Land Transport (Vehicle User Safety) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Land Transport (Vehicle User Safety) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee to consider the bill. I am going to channel Assistant Speaker Mallard’s advice to backbenchers and give a first-reading speech without reading a speech written word for word.

This bill is an unashamed and genuine attempt to deal with and assist local members from my electorate and around Auckland with an issue that motorists in Auckland and other parts of New Zealand deal with on a regular basis, and that is the issue of window washers. Window washers are well known to many individuals who use the roads and sit at traffic lights on a regular basis. Window washers, both in Auckland—

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: Is that hand movement deliberate?

Yes, thank you, Mr Lees-Galloway. The issue of window washers is not just a safety issue; it is also a law and order issue. It is a safety issue because the window washers at intersections are not just putting themselves at risk—and they do so by running in and out of traffic—they actually cause quite a nuisance at intersections to those who use vehicles. They also can be relatively intimidating for those who are—[Interruption] Excuse me, Mr Tabuteau?

💬 Fletcher Tabuteau: You don’t think that might be an existing offence?

Well, I will get to that, Mr Tabuteau. I will get to that, Mr Tabuteau, if you just listen. The issue of window washers is that they cause intimidation and they cause a nuisance at intersections. The Auckland Council and many councils around the country get, literally, hundreds of complaints on a regular basis about the issue of window washers. As local members of Parliament, we meet regularly with New Zealand Police and we meet regularly with business associations in the Auckland area, and this is a consistent complaint that I have been receiving as a member of Parliament.

Investigating the issue around window washers, it is obvious that Auckland Council has a by-law around them, and other councils around the country have by-laws around window washers too. It usually fits within the nuisance provisions that councils have in their schemes of by-laws. The trouble with by-laws is that they are enforceable only if it is easy and effective for a local authority to enforce them. The trouble with window washers, and the trouble with the safety and nuisance issues that they create, is that dealing with window washers and enforcing the by-law requires a local authority to take a prosecution through the District Court. That is time-consuming, and that is very costly to the ratepayer. For a local authority’s individual staff member to attempt to gain a name and address from a window washer—that also poses safety issues for the staff members of the local authority.

New Zealand Police—in Auckland, particularly—has been actively involved in dealing with window washers. The New Zealand Police district commanders in the three Auckland districts have written to the Auckland Council in previous years, giving their support for the Auckland Council’s desire for an infringement regime to be established for window washers. The Auckland Council is firmly of the view that an infringement regime would be a far better way for it to deal with window washers. It would be far better for it because it would not require the council to go through the court system for prosecutions, and it would also mean that New Zealand Police would be able to tackle window washing effectively.

You may ask why New Zealand Police is quite involved with dealing with window washers. Window washers are on council roads, typically, and it is an issue that is a nuisance issue, which, typically, a council deals with. But the reason why New Zealand Police has spoken directly to me, as a local member of Parliament—and they talk consistently with the Auckland Council about window washers—is the ongoing, detrimental effects that window washers can have and the wider issues around them.

If one goes and researches and searches for news articles around window washing, one can come up with many, many examples of where window washers have caused other issues and other problems around the area where they are window washing. If I can read out some articles for the House: “Driver attacked by window washers” is a Radio New Zealand article, based in Greenlane. “Window washers attack schoolchildren in Auckland” is an example of a news article from Epsom. An article from Whangarei says: “ ‘I’m terrified of them’—fear in Whangarei over window washers”. An individual has said: “I’m feeling intimidated—actually, I’m terrified of them and generally try to avoid these intersections where possible.” In Rotorua—Mr Tabuteau might like this—“A police chief has labelled intersection window washers ‘criminals and drugs addicts’ who are prone to ‘irrational and aggressive’ behaviour.” In Christchurch we have: “Police are becoming increasingly worried by the behaviour of the windscreen washers and want the Christchurch City Council to give them authority to seize their equipment and prosecute them under the council’s public places bylaw.”

I readily accept that this is not the biggest crime of the century, but it is something that the likes of the Auckland Council and other councils around the country are dealing with on a regular basis. The Auckland Council tells me that, in 2015, it received 335 complaints around window washing. In 2016 the council received 413 complaints around window washing. When we have examples of people who are engaging in this activity going on to harass motorists, going on to intimidate motorists, when we have school children being attacked as well—and school children who are being harassed by individuals engaging in this—and we see other offences escalating out of that activity, then we have to ask ourselves whether this is something we should be assisting the councils with.

The council has firmly said to me, as a local MP—and it will say to anyone, I am sure, who is willing to listen—that a more effective method for dealing with window washers would be by way of an infringement notice. We already have an existing regime around land transport, through the Land Transport Act, where there is an infringement regime in place. A suggestion that was made to me was that a fine of $150, which fits in well with these types of offences under the Land Transport Act, would be an effective way to deal with this.

Now, I do not expect that police are going to be sitting at every intersection, watching for window washers; they are not going to do that. But New Zealand Police has a genuine concern that the activity of window washers, particularly where it involves youth gangs, can lead to other unsociable activities and can lead to other issues in an area. The police are of the view that if they have a tool in their tool box that they can use to move window washers on from an intersection, there will be a reduction in violence around intersections, there will be a reduction in antisocial behaviour, and there will be a reduction in complaints and the potential safety hazards that are around window washers—for themselves, when they run in and out of traffic, and for the motorists who are there who, from time to time, can find it quite intimidating. The police are firmly of the view that if they can tackle issues in the hot spots where they arise, that can be an effective method for dealing with them.

Not every intersection in the country has a problem—I accept that. But there are hot spots in Auckland and other parts of the country where window washing has been excessive and has led to problems. When we are getting hundreds of complaints, when we are getting many, many individuals concerned for their safety and feeling intimidated, and when local authorities are spending, literally, tens of thousands of dollars, if not more, clogging up court time through the District Court by taking prosecutions, a more simple and effective option—by giving police the tool available to them to issue infringement notices under the Land Transport Act—would, I believe, be a more effective tool.

I just want to touch—as I have got a few minutes remaining—on gang involvement. One of the concerns that I have had expressed to me very strongly is that this is not just individuals wanting to earn a few bucks here and there every hour; there is a strong presence of gangs involved in this particular activity as well, where gangs have been using the activity of window washing for recruitment and initiation. Where gangs are getting involved and where there is an escalation of antisocial behaviour out of an activity, I think that we can help the council and help Aucklanders more effectively with this issue.

It will also help other areas too. As I mentioned with these news articles, Christchurch, Rotorua, and Nelson are all experiencing problems around window washers from time to time. I am advised by the Auckland Council that the typical fine for a window washer prosecution is $200 to $400; however, the cost that the council incurs is up to $5,000. It currently has 61 offenders that are being prosecuted and dealt with by the courts, but there are approximately 170 cases being prepared and submitted for prosecution as well. This is not a one-off thing that happens from time to time, and it is not just a small issue that occurs; it is a genuine safety and law and order issue that I am trying to deal with as a local MP.

I want to say thanks to New Zealand Police for its advice on issues around this. I want to say thanks to Grant Barnes, Councillor Dick Quax, and former councillor Calum Penrose for their advice from the Auckland Council around this as well. I think this is a simple and effective option to assist with a road safety and law and order issue. We can assist councils around the country by passing this amendment bill.

Before I call Stuart Nash, I just want to place something on the record. I have, over a period of time, been relatively hard on members who have read their speeches. I think members should note that we have just had an introduction speech on a first reading, from a member who was clearly well prepared and had a number of notes, but did not read his speech at all. I think it is a very good example not only to other members but also to senior colleagues on both sides of the House.

Labour will be supporting the Land Transport (Vehicle User Safety) Amendment Bill because I think it is a pragmatic solution to an identified issue. Let me relay just a couple of stories. First of all, I remember when this started, actually. When I used to live in Auckland, on the corner of Pitt Street and—I cannot remember; there is a really big intersection there. It started off with one muscly guy who used to wear a bandana, washed a whole lot of windows, and people would sort of smile at him and give him a couple of coins. I am sure he made a whole lot of money. He did this for about a year, and then it caught on and spread like wildfire.

By the time I had left Auckland—I worked down at the Auckland University of Technology’s south campus—window washers had become a real pest, to the point where you would see everyone pull up to an intersection and put on their windscreen wipers just to make sure that they were not annoyed. So I understand what Jami-Lee Ross is saying, and I understand the problem that we have got. But the interesting thing about how this bill is drafted is that it is very—how do I say this—sort of National Government in the way that it reads. First of all, it talks about how the purpose of this bill is to provide for greater safety of road users. It does not talk about the guys who are running back and forth and washing the windows themselves—do not worry about them, they are not important; it is the people in the Audis and the big cars.

The other thing that is important is that, in fact, we have got to address the issues that lead to people washing windows, as opposed to window washers themselves. I actually see window washing, or the people—usually young kids, because they are not that old, often—out there washing windows as symptomatic of something that is wrong in our communities. If we took the extreme definition of innovation and entrepreneurship, I suppose what they are doing—let us leave the whole gang problem aside—is they are getting out there, they are earning a bit of money, and they are washing windows. The problem is the way in which they are doing it has become intimidatory, and it has moved away from sort of “OK, here’s a couple of young men making some pocket money.”, to a number of people perceiving that this is actually antisocial, this is bad, and it makes them feel unsafe.

When we talk about unsafe—it is interesting, when Rudy Giuliani took over as the Mayor of New York it was talked about as the “ungovernable city”. Crime was rife and it was in a really bad shape. The first thing that Rudy Giuliani did was he got rid of all the window washers. There was a perception that there were thousands of these window washers around New York; as it turned out there were only about 450 of them. They got rid of all the window washers and immediately—well, according to Rudy Giuliani himself, so this might be a little bit of massaging history—this was the first step in reclaiming New York back, and the perception was that the city had become a whole lot safer.

Again, I am assuming that maybe the tactics used by New York window washers were a little bit more aggressive than maybe the ones used in New Zealand, but the point I am making is that if people in their cars are actually feeling unsafe, or if they are feeling intimidated in any way, shape, or form, and if the police feel as if there is not a decent mechanism to deal with it, then we do have an issue. I think that this bill does address this issue in a way that we will certainly support to the select committee, and unless there is a compelling reason that we hear in the select committee, I cannot see why we would not support it all the way through. The reason I say that this is a pragmatic solution is, again, that the member outlined the process that police currently have to go through in order to get a prosecution. It is enormous cost, and our courts, as they are, are reasonably clogged, so you end up spending $4,000 to get $200 back, which just does not seem like a good use of resource.

The interesting thing is that we have another issue that is very, very similar, and, in fact, an exact same recommendation on how to deal with this was put forward, but it was rejected. If you can indulge me for a minute, we have a billion dollars per annum worth of retail crime. It is the same process: you get a shoplifter, the police have to bring them in, they have got to put them before the courts, and charge them under the Crimes Act. You may get a $200 or $300 fine, but it costs $2,000 or $3,000. The Retailers Association suggested an infringement notice with the same sort of thing: you fine them $100 or $200—just enough to make sure that it is a deterrent, but not enough to make sure that these pile up and they end up in jail for non-payment of fines.

The Government actually said: “No, no, no, they are well catered for at the moment, there’s not an issue here—we’re not going to implement these recommendations.” I find that a little strange, because what we need to do in this day and age of stretched police resources, of clogged courts, is actually look for pragmatic solutions to the issues that we find in our communities. This is a pragmatic solution that Jami-Lee Ross has brought forward, working with the police. The retail crime infringement notice is exactly the same. In fact, you could change the title of this bill to have it as the “Crimes Act Amendment Bill” and have also the same wording and the same outcome.

So what I would just ask that Government for is, please, a little bit of consistency when we are looking at dealing with low levels of crime, because the last thing we want to do is penalise those who really cannot afford it, in a way that ensures they end up in jail. The reason I say they end up in jail is that they end up with a $200 fine or a $100 fine, they cannot afford that, they are out there again, and they end up with another $200 or $100 fine. Onwards and onwards they end up with $2,000 or $3,000, and the only way they end up paying that back or paying it back to society is going into jail. Mike Williams talks about this—Mike Williams, the ex-president of the New Zealand Labour Party, now the herd of the Howard League for Penal Reform—

💬 Chris Bishop: Good guy.

Good guy. He said: “How many people in Hawke’s Bay Regional Prison in Hawke’s Bay have their driver’s licence? None.” The reason they are in jail is that it started with a small fine and it ended up in jail. What we do need to do here—

💬 Jonathan Young: But this is giving small fines.

Yes, no, I agree. I agree, Mr Young. What we do need to do here is make sure that we send the right signal, that it starts out as a warning: “Chap, you keep doing this,”—you know, a young window washer—“you’ll end up with a fine, or maybe a second warning. You’ll end up with a fine. That’s the promise. Then the third time, a fine.” What I would not want to see here is really punitive action where, as soon as someone is walking across the road with a squeegee, they end up with a $200 fine, then another $200 fine. From all we know, that will lead to someone going into jail because they cannot afford to pay their fine.

So this is a pragmatic response. We do support it, but we would just ask—I guess we will hear this at the select committee—that the police are advised to take a pragmatic approach to this, in a way that deals with the situation without creating another one. So, as mentioned, Labour will support the Land Transport (Vehicle User Safety) Amendment Bill, and I thank the member for bringing this to the House.

Thank you for the comments of Stuart Nash, the previous member who spoke. Can I just commend Jami-Lee Ross, who has brought this bill to the House. I think it is a well-thought-through bill, and I think there has obviously been consultation with councils, which face this problem for citizens, and also consultation with the New Zealand Police to try to find a way through that is going to enhance public safety and also ensure that we have safety on our roads.

Like Stuart Nash, who spoke just previously, we can all remember when this new work phenomena happened. In some regards, you tip your hat at people who have got some initiative and some incentive and who get out there and work, but it has got to be done in appropriate sorts of ways, and I do think that there is some discretion enabled through this proposed piece of legislation that could work. I remember when I lived in west Auckland, by the corner of Lincoln Road and Central Park Drive—

💬 Hon Alfred Ngaro: Yes, that’s right—I know where it is.

—Alfred Ngaro knows that bit of territory; it is his home base—and the first window washer I ever saw was a man who was like a street busker or like a street juggler. He was hugely entertaining, and people felt, when they flipped him a coin for washing the window, that they were getting great value for money.

But what we hear today is that now this has become such a common thing, and people who see this as far less like being a street busker—a profession—can turn up in great numbers and it can be quite intimidatory. In fact, I have read some accounts where one woman in Whangarei who did not want to have her window washed had a squeegee bottle thrown at her, and then somebody came running across the road and threw another bottle and dented her car. That sort of behaviour is completely unlawful. It is not what we want to see on New Zealand streets, in our towns, or on our roads, let alone the hazard that that can create not just for a vehicle for a driver but for general driving through our streets.

So I think what Jami-Lee Ross has also identified is that councils want to address this problem because there is an increasing concern about public safety and the safe movement of vehicles around intersections, and in order for them to create a by-law to say that you cannot do it, they can enforce that by-law only by taking a person to court, and there is a huge expense in that. If somebody fronts up, is taken to court, and says “Yes, I’m guilty. I did it.”, the average cost is at least $600. But if they do not turn up to that court hearing, and then there becomes a necessity for proof of identity and a rehearing, that cost can triple, and what you have in terms of a legislative deterrent to stop this behaviour becomes an incredible expense. So putting this misdemeanour, or this breaking of a by-law, into an infringement notice enables police in their discretion and in their judgment to be able, in a sense, to bring through an instant fine.

There will be times, no doubt, when, as Stuart Nash said, there will be warnings. We know that the police have diversionary schemes to stop the accumulation of fine debt by trying to bring in compliant behaviour through working with, particularly, young people, and I think the results speak for themselves. We have seen some great results in that sort of approach. But, as Jami-Lee Ross, the sponsor of this bill, has said, it is an excellent tool in the tool kit for New Zealand Police and also for councils.

I think it is a very good piece of drafted legislation, and I am glad to hear that Labour will support this bill. It has good elements of common sense that work for every part of the community. I commend this bill to the House, and I congratulate the member.

I rise to take a call on this, the first reading of the Land Transport (Vehicle User Safety) Amendment Bill, which the Green Party will not be supporting. This bill, which seeks to create an infringement offence under the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004, is an attempt to prohibit people from washing vehicles on roads when done in a manner that may be considered unsafe or intimidating or may cause a nuisance or cause obstruction to vehicles. It is creating a fine for this of between $150 and $1,000, and I really do think the House should consider whether this is another attack on the poor.

I think we need to ask ourselves why people are doing this work. Is it because it seems like a fun job that will help them live their lives in the way that they want, or is it because people are desperate, they actually really need extra money, the social supports for them to be able to live in dignity and live decent lives are not there, and they are being driven to these measures, which, at times, must be pretty dangerous? But here we are with a piece of legislation that is looking at fining those people who have been driven to do this. They are mostly young people but not exclusively young at all.

It does seem an approach that is quite consistent with this Government’s approach to things generally, which is to completely ignore the root cause of any problem.

💬 Catherine Delahunty: There is no cause, Jan.

There is no cause—

💬 Catherine Delahunty: No, they’re just bad people.

—no root cause. They are just silly, bad people, and the way to fix this problem is to create a law and fine them. It is not to think about supporting councils to bring people in their community together, sit down, and find out what the root cause might be, or think about how you can support people to find other options to be able to get by and live with dignity. No, that is not the solution. That is not where those members go. Where they go is to a piece of legislation that will create law that applies to everyone in the country, creates fines, and puts people who are in need at more risk.

I do think it is worth pointing out that this bill could be said to be potentially unnecessary because several councils have already passed by-laws prohibiting people from window washing on the road. Christchurch City Council, as an example, gave the police the authority to prosecute window washers and, according to media reports, that resulted in an instant reduction in the number of window washers. In Auckland, where at least the reporting has been, there have been quite a few stories in the media about public concern and some attacks. It is worth noting again that when there are attacks, that is illegal behaviour, and that behaviour in itself is criminal and can be prosecuted. We are not talking about those attacks; we are talking about people washing the windows. Actually, the council itself has said that it does not believe that taking a punitive regulatory approach will resolve the matter. We have been told that this is the solution to that problem when the council, which is on the ground and knows the situation the best, is saying that it does not think this is the right approach to be taking.

Another problem with this bill is that it allows the Minister to have a rather broad, sweeping power. The amendment to the Land Transport Act would allow the Minister to make rules that prohibit people from being a nuisance to other road users, which potentially could allow the Minister to unilaterally impose rules controlling almost any so-called antisocial behaviour on the road and even protesting. I know some people will listen to that and think “Oh, those Greens. They always jump to the most extreme kind of possibility.”, but we have just seen the Anadarko provision used against those protesters who were trying to protect our future out on the sea. Sometimes when we are suspicious, I do not think that it is without cause, so the Greens are opposing this legislation.

I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in support of this bill, and I would like to begin by commending the member Jami-Lee Ross, in whose name the bill has been brought to the House. I think it is an example of what the members’ ballot should be used for. It should be used by members of Parliament who are not members of Cabinet to bring to the House issues that have been raised in their electorates so that they might be resolved. That is the members’ ballot at its best, that is what this bill does, and so I commend Jami-Lee Ross for bringing this bill to the House.

The issue that is being addressed is perhaps a bit more multifaceted than might first meet the eye, and I can tell you this on behalf of many residents of the Epsom electorate and particularly in Greenlane. Like Jami-Lee Ross, I serve an electorate where window washing is a problem not just directly but also indirectly. The direct problems are quite easy to understand: we have people doing something that is technically not legal but very, very difficult for the authorities, including the police, to enforce. Without the infringement notice regime that this bill produces, people must be taken through the courts at great expense of time and money and it really does not serve as a useful deterrent when the people doing this stuff know that the police have such a large cost imposed upon them when they try to enforce the law. Having an infringement notice regime, contrary to what the Green Party member just told the House, is actually something that the Auckland Council has been asking for. This is not something councils are opposed to; this is something that councils have explicitly asked for. And, alongside them, it is something that the police have asked for in order that the law around window washing can be properly enforced.

But the next issue is: why would we want to stop window washing? Many of us might have a charitable view towards mostly younger people who take their initiative, get out, and make some money. I actually share that view that you have got to admire a certain amount of entrepreneurial streak in the people who are doing the window washing. The difficulty is that it ends up being abusive. One of the principals of the schools in my electorate was abused and had her car attacked with a squeegee mop broom when she refused to have her window washed because she did not want it done, and she may not have had change and she may not have had the money. That is one of a large number of complaints that have built into a chorus of people from around Greenlane worried about this.

But, secondly, there are the indirect impacts, which are that window washing has become a centre for other crimes. There are two large intersections in Auckland that are close to a train station that does not have security gates: one of them in Mount Wellington and one of them at Greenlane. Both of those areas have come to be areas of considerable crime.

💬 Denis O’Rourke: This bill won’t change that.

I have had small children from Remuera Intermediate School and Cornwall Park District School get bashed up, have their phones taken, and their bikes taken—

💬 Denis O’Rourke: Nothing to do with this bill.

And if you talk to the local police, which is what a good local MP should do—unlike that barracking member in the corner who would never represent an electorate because no electorate would have him—they will tell you that all of these things are interlinked and that the window washing is a centre for crimes and violence of other types around the areas where it happens.

So I commend this bill. I think potentially there should be some changes as it goes on. We should be very wary of unintended consequences—the Greens have a point about that. I think we should consider the possibility that we should also fine the people who pay window washers, for two reasons. One is that they are the other half of the transaction and also because it gives them a reason to say no. They can say: “No, this is illegal, this is fineable. I’m not going to pay.” But, with those possible additions, in my view this is an excellent bill. I look forward to voting for it through all stages, I commend it to the House, and I congratulate Jami-Lee Ross on bringing such a useful contribution to members’ day. Thank you.

New Zealand First will vote against this bill because it is unnecessary and it is going to be ineffective. I want to refer, first of all, to the purpose of the bill. Clause 3 states it is “to provide for greater safety of road users by prohibiting the washing of vehicles in a matter that may be unsafe,”—may be unsafe—“that may intimidate or cause a nuisance to any person, or may cause an obstruction to vehicles.” So let us examine that purpose against what is actually in the bill.

I will make this point straightaway. Even though this is going to be just an infringement offence, they can be appealed and those appeals will cost money, and those appeals will result in a waste of police time—not local authority officers’ time but police time. So if the parties opposite think they are going to be saving police time and saving expense, they are going to be utterly wrong about that. First of all, the term “safety of road users” is not really the purpose of this bill at all because there is no actual evidence of any harm to drivers of motor vehicles as a result of this activity—none at all—because it typically happens at traffic lights where the vehicle is stationary.

Then there is the term “prohibiting the washing of vehicles in a manner that may be unsafe,”. So there would immediately be a good defence, because, of course, the washing of a window is not itself unsafe, so the prosecutor would have to prove the term “a manner that may be unsafe,” and that would not be easy. It is not enough to just prove that a vehicle’s windscreen was washed while stopped at traffic lights; there would have to be actual proof of unsafeness, and that is not going to be easy to do in any appeal. It is made worse by the term “may be unsafe”, because that means there would have to be a subjective test to show unsafeness in the particular circumstances of the case, and the drafter of this bill seems to have overlooked that. In addition to that, of course, washing vehicles’ windscreens actually does improve driver visibility, so even if the way the windscreen was washed could somehow be shown to be unsafe, you still have to balance that against the fact that there is an advantage for safety in clean windscreens.

Then I move on to the term “may intimidate”. Although I acknowledge that some women may feel intimidated, this bill will not help that because again the word “may” requires a subjective test to prove intimidation in the particular circumstances of the case. It will require a lot more than a woman just feeling uneasy if approached to have her windscreen washed. Then I move on to the words “may cause a nuisance”. Again, we have the same problem with “may” requiring the application of a subjective test. It would need proof of real and serious disadvantage; not just inconvenience to a driver. I move on to the words “may cause an obstruction to vehicles.” The same problem arises again: a subjective test that would require proof that there was an obstruction to a vehicle, which would not be easy to do when vehicles are typically stopped at traffic lights for these activities.

So for all those reasons this is simply not a suitable matter for an infringement offence. Compare it with a speeding offence where the fact of speeding is enough by itself, or compare it with a parking offence where the simple fact of exceeding a time limit is in itself enough—it is not like that. You would require a lot of other evidence of a lot of other things, which I have already referred to. So practicality and enforceability are going to be real problems. Do we really want police chasing youth all over the place to catch them for activities that are usually harmless—I would say that 95 percent or more of the time they are actually harmless. Those people will not have the money to pay the fines anyway—unless, of course, they do more window washing—and the infringement will not really be enforceable.

So it is not a bill that we can support, and I would ask this question of Jami-Lee Ross: is this his best contribution to the improvement of the New Zealand criminal justice system? Is that the best he can do when there are so many serious crimes to attend to in this country and when we could much better spend the parliamentary time being spent on this bill and also spend much better the police time that will be involved in the attempted enforcement of this useless and ineffective bill?

It is a pleasure to rise in support of my colleague Jami-Lee Ross’ bill, the Land Transport (Vehicle User Safety) Amendment Bill. Before I actually get on with the substance of the bill—in support of it—I just want to comment on Mr O’Rourke’s contribution. I do know that Mr O’Rourke is an owner of classic cars, and I know that he loves driving them. I sort of wonder what his reaction would be to members of the public who are in fact windscreen washers, who actually put unsavoury products in those bottles to wash his car when he is driving down the street. Obviously, he is not a small man, and maybe he did actually comment that some women might get intimidated. I do know of men who have actually been intimidated by these window washers and the unsavoury language that was thrown about, and when they did not pay the money that they were apparently meant to pay for the window washing, the window washers in fact threw things at them.

I mean, I personally am not a small woman—I am not a scaredy-cat type of person—but I have rocked up to the intersection where these kids are. I feel really uncomfortable winding down the window to say no, because they are often spitting, throwing things, and yelling abuse at people who will not pay and refuse to have the windows washed.

I think that in the major cities, usually, where we have a repeated problem of this illegal activity, it is sometimes actually dangerous. I think it was Mr Seymour who talked about the abuse at Greenlane corner as well. It is happening not just at Greenlane or in Auckland; I know it is happening up and down the country. At the moment, councils across New Zealand are not able to deal with this issue because they feel that the by-laws they have are toothless to actually stop these people from doing what they are doing. As Mr Seymour said, often when they come to do the window washing, it is not just the window-washing activity that they partake in; often there are actually other illegal activities that happen when they are gathered. Across the country, as I said, police and councils are backing this reform in this area. They are backing the great work of Mr Ross. They are backing the rights of citizens and locals to all feel safe in their communities.

I remember that a long time ago in Auckland, at Spaghetti Junction, there used to be a man who twirled his squeegee. He was really talented at it. I think he was one of the most popular and famous window washers—right—but he was not abusive and he did not get in the way of traffic when a hive of activity was happening during peak-hour traffic. But now young kids have actually seen the light. They gather at these busy intersections, and often, when traffic lights change, they do not move out of the way. They get in the way of traffic, and accidents sometimes do in fact happen. I am sure that some of these children have also been hurt. So they should not be there. They are creating trouble right around New Zealand.

Some local newspapers in our community, and community message boards such as Neighbourly, have actually talked about this issue. There is a problem here that we can actually fix with this member’s bill. It is a local issue and it has become part of the country’s issue. I believe that this bill goes a long way towards actually helping to solve the problem. I commend the member Jami-Lee Ross for thinking of putting this up as his member’s bill, and I look forward to perhaps hearing submissions in our select committee process. I commend the bill to the House.

I rise to support the Land Transport (Vehicle User Safety) Amendment Bill in the name of Jami-Lee Ross, and I wish to congratulate the member on having his bill drawn from the ballot. It is certainly a great opportunity to talk about road safety. But I do want to give some advice to the member: really, if he does want to do something serious about reducing the road toll, which has now increased 3 years in a row—and, sadly, this year is looking like it is going to continue that dreadful trend—then perhaps just dealing with the issue of people who are window washing at intersections is probably not the most pressing thing to do about road safety at the moment. I do not think that there has been any fatality that has been caused in this area or serious injury, but, none the less, it is probably a reasonably useful little measure to address.

However, if the Government was serious about turning around its dreadful performance on the road toll, then it would be looking at more serious issues to address that, and it would be doing it rather more urgently. It would not be leaving it up to members’ bills to address vehicle safety and road safety; rather, the Government would be addressing issues like the driver-licensing fraud, which under its watch has been running rampant. If there is a real road safety issue in this country, the fact that we cannot rely on our driver-licensing regime to be robust and to ensure that it is free of corruption—I think that is a major issue that the Government should be looking at.

I also think that if this Government was serious about addressing road safety, it would be looking at proactive ways of reducing the amount of freight going by larger and larger trucks, under this Government, all the time on our roads. We know that when it comes to road safety about 20 percent of the fatalities every year involve a truck on our roads. Of course, the more trucks that we put on our roads and the larger we allow them to become, as this Government has—and when we get those juggernauts that are on roads that are not really designed for those very big trucks to be on—of course the next thing that is going to happen is that our road toll is going to go up, as it has been doing.

I want to put on record the other serious issue that this bill raises that the Government will not address—that is, ensuring that people have decent jobs; decent jobs with decent job security. What I know about these window washers—it is largely young men who are involved in this enterprise—is that they are not doing it because it is their wish and their dream and their hope to be a car window washer at an intersection; they do it because they are desperate to make a living. They are desperate to earn a living, and it is becoming harder and harder to do that under this Government.

These fit young men who are proving that they have the wherewithal and the entrepreneurial drive to get out there and do something are not these people who Bill English says are hopeless. They are not these people who would rather stay in bed. They are not these people who Bill English and his Government are trying to convince the rest of the nation are just losers and drug addled and staying at home. These are young men prepared to get out there and earn a buck, and they are prepared to work hard for it. Yes, that is probably not the appropriate way to do it, but they are running out of options because that lazy Government opposite, which has run out of ideas, will not provide decent, secure jobs for these young men.

So, Mr Ross, the challenge I want to put to you is twofold. First of all, do something serious about the road toll, and, secondly, do something real about providing real jobs for New Zealanders so that we do not have to turn into one of those countries where people are on the side of the road at intersections risking life and limb, actually, themselves in order to make a decent living. That is not the sort of New Zealand that I want to see, it is not the New Zealand we used to have, and it is not the New Zealand that you will see under a Labour-led Government.

I rise to speak in support of this bill and to provide a Whangarei context, which has received some commentary here today. Late last year, the issue of Whangarei window washers came to national attention and I received a lot of communication from local constituents. I addressed this issue in an interview where I outlined my position, which has not changed. I commend their endeavour, but I am concerned for their safety. They must stop.

Local people were writing to me last year on this issue, and I responded by lobbying the New Zealand Transport Agency, which manages the local highways. Unfortunately, the window washers continued over summer, and the situation became worse and not better. At one point, I personally observed four groups of four youths, 16 in total, on either side of the traffic islands at the Kamo Road and State Highway 1 intersection, and I was certain one of them would be hurt. I could also see that some drivers were feeling intimidated, and so I did as we have been advised and personally laid a complaint with the police.

The issue of intersection window washers is a national problem, and the Government is supporting this member’s bill to regulate against them. This is a first step, but there is another side to this story. I believe we should also look to provide a solution for these young people, who are clearly able and wanting to work—good on them for getting out there and doing something—so now let us make them safe and offer an alternative.

In Northland there are currently many overseas orchard workers in and around Kerikeri doing seasonal work under the Recognised Seasonal Employer programme. Imagine if we could offer the window washers transport to and from Whangarei and a good day’s pay for a good day’s work on the orchard. I have proposed this to a senior Whangarei Work and Income executive, and he and I have arranged to personally go down to the intersections and meet with the young people and have this discussion. Let us see whether we can work together as a community to harness these young people’s initiative and help them into safe, supported, and sustainable alternatives.

This, then, is the tension: we are encouraging of young people’s endeavours, but they must be safe. We want them to be safe, and this is the first priority. Equally, innocent drivers must also be safe. Motor vehicle versus pedestrian accidents often cause injuries to those in the motor vehicles, either directly or as they seek to avoid pedestrians.

The second issue is intimidation, which does have some subjectivity around it. Some drivers do not feel affronted as the window washers approach and engage, but others do, and declining to allow or pay for the activity does not change the sense of intimidation. I have been written to by many constituents, especially women, who do feel intimidated by the window washers, and this needs to be acted on. The Summary Offences Act provides some guidance on the issue of intimidation, including the clause about a person who “stops, confronts, or accosts that other person in any public place.” Clearly, this will apply to window washers, and it needs to stop.

Enforcement against window washers has been problematic. Some councils do have by-laws, which can be prosecuted against, and much can be learnt from their experience. Certainly, evidence from Auckland Council suggests that the current prosecution regime for window washers has court costs that are substantive and it involves months of delay.

In the overall context of issues this Parliament needs to address, window washers may seem trivial. However, I am of the view that if we do trivialise this issue, one day someone will indeed be killed, and that would be a tragedy. I come back, then, to the actions arising. We need to stop this practice now. At the same time, we need to harness the endeavour and initiative that these young people are showing and look to provide safe and sustainable alternatives.

So I congratulate very much the member Jami-Lee Ross on this bill. It is a pleasure to commend this bill to the House.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, kia ora anō ki Te Whare. I have been listening carefully to the speeches, and I would like to applaud Jan Logie and Denis O’Rourke. I also found it really positive what Shane Reti just said about going and engaging and creating opportunities for young people seeking work. Those are constructive responses. The rest of this is a depressing load of rubbish. Actually, the one thing that those of us in our privileged bubble do not want to see is what is happening in our streets. I have lived for 63 years, and I have never seen so much poverty on the streets, and I am glad it is visible. We need to face it. We do not need to be intimidated by it, but we have plenty of laws. If we need the law because someone is being threatening or intimidating, or is about to commit or has committed an assault, there are plenty of ways of dealing with that. That is not the problem. The law is not the problem. The problem is that inequality is being acted out before our very eyes, and some people are finding that—for the 90 percent of the window washers who are not violent and intimidating—uncomfortable.

Yes, it is uncomfortable. It is uncomfortable to see so many people so desperate that they are down at the intersections washing our windows for money. We look into their eyes and we go: “There but for the grace of God go I.” Actually, they are us and our children. They are not a different species. To create more fines and more punishments when we need to be looking for solutions is not what this House should be for. We are not here to reflect intimidation or to increase punishment. We are here to try to build a country where people are able to participate with some kind of dignity and equity. Part of this bill is a bit of a filler. It is a bit of, like: “What is the least important issue on the streets? Let’s deal with that, rather than something that is substantive and more controversial.” But part of it is also maintaining the idea there is a “them”, and “they” are a dangerous horde out there that must be controlled, and let us not talk about the causes of people who are forced into washing our windows for enough money to get through the day, because then we have to talk about how many people are actually living on the edge. This is the edge, on the intersections.

This bill is not about road safety. It has got nothing to do with road safety. It is to do with punishment, when we already have plenty of laws to take care of people who are threatening, violent, or intimidatory. There are plenty of ways of arresting people if their behaviour goes over the line in a public space. So we are just going to add another one specifically focusing on a group of marginalised workers who have no rights or protections, who are trying to make a buck to get through the day. That is why I applaud Dr Shane Reti for actually going down and engaging with these people and trying to find a solution, but I do not applaud the National Party or anyone else for supporting this bill, because I think it is ugly. I think it is another way in which we inside our privileged bubble can go “Oh, well, you know, they’re the bad guys.”, without any empathy or imagination about what it might be like.

I drive in Auckland every week. Sometimes I have money in the car and sometimes I do not, but I look at the faces of these people who are at the edge. They are not saving up for their holiday with their family in New Caledonia. They are trying to get through the day. They have nothing else but the street. We need to face the street and do something a whole lot more constructive with the people who have to live on our streets and scrape a living out of washing windows for people who can afford things that they have not seen for a very long time, like a nice car. So I am proud that we are opposing this bill. I am disappointed that we are even talking about it, because there are so many more important things. There are also so many more things we need to do to make sure that we have full employment and respect for all the people who are at the bottom of a heap that has been created not by nature but by an economic system dedicated to structural unemployment and political inequality. So, happily, we say no. This is not good enough and it is not the solution. Kia ora tātou.

Can I say thanks to the House for considering this member’s bill. Thanks to my side, the National Party MPs, for supporting this, and also to David Seymour. I asked David Seymour and Shane Reti particularly to speak on this bill, because they brought their experience as local MPs who have had constituents come to them, as have I, about this particular issue. There are real and genuine concerns around this activity in their electorates, and I thank them for their contributions. Can I thank Stuart Nash for his words and his support, as well. I discussed this with Stuart Nash some weeks ago. I think Stuart Nash made some comments about a pragmatic solution to an issue, and I view this bill as exactly that. It is taking an issue that councils around the country are dealing with at the moment—and it is not just Auckland; there are councils up and down the country that have dealt with this issue, but it is predominantly in Auckland—but they are dealing with it in a way that is not effective, a way where they have to take prosecutions, clog up the courts’ time to deal with an issue, and go through a system that can take many, many weeks, as well.

The Police have asked for a tool to be able to deal with it. Police have a strategy or a way in which they work where they believe in prevention first. Prevention first—that is very much their approach to this issue. Quite frankly, they do not care that much about someone on the side of the road washing a windscreen, but they do care about the other issues that can escalate out of that. I want to read an extract from a letter the Police wrote to the Auckland Council about this: “The window washing of vehicles stopped at traffic lights and intersections, particularly key intersections in central and south Auckland, has become a significant issue for motorists and a constant source of complaint. The practice breaches the council’s public safety and nuisance by-law, and is fundamentally unsafe, intimidating, and causes a nuisance to drivers and obstruction to traffic.”

When Catherine Delahunty says this is a load of rubbish, I would like her to say that to the parents of the schoolchildren in Greenlane who were attacked by window washers. I do not think they believe this is a load of rubbish. I would like her to say that to the police constables and inspectors and sergeants who view, on a regular basis, gang activity in this area, where they say that window washing and the problems associated with it—including disorder, vehicle crime, assaults, and wilful damage, and these related activities—are distressing to police. That is what this is about. It is about dealing with the problem before it becomes a bigger issue, and I know that councils and police are concerned that we do have these wider issues taking place.

I accept that the wording of the bill has been raised a couple of times—Mr O’Rourke raised the wording. I have taken the wording of the Auckland Council by-law and inserted it into the bill. If the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee can come up with better wording, then I am all for that. I look forward to that committee hearing submissions on the bill and coming up with better wording, if there is better wording out there.

I do want to say to Mr O’Rourke, though, when he says this is unnecessary, that there will be, I suspect, many, many people making submissions on this who will say that having an effective tool for the police is necessary. But he asked the question: is this my best contribution? I am happy to say no, it is not my best contribution to criminal justice; my best contribution to criminal justice is being part of a National-led Government that is seeing more police on the streets, that has done more to support victims of crime, that has done more to reform bail laws, and that has done more to tackle gangs. That is my best contribution to criminal justice: being part of a wider team that is doing a lot of good work.

As a local electorate MP, as someone who was elected by 70,000 people to serve them as their representative, when they come to me with an issue that they are concerned about and when our local police have constantly raised this with me as a local MP, I have a method where I can attempt to support them. A member’s bill is a way to do that, and that is why I have brought this forward. Melissa Lee said: “The council and the police are backing the great work of Mr Ross.” Actually, Melissa, you are a bit wrong; I am supporting the great work that the local council and the police are doing. I think we should be tackling this and giving police the tool box.

I am disappointed New Zealand First is not supporting this. It is supposed to be—it views itself as the party of law and order—

💬 Hon Member: Out of touch.

No, I do not think it is out of touch. I think it is just opposing it for the sake of opposing it. But there is real concern out there, and if we can help police and help councils, we should be doing that. Thank you to the House for its consideration.