and consideration stage, where quite complicated matters were being rushed through, with the officials being put under unreasonable time constraints to produce documentation and deal with the questions being raised. I note that point.

In concluding, I say that Labour’s view is that we support much of this bill. Our sole purpose has been to ensure that where it needs to be tightened, it should be. We say—and, in fact, members across the Chamber say—that we are serious about this issue. If we are serious about this issue and if we can toughen up on some of the provisions, then we should. Thank you.

Part 3 agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2