Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill

The title of this bill is the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill. Without labouring the point that has been made by others—and that is despite a lack of generosity from the Minister, but that is what we have come to expect—I say that Labour members support the bill. As my colleague has said previously, we support many of the clauses and the ideas contained in this bill. Why would we not? We have raised a number of issues, especially in relation to the level of warnings and the level of powers that courts are given, or are not given. The title of this bill could be perceived to be a bit of a misnomer, because it could be the “Vehicle Confiscation (Maybe if a Court Thinks So) Bill”, the “Discretionary Vehicle Confiscation the Minister has Given to the Court if One is a Third Party Bill”, or the “After Two Warnings and Two Letters a Court Might Choose to Seize and Confiscate the Vehicle Permanently Bill”. I do not think that is what New Zealanders signed up for when they supported this legislation, and they do support it. They signed up so that some balanced but tough legislation would be put in place.

The issue has been canvassed in respect of finance companies, in respect of parents, and in respect of the vast majority of boy racers, who are the ones who change the ownership to a third party—they flick the ownership into each other’s names. The Minister has chosen to give two written warnings and then to leave it up to a court. Maybe I would have bought the idea of the legislation having two written warnings and then saying to the court that it must act. I do not particularly agree with that but I would probably have had a bit more goodwill towards it. But in relation to the third party issue and the confiscation of vehicles, when we are looking at the title of this bill we might call it the “One Letter, Two Letters, and Maybe a Court Might Do Something Bill”. We are saying to a third party: “We are going to extend so much goodwill to you that we will write to you once and say somebody has run amok, then write to you again and say somebody has run amok.” I would have thought we would conclude that if it takes three occasions for the third party owner to sort out his or her own arrangements to stop a car going out of his or her control into the hands of somebody else, then that person does not deserve to have that vehicle, at all. The Minister said that we should give owners a warning, and I agree with that; that is fair.

If we are worried about dad and mum, who might be in Sydney when Johnnie takes the car and goes nuts, then, fair enough, a warning should be given. There are provisions in the legislation to protect people’s rights, of course. We should give them a warning, then let those parents sort it out. Then, if on a second occasion they refuse to take responsibility for the control of their own vehicle and they let their same son or daughter run amok again, I say that the courts should act and they should act deliberately, as they do if a person is both the owner and the offender: the courts can act deliberately on a first offence and take the vehicle, and it is mandatory that they act deliberately on a second offence and take the vehicle. I do not think that most people would buy the argument: “I didn’t quite know Johnnie had taken the car for a second time. I didn’t take any measures to sort him out and take the keys off him, or whatever.” I think people would say: “Well, you got a warning, you didn’t control your son or daughter, so it’s out.”

But even putting that matter aside in respect of the title, this bill is not about kids taking their parents’ car and going nuts in it. This, as the police have told us before, is about boy and girl racers who change the ownership of their respective cars, as time and time again over months the Minister has quite rightly pointed out. They change the ownership arrangements of their own vehicles amongst themselves. In that case, I do not think we should be giving them one “naughty” letter, two “naughty” letters, then saying to a judge: “It’s over to you, judge. It’s up to you. We wash our hands of it.” I would have thought, if the Minister’s intentions were pure, that she would say: “All right, things can go wrong. It is possible that the young person may not have known that their mate took the car and went crazy, so let’s send them a short, sharp shock.”, as she terms it. But she is guaranteeing to Parliament that the behaviour will change absolutely once a person gets a letter, hand-delivered, apparently, by a New Zealand police officer.

Well, that is great; it is another job that the New Zealand Police have to do. They will now be courier drivers. They will have to take the letters around personally, rather than freeing up those same police staff to deal with serious crime. A squadron of them in a blue uniform will now probably be employed to hand-deliver letters to people. That is interesting, is it not? What happened to back office, front office, and front line, and to getting rid of bureaucracy? It is an interesting point.

I would have thought there should be one letter that states that if it happens again there will be a consequence. As I say, for a young person it may have been unintended; somebody else may have taken the young person’s car for a joyride. When the young person gets the letter, that young person should say: “Hang on—I’m not letting this happen again.”, and he or she should take control of the keys. The keys should stay in the pocket and should not be left around the kitchen table, perhaps. But if it happens again, the judge must take the car. I think that is a reasonable proposition. To be honest, I have gone around and talked to a lot of parents and folks, listened to what they have said, and I have not had anybody who disagrees with me.

People are shocked, though, when we explain to them the content of this legislation, say that the Minister has differentiated between third party and owner-offender, and tell them how she has actually weakened the bill. The Minister talks about a couple of warnings—“Let’s be fair.”, she says. “Let’s not be Draconian. Let’s find some balance.”, she says. Maybe this bill should be called the “Judith Collins (Fairness, Balance, and Non-Draconian Measures) Bill”. Of course, that was not what Judith Collins was saying months ago when she was firing from the lip before officials got to her and said: “Hang on, Minister; there are a couple of other things you should know about this. Before you go out and raise expectations, we need to look at how this will work practically on the ground.”

I hope these measures work, because people have had a gutsful of this problem. What we have tried to do in this debate, and what we are trying to do in respect of clause 1, the title debate, is to point out to the Minister—and she has this permanent smile on her face, has she not; this permanently humble smile—

💬 Paul Quinn: Because she’s happy!

Well, I wonder. I challenge the Minister to go around the country, and I wonder whether she will have the same smile on her face if this legislation does not work. We have offered some suggestions, some amendments, and some assistance. Our good will is pure, because we are backing this bill. As I have said before, this will be the “Judith Collins (Accountability Measures) Bill”. The Minister in the chair, Judith Collins, is laughing and gesticulating in her humble way, but this legislation will give us the opportunity to hold the Minister to account when this legislation does not work, and when the boy racers thumb their noses not only at the Minister, and not only at Parliament, but at the police.

It is interesting that we had the revelation by chance this morning that we will have uniformed front-line officers going around delivering letters because the Minister said—

💬 Carol Beaumont: There are fewer cars.

With fewer cars, the letters will be delivered on foot or via taxi. The Minister has said that behaviour will change when a letter arrives that is delivered by a member of the New Zealand Police force. Well, that is interesting, is it not? When the choice is to act on that delivery or a burglary, the signal from the Minister will be to get around and deliver those letters because her reputation will be on the line.

Again, in the dying stages of this bill I go on record as saying that we will show the courtesy of supporting the bill, because it will be a litmus test for this Minister. There is a huge gap in the rhetoric and in terms of what the Minister could have done. Maybe she did not think of accepting our amendment, or maybe the officials did not recommend that action to her, but if she had accepted our amendment I would have congratulated her on it, because that would have shown a bipartisan approach. Who cares where the idea has come from? Let us see whether we can make the show work. I recall that in respect of my bill we had quite a few good ideas from a number of MPs around Parliament and in the select committee. I thought we should adopt them, and we did adopt them. That is what I have said in relation to this bill, but the Minister has chosen, in her own inimitable and humble way, to plough on ahead.

I just note that this bill could well be the “Judith Collins Accountability Bill”, because we will see in the next 12 months to 2 years exactly what the measures will do. Then I suspect, as Mr Garrett has pointed out—and I welcome his support—that we may well be back here amending the legislation. The problem with that, of course, will be that that is another 2 years in which people from Mr Garrett’s patch and around the country will have had to put up with this legislation. It will be ironic if we return to this place and put through the amendment that this Minister has turned down. It will be ironic, but it will also be very sad and tragic for those people who will have had to put up with it, yet again, for another year or two.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

The Committee divided the bill into the Sentencing (Vehicle Confiscation) Amendment Bill, the Summary Proceedings (Vehicle Seizure) Amendment Bill, and the Privacy Amendment Bill, pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 70.

Bill reported with amendment.

Report adopted.