Land Transport (Road Safety) Amendment Bill

on behalf of the Associate Minister of Transport: I present a legislative statement on the Land Transport (Road Safety) Amendment Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

I move, That the Land Transport (Road Safety) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 20 July 2023 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196.

This bill amends the Land Transport Act 1998 and the Sentencing Act 2002 and delivers on the Government’s promise to crack down on dangerous and reckless drivers who flee police and put innocent lives at risk. Those who attempt to evade the law need to be held to account. This bill will ensure there are increased and serious consequences for this behaviour. Put simply, if you flee police, be prepared to lose your ride.

First of all, some context behind why we’re taking this action: fleeing-driver events have been steadily increasing in New Zealand over the last decade. There were 9,765 fleeing-driver events last year; this is up from 6,757 just the year before. Already this year we’ve had a number of fleeing-driver events which have proved to be either injurious or fatal. In April, two people fled police in Auckland and crashed into an innocent driver, who was injured. In March, two people were killed after the driver fled police in Wellington; two other people were injured. This behaviour raises serious safety risks to both the drivers themselves and to passengers and other road users, and, potentially, police officers themselves. Fleeing drivers put innocent lives at risk every day. It’s simply not acceptable, and the Government is doing something about it by ensuring that there are serious consequences for this behaviour.

Fleeing drivers often participate in other road safety offences such as dangerous driving. For example, 30 percent of those charged with a first offence for failing to stop were also found to be speeding or driving dangerously. At the same time, police are facing challenges identifying and apprehending fleeing drivers under current legislative and policy settings. Under the current pursuit policy, police focus more on post-event investigations rather than pursuing fleeing drivers. That’s a question of their safety, amongst others. While this approach has saved lives, it means post-event investigations are crucial for identifying drivers so they can be held to account. Police currently have the power to request that the registered owner of a vehicle—and by “registered owner” I mean the person whose name appears on the registration details of the vehicle, not necessarily the legal owner, which can be separate. But the police have the power to request that registered owner information or that the registered owner provide information to help identify the offending driver under the Land Transport Act 1998.

However, there have been cases where the registered owner has not cooperated with police in providing this information. We’ve already seen the impact of this in the number of fleeing-driver offenders being identified. In the year prior to Police’s pursuit policy change, they identified, on average, 52 percent of all offenders. Since then, police are identifying on average 34 percent of all offenders. This demonstrates the urgent need for change to ensure police have the ability to carry out appropriate action. We also want to make it clear that there will be strong penalties for anyone who decides to flee from police.

This bill supports this need for change by, firstly, enabling police to seize and impound a vehicle for a period of six months if the officer believes, on reasonable grounds, that a person driving the vehicle has failed to stop; secondly, creating a new power for police to seize and impound a vehicle for 28 days if the registered owner of that vehicle fails to provide information about a fleeing driver; thirdly, increasing the period of driver licence disqualification after a second conviction for a failing to stop offence from one year to between one and two years; and, finally, creating a new sentencing option enabling the courts to order that a vehicle be forfeited on conviction for a failing to stop offence. These new tools make it clear that drivers, vehicle owners, or people obstructing police’s work will face serious consequences if they continue their behaviour. These measures also complement the changes made by the Government earlier this year through the Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Act, which expanded the range of offences where police can seize and impound cars, motorbikes, and other vehicles.

The bill will enable the use of technology to increase the speed of enforcement and widen the ability to detect events as they occur. This bill gives effect to more of the Government’s commitments in Road to Zero, our road safety strategy through to 2030. In Road to Zero, we proposed a new approach to safety cameras. Waka Kotahi will take over ownership and operation of the safety camera network from police and will be expanding that network to include point-to-point cameras which will calculate the average speed over a surveyed distance to detect instances where this is exceeded. Safety cameras will also be used to detect average speed, distracted driving, and seatbelt-related offences.

International studies have shown that deaths and serious injuries have halved on roads where point-to-point speed enforcement has been installed. The effects of point-to-point speed enforcement were also found to be greater than fixed-spot speed cameras, with studies in Europe showing point-to-point cameras being 50 percent more effective at reducing crashes than fixed-spot speed cameras. Research on public opinions regarding the use of point-to-point cameras suggests a high level of support. In the United Kingdom, for example, a survey of motorists found that 81 percent believed that average-speed cameras were fairer than fixed-speed cameras and promoted more consistent speeds.

We’re also introducing electronic servicing and automated issuing of infringement notices. These changes will modernise our regulatory system and make better use of technology. Electronic service of documents would include infringement notices resulting from safety camera detection of speed offences. It would also include notices to revoke driver licences due to medical grounds. Electronic service of documents enables Waka Kotahi to send documents to people quickly, which provides benefits for road safety. Research from Waka Kotahi shows that early intervention significantly reduces future traffic offending. Enabling these notices to be sent by email also recognises that the way many New Zealanders receive information is changing. We know that, increasingly, New Zealanders’ email addresses and phone numbers tend to remain unchanged for longer than their physical home addresses. Studies carried out by Statistics New Zealand in 2020 show that 40 percent of people renting from private landlords have been at their address for less than 12 months. The current reliance on a physical home address for sending notices has an effect on those who tend to move physical address on a regular basis.

We’re also introducing changes to enable automated issuing of infringement notices. This will mean that instead of a human issuing the infringement notices in accordance with the necessary business rules, an automated process will do this, but there will be appropriate safeguards in place. It’s expected that this automated process will be quick, accurate, secure, and consistent.

We’re acting quickly to make these changes. As I mentioned at the start of my speech, I intend to move that the bill be reported back to the House on 20 July 2023. We’re acting quickly to make sure police have the tools they need to address fleeing drivers when their revised pursuit policy is implemented later this year. Police are concerned about the escalating fleeing-driver numbers and the low number of offenders identified. If they don’t have the necessary enforcement tools to hold offenders to account, we’ll continue to see an increase in high-risk driving behaviour.

The additional tools in the Land Transport (Road Safety) Amendment Bill are crucial to support the work that Police is doing to keep our roads safe. This bill, combined with Police’s revised pursuit policy, will provide greater road safety outcomes and sends a strong, clear warning to fleeing drivers that you are now more likely to be caught and to face greater consequences. However, the bill needs to be enforced in time for the implementation of Police’s revised pursuit policy to provide the greatest road safety outcomes.

Average speed - related proposals will also help implement action points under Road to Zero, the Government’s road safety strategy. We know that this will be one of the key pillars in helping reduce deaths and serious injuries on our roads. Waka Kotahi will be taking over the camera network, as I said, from the police later this year and have already invested in expanding that camera network in preparation.

The amendments in this bill are critical for reducing unsafe behaviour to ultimately improve safety on our roads. This is legislation that was first announced at the end of last year, and the Government is delivering on what it promised. The bill will enable our land transport system to make better use of technology and to ensure New Zealanders can receive information quickly and more conveniently. On that note, I commend the Land Transport (Road Safety) Amendment Bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The National Party will be supporting this bill. It will help with a problem that has been largely of this Government’s own making because they have, in their “soft on crime” way, with the encouragement of the Police, thought it would be a good idea never to chase anybody that puts their foot down and takes off. And, lo and behold, amazingly, unbelievably, people figured out that if all you have to do if you are stopped by police is put your foot down and drive off and nobody will ever chase you, well, unbelievably, a lot more people will do it! And we’ve seen the figures that there’s been a doubling of the number of people taking off and racing off.

We’ve seen, over the past five years, the explosion in ram raiding and a 500-plus percent increase in the number of ram raids where people smash their car into something, steal something, smash another car, and take off. And the police don’t chase them, and, lo and behold, there’s been a problem. And so the Government is finally, having point blank refused that there was an issue, and said, “Oh, no, no, no, there’s no problem. Criminals will”—well, I don’t know what they thought they were going to do, but there wasn’t a problem, they said. And six years later, when we see law and order breaking down in our communities, people driving around doing smash and grabs, ram raids on the rise, a doubling of the number of people taking off when the police try and stop them, they finally come around and say, “Well, yes, maybe we should do something about it.”, and the Police are revising their chase policy.

There has to be a risk that you will be chased. If there’s no risk that you will be chased, then the behaviour is going to be obvious. And this bill, of course, brings in some ability for cars to be impounded. Well, yep, OK, and we agree with it. But I suppose the obvious point one would make is that most of the cars involved in ram raids, for example—it’s not that you take your car along and ram-raid it into a house and then when the police see you, you take off. It doesn’t tend to be your car that you’re using. It doesn’t tend to be your car that you’re using. It tends to be somebody else’s car that you’ve stolen, that you’re driving, and that you take off when the police try and stop you.

And so we’ve got this legislation that will say: so you woke up in the morning, you find that somebody has stolen your car and used it for criminal activity—which is pretty upsetting, pretty bad, when somebody steals your car and uses it for criminal activity—but then you find you get a notice that your car is going to be impounded because somebody else has stolen your car and used it for criminal activity. That would be a bit odd. So that is a bit of an issue. So, yes, it will affect a few people who do this in their own car, and it may, combined with a change to the pursuit policy—because at the moment I think it’s about only 18 percent of ram-raiders and people who take off when police try and stop them who are ever identified. So it may help in a few instances.

But I think the broader issue that we have to deal with is what this bill doesn’t change, which is the culture of excuses that this Government has on crime. And it doesn’t change the fact that the only target this Government has in the justice space is to reduce the prison population irrespective of what’s happening in the community, irrespective of violent crime. That’s the only target. We on this side of the House believe the only target in justice should be to reduce the number of victims of crime. That should be the focus, rather than an arbitrary reduction in prison numbers. That arbitrary reduction in prison numbers, combined with a “soft on crime” approach, and “soft on the causes of crime” approach, as well, because they don’t deal with the long-term drivers, that combination, combined with an attitude that if you put your foot down you’ll be fined and nobody will chase you—all that has led to this explosion in law and order descending in our country.

It’s lagged to the point that if you live in Auckland, every night you hear the chopper whirring overhead trying to find somebody that’s taken off. And if you happen to own a retail store, or if you happen to work in a retail store, you go in to work every day, and if you happen to be working for Michael Hill Jeweller, for example, you go into work every day wondering if today is going to be the day that your shop is bowled over. In Takapuna it’s happened so many times that they’ve given up—because of the breakdown in law and order under this Government.

So, yes, we support this bill—good—it’ll make some difference, but, boy, there’s so much more to be done. And when we look at this Budget as a whole—we’re in the Budget debate—there was a lot of extra spending, nothing done to grow the economy, and very little on the law and order front. And that, I think, is out of touch with the concerns and the needs of our community right here, right now. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Can I just start this afternoon by acknowledging all of our colleagues wearing pink shirts today to support the cause; thank you very much.

This particular bill—it’s interesting because the Opposition is supporting it, but will challenge us on our stance of crime. The reality is that fleeing drivers aren’t a new thing; it’s something that has been going on for decades. In particular, this bill is actually about taking action, improving our response to policing offenders, and the Government delivering on its promise to crack down on dangerous and reckless drivers who flee police and put innocent lives at risk.

This will allow police to seize and impound a vehicle for a period of six months if it fails to stop. It will allow police to seize and impound a vehicle if the registered owner fails to provide information about a fleeing driver and impounding the vehicle is necessary to prevent a threat to road safety. So it’s a bill very clear about its intention, and I commend it to the House.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Well, it must be election year. So unless we’re going to have any more time travel of the kind needed to make sense of the Government’s report-back date in the select committee in the previous bill, then election year will continue in the usual fashion—in a forward kind of motion—and we will see increasingly, as the election date approaches, Labour discovering the desire to keep New Zealanders safe, which, it seems, given the change of stance in this particular area and plenty of others besides, is something that appears to be motivated with one eye on the ballot box and only one eye on the speed cameras, and so forth.

As my colleague and friend the Hon Paul Goldsmith has said, we support the bill. We think it does a useful thing, particularly noting that it undoes a non-useful thing that had been done previously under this Government’s watch. Paul Goldsmith has outlined, in typically coherent fashion, the logic that has prevailed whereby we’ve told people that if they can think to speed up only when they would otherwise be apprehended, then we should not be surprised that they do exactly that, with all the consequent damage that’s caused as a result.

I think that’s tolerably clear, and so I’ll just look reasonably briefly, at this stage of the week, at what the bill actually does to try to meet these aims, which are excellent in themselves. They’re excellent aims, but just a bit too little, too late, to reduce unsafe behaviour on New Zealand’s roads by “increasing the speed and severity of enforcement.” Well, that’s all very well.

So to seize and impound a vehicle—that period is going to be expanded from 28 days to six months “if the officer believes on reasonable grounds that the person driving a vehicle has failed to stop”. It’s interesting that just reasonable grounds are needed. That’s a pretty low bar, really. It’s certainly not the usual criminal standard, and, obviously, we’re talking of something less than a serious Crimes Act offence, for example.

But I wonder, and this is maybe something that the select committee—and, I know, the chair will take great interest in this, being a human rights aficionado. Will there be some sort of trade-off? Will it be more able to be contested whether reasonable grounds were held for the impounding of a vehicle to reflect the fact that that 28-day period is going to become six months? By my maths, that’s about a sixfold increase in the amount of time, so I wonder if there’s any sort of trade-off in terms of the robustness of that assessment of whether it’s just, as I say, reasonable grounds that the person has failed to stop.

We see, as well, that there’ll be a new power for the police to seize and impound a motor vehicle—that one is 28 days—if the owner of the vehicle “fails to provide information about a fleeing driver” and the police think that “impounding the vehicle is necessary to prevent a threat to road safety.” It’s interesting to compel that information to be provided. It’s not entirely without precedent in the criminal law. To the extent that it might require self-incrimination and violate that traditional right to silence is, I think, something interesting that the select committee should look at, and whether there are any broader public policy implications of requiring them to provide information about someone who is a close family member.

I remember this Parliament a couple of years ago—actually, it was in the previous term—removed spousal immunity, as I think it was named. It’s a slightly quaint expression now, I suppose, but, roughly speaking, that was the concept we had on the statute book, whereby a person can be required to tell the long arm of the law a thing that one’s spouse, partner, or significant other, etc., might have done that was criminal. So it’ll be interesting to see how that plays out. I’d be curious to see what kinds of submissions come in at the select committee process on that one.

Then we’ve got the “period of licence disqualification”—so you lose your licence by having done these things—“after a second conviction for an offence of failing to stop”. So the second conviction would be treated more harshly than the first—well, that’s interesting, because the argument against the three-strikes regime in relation to other legislation that’s gone through in this Parliament was that every case should be on its merits. Every case should be—and, of course, that should be when we’re determining whether someone is guilty or not. But the idea that disproportionate punishment at a second or third offence in the case of the other law is, somehow, anathema to the idea of the rule of law and, in the real New Zealand Bill of Rights Act kind of speak, that would be a disproportionate punishment because like cases aren’t treated alike. Well, that’s interesting. It’s a bit of a departure from that, but on the other hand, it’s completely consistent with the idea that a first-time offender will get some sort of discount for the fact that they haven’t done it before or haven’t got caught before.

There’s lots to find interesting in this and lots to pick over, come the select committee, and I will actually just give a shout-out on a slightly more positive note to say that there’s going to be a bit better use of technology to enable this. So electronic service of notices and, of course, electronic service and ways of doing things in the digital environment is something that could be more usefully employed in the courts. I know that the Minister for Courts takes these matters seriously, and if I hadn’t put him to sleep, he’d probably be taking that point in right now. But that’s on me, not him—again.

So anyway, as I say, we support the bill. We think it’s a good thing, even if it’s amusing or bemusing that it’s come so late in the piece in this parliamentary term and in the life of the Government that they’ve woken up to the need for this legislation.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just first want to acknowledge my National Party colleague Chris Penk for the invitation for the Justice Committee to consider whether we might want to soften some of the provisions in light of human rights law. He is more than welcome to substitute in for his colleague Paul Goldsmith should he wish to.

I want to start by commending the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Police, who are focused on community safety. On this side of the House, we know that securing community safety means using all the levers of justice available to us.

What that means is ensuring that we’re preventing where we can. What that means is fair wages, wellbeing, free lunches, making apprenticeships available. What that means is rehabilitation, which put into place through the circuit-breaker programmes that we’re now expanding. What that means is police presence, and we’re growing our police force to 1,800—to, I suspect, the annoyance of Mr Goldsmith, who seemed to be annoyed by the police helicopters that are out monitoring community safety in Auckland. And yes, that does mean punishment as well.

This is merely one of the levers that we are using, but it is a lever that we are taking very seriously. It goes alongside the changes that we’ve made in terms of tackling gang crime as well.

As chair of the Justice Committee, I do look forward to a constructive discussion with colleagues, to submissions, and to bringing this bill back to the House. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I stand on behalf of the ACT Party while we are under urgency—yet again—to put through another bill—yet again—under urgency, in support of this, the Land Transport (Road Safety) Amendment Bill. But we do support it with some trepidation.

Since Police changed their pursuit policy back in 2020, we’ve seen more and more people seek to evade police by speeding off. They know New Zealand Police will not pursue, and I think my colleague Paul Goldsmith went into that in quite some detail. We are all aware of what is happening and what has happened since 2020. This policy changed due to public pressure after the deaths of young people who were being pursued.

In 2017, there were 11 people who died while fleeing police, often at speed and in vehicles. A further eight people died in 2018; six in 2019. When the Police policy changed in 2020, the number dropped to two deaths and one death in 2021. The policy is saving lives, but the number of pursuits is on the rise because fleeing drivers now see the no-pursuit policy as the potential get-out-of-jail-free card for them. This leaves police having to identify and apprehend fleeing drivers after the fact. Police tell us that often the owners of vehicles do not cooperate with police by telling them who was driving the car that fled from them.

We need to talk about putting our front-line police in between a rock and a hard place. Because that’s, effectively, what we’ve done by introducing—or them introducing—their 2020 policy. Not being able to pursue, they’re kind of stuck. So we have to do something in legislation to help them.

So let’s look at the stats that I mentioned earlier around the rise in fleeing driver events. In 2015, there were 2,997 fleeing driver events. But in the first seven months of 2022, there were 8,673. We know that in 2021, only 17 percent of fleeing drivers were subsequently apprehended, compared to 41 percent in 2017.

So we support our front-line police to do what it takes to crack down on crime, on harm, and to keep our communities safe. They’re looking for more deterrents and tools to help them apprehend and to hold to account those that behave outside the law and think that it’s OK to do so. The bill introduces longer penalties for those found guilty of fleeing for the second time, from one year up to two years.

So we are supporting this bill in its first reading, but we do have several concerns with some aspects of it and expect these to be fleshed out further during the select committee stage. This bill allows for the seizure and impoundment of the vehicle for up to six months, with costs for towage, storage, and other fees being payable by the registered owner of the vehicle—not the offender. We’ve got a lot of questions around this.

A person who is not involved in a criminal activity becomes financially responsible and is ultimately punished by having their car impounded for six months for the act of another. It’s not cheap either. Towing fees depend on the weight of the vehicle, the time that it’s towed, the distance that it’s towed, and then there are the storage fees on top of that. If a vehicle weighs under 3.5 tonnes, you’ll pay up to $71.56 for it to be towed. If it weighs over 3.5 tonnes, it’s $204.44, plus $3.07 for every kilometre that it’s towed. Storage for 28 days for a vehicle under 3.5 tonnes is $306 and then $12.27 per day after. If it’s over 3.5 tonnes, it’s $715 and $28 per day thereafter.

So if you don’t have a heavy ute or a van—that is, you’re under 3.5 tonnes—you’re looking at a bill of around $2,500 for six months, plus no vehicle. And you may not have done a thing wrong yourself. That’s what is concerning us. More than double that amount will occur if your vehicle does weigh over 3.5 tonnes. Some Ford Rangers with all the accessories on them do weigh over that amount.

So we have questions about impounding a car as well—one that has a car finance on it. So we’re looking for clarity around that as well. Questions that we have around disproportionate penalties: the absconding driver may get one, two, or even three months’ loss of licence, but the vehicle owner—who may have done nothing wrong—loses their vehicle for six months and could have thousands of dollars to pay to get their car back at the end of it. If they can’t afford this and they don’t claim their car, then their car may be forfeited by the courts and the taxpayer ends up paying the fees because Waka Kotahi are going to pick up the tab.

Where are these nearly 9,000 vehicles going to be stored? And how much are the taxpayers going to have to pay? Because say—just say—out of those 9,000 vehicles, if it’s at full cost at $2,500, this is around $22 million of taxpayer money.

This bill also prevents anyone who’s had their car forfeited from being able to purchase another car for 12 months. Again, I state: they may not have done anything wrong themselves.

I have another issue: Labour’s obsession with looking at everything through the lens of race and looking at everything through the lens of the Treaty. It’s taking into a whole new level, and this law in particular. The officials say people who flee from police are more likely to be young Māori men. It says taking action against people who are more likely to be young Māori men might breach the so-called Treaty obligations, so it’s going to make some of the powers discretionary rather than compulsory. I mean, give me a break.

This is the sort of nonsense that police have to put up with when they’re just trying to do their jobs. Their hands are being tied to really fight crime by so-called Treaty obligations, and it’s absolute nonsense. Let’s give the police the powers that they need to let them get on with their job.

We would like to see a discussion around how we ensure that the property rights of innocent people are maintained against how we can support police to keep lowering the number of deaths, but get the escalating numbers of fleeing drivers down.

Aerial surveillance plays an invaluable role in mitigating some of the risks associated with fleeing driver events, yet it’s not even mentioned nor considered in this bill. Were police even asked or involved in the bill’s development? The police aerial support units can provide information to those on the ground as to the location of a driver, the behaviours of that driver, as well as traffic conditions in the area.

The Eagle can accurately track an offender without them knowing. It’s reported on the New Zealand Police fleeing driver review report. It means the actual driver—not the owner of a vehicle—can be passively tracked and apprehension is more likely, maintaining the reduction in deaths and lowering the number of fleeing incidents. Going after the offenders and ultimately punishing them—not those known to them or perhaps related to them—is where we should be focused.

There are other aspects to this bill, another bill being heard under urgency. It will require electronic addresses, emails where available for driver licences, upgrades, the ability to send out electronic notices, and it introduces the point-to-point revenue cameras.

There is much to be done here, and we would like to continue to support this bill as it moves through its stages. Here’s hoping we have a robust select committee stage, and changes are made that target the actual offenders of crime and support our front-line police. So at this stage, we are happy to support the bill in this first reading.

Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. The Green Party supports some aspects of this bill, particularly around issuing point-to-point safety cameras that can be used as an enforcement tool for speeding offences; that’s something I worked on as Associate Minister of Transport, because it is a more effective way to identify when travelling above the safe and legal speed limit is occurring. We’re also quite fine with providing for the electronic service of fines and infringement notices with email addresses; I think that’s very practical and will be much more convenient for people than the old paper-based system.

I did think there were some really great points raised by the previous speaker, Nicole McKee—that the purpose of the Police change in policy around pursuit of drivers was predominantly to prevent serious harm, and it has done that. An unacceptable number of people lost their lives due to police pursuit, and that is something that I thought it was really important to change the policy on.

We do understand where the other provisions in this bill are coming from; however, we certainly haven’t seen sufficient evidence that enabling some of these discretionary powers and the ability of police to seize and impound vehicles will deter the behaviour.

I guess that’s the fundamental challenge with our approach to crime: how do we address the drivers of crime and enable people to make better, less harmful, more responsible decisions when we’re currently in a situation where there is inequality in our society. We’re starting from a base of inequality, and some people—particularly young people—don’t always have the fully formed ability to make good decisions. We know that; brain development is going on until the age of 25. I certainly know that, as a teenager, I was responsible for making decisions that weren’t in my best interests or the interests of people around me. So we have to identify ways of putting that wraparound support around people and addressing the true drivers of the issue, and it’s not clear at all that this will have the intended impact of deterring the behaviour and preventing more harm.

We aren’t able to support the bill at this first reading, and we will be watching the bill very carefully during the select committee process.

I know there was this old-fashioned belief that if you threatened offenders with punishment, that would somehow deter the behaviour, but I think it’s been absolutely debunked by the evidence. The way to reduce crime is not to threaten harsh punishment, but to enable people to be in a position to make better decisions. That starts very early on in life. We need to have better support for babies, for mothers, for whānau, and we need to address systemic inequality in this country.

One thing that I would really love to see that I don’t see in this bill—and that we thought about quite a lot last term and I’m still keen to see it developed in Government—is switching to income-related thresholds for traffic infringements and fines. The reality is that if you’re going to use infringements and fines to incentivise or disincentivise behaviour, it’s not fair when people have radically different levels of income.

In some other countries, Nordic or Scandinavian countries, they have income-related thresholds so those on very high incomes pay much higher fines if they have some sort of traffic violation or infringement, and those on lower incomes that have something that’s proportional to their income and wealth. It makes it very difficult to use fines and infringements to incentivise behaviour when we have this inequality and the infringements themselves are not related to people’s income.

So because we are in a situation of inequality and because there are certain groups of people who are more likely to suffer under the provisions in this bill, I think it’s really, really important that we look carefully at what the evidence is of what the impact will be.

I think there’s a more complicating factor in that currently our transport system is very dependent on cars, and in many cases, some of the people offending in cars are not the owners of those cars, so if the car is to be impounded, it might actually reduce access for other people in the whānau or family who need to get to work, who need that vehicle in order to undertake a whole lot of other things in their life.

For those reasons, and our concern about whether it’s going being effective at getting the outcome we want, the Green Party cannot support this bill at the first reading.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I stand to support the Land Transport (Road Safety) Amendment Bill. Paul Goldsmith in his contribution suggested that Labour’s tough law and order stance has meant that there are more fleeing drivers. That is absolute rubbish. Let me tell the House, from experience, that politicians are not allowed to call the police commissioner and tell him what to do. We did not call the police commissioner and suggest in any way, shape, or form that he should change the policy. In fact, I was the Minister of Police at the time, and I can assure the House and the Ombudsman that I did not call the commissioner at all.

In fact, Labour did not decide to change this policy. It is the police who make these decisions around whether to pursue or not, and it’s actually done after a reasonably robust real-time process that is based on a risk assessment. And there is no doubt about it: the police should pursue when they believe, based on their experience—and not just the experience of the officers chasing but the experience of the men and women who are following the situation from the station. It’s a risk-based approach. Then they either go hard or they pull back. But it’s a risk-based approach, taking into account a whole lot of factors, including, and actually most importantly, the health, wellbeing, and safety of the officers and the innocent.

The last thing we want to see is these people taking off, being chased by police at high speed through suburban streets, crashing, and killing innocent bystanders. So it is a risk-based approach. But one thing we can do as politicians is back the police in terms of penalties dished out to those who think that they can get away with it. They can’t. The police will find them—and the majority of the time, they do. Just because someone flees, that is not the end of the case by any stretch of the imagination.

With 1,800 more police—that’s 1,800 over and above the numbers that were there when we came into Government—and with greater technology, more resources, and tougher laws for those who break the social contract that exists between members of our communities, we will hold those who break the law to account. And I tend to disagree with the Greens on this one. If members of our community break the rules, then they will be held to account. These tougher penalties will ensure that those who flee will feel the full force of the law. I commend this bill to the House.

Harete Hipango—a five-minute call.

Thank you. So in addressing the House on the Land Transport (Road Safety) Amendment Bill, I’ve listened with interest to the contributions in the House and it’s been a variety of thoughts in relation to this bill, which has two main objectives, and that is in relation to promoting road-user safety by drivers. So it is about ensuring that the unsafe practices of fleeing drivers—there is the measure of accountability with amendments to the current law under the Land Transport Act 1998 with an expansion of forfeiture powers from 28 days, effectively impounding a vehicle, and then after that period of time looking at forfeiture. So to expand that period from 28 days, initially, to six months, and then, also, the other new power that’s been created is for the police to seize and to impound the motor vehicle for 28 days if the driver or registered person of that vehicle fails to provide information. So that’s the important part about the second limb to this proposed amendment, is the failure to provide information about a fleeing driver.

In the days of my practice as a criminal court lawyer, there were a number of defendants that I appeared for and advocated for in terms of land transport contravention breaches, charges, and subsequent penalties that were imposed. And one of the concerns that I share with the House in terms of the impounding, and it’s been identified in the debate today that those vehicles that are—and I’m talking about my youth justice clients, but also recidivist offenders, those people who have repeatedly offended, either failing to stop, failing to have albeit a registered or licence-holder driver and therefore a continuum throughout a series of their life of disqualifications and fines that have continued to be incurred where often that could mean people are imprisoned for repeat disqualifications or the fact that the fines are so significant they do a term of imprisonment. So I would invite the select committee, when considering submissions from the public to factor that in, because it is about whether or not this law is going to be of sufficient consequence to deter repeat offending.

This has focused very much on fleeing drivers. A fleeing driver is a driver who has been required to stop by the police and they have failed to stop. So there’s provisions within section 114 of the Land Transport Act, which addresses those qualifying factors of what failing to stop is. This law is talking about those drivers who fail to stop and they are fleeing drivers.

I listened with interest to the contribution from the Green Party member around the equitable imposition and adjustment of a tariff according to the socio-demographic. And the reality is this is the socio-demographic that many of us, as defence counsel, with repeat or recidivist driving offenders that come from that lower decile of our socio-economic-demographic community. So this is about striving to keep our communities safe, but to deter offenders.

So it’s going to be interesting, and I have glanced at the regulatory impact statement, which brings me to, again, that socio-demographic. The fleeing driver’s profile: the profile of a fleeing driver, including age, differs depending on circumstances and whether the driver is a first time or repeat offender. However, the research shows that fleeing drivers are more likely to be younger and male. And having practised in the area of child welfare, care and protection, and youth justice, it’s a known scientific fact, particularly with our young men, that their cognitive and their rationale for assessment and judgment isn’t fully functioning until approximately the age of 25. So they’re younger and male, identify as Māori, have criminal and traffic offence histories, do not have a current driver licence—again, often associated with socio-economic demographics—or have been disqualified or suspended. Again, those are some areas that I’ve touched on. I invite the select committee to turn their minds to addressing how effective this legislation will be in terms of dealing with fleeing drivers.

Lemauga Lydia Sosene—five minutes.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to do a short contribution on the Land Transport (Road Safety) Amendment Bill.

As a list member from South Auckland, there is a huge problem of young drivers, specifically, in our area. To address that huge problem, this bill is common sense to help keep communities safe. This is one of the enforcement tools that is required by police to strengthen their needs in terms of police having to spend valuable police time unnecessarily chasing fleeing drivers.

On this side of the House, this bill will crack down on fleeing drivers’ bad behaviour, who make reckless choices in putting innocent lives at risk. Those fleeing drivers, as you’ve heard from other speakers, need to be held to account. Police will have this lever, will have this tool in its necessary kete so that those fleeing drivers can face stronger consequences.

It also promotes better road safety that is required to reduce serious road deaths, to help to keep our community members alive. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I rise to take a very short call on this bill today because it’s a no-brainer. This bill backs police and it backs New Zealanders, and it keeps us safe on our roads. The Land Transport (Road Safety) Amendment Bill reduces unsafe behaviour on our roads. In particular, it is in response to the unsafe behaviour exhibited by fleeing drivers, as we heard already. We also heard the Minister the Hon Andrew Little talk about this and the sad statistics around this.

So, in particular, this bill will expand the period the police may seize and impound the vehicle from 28 days to six months, which is good. It also gives the police new powers to be able to impound that motor vehicle for 28 days if the owner of the vehicle fails to give the name of the person who fled.

There are many more really good pieces in this legislation. It’s a no-brainer. I commend this bill to the House.

“Fleeing” seems to be the word of the day. And initially I thought it was about MPs fleeing their parties. I thought it was also, maybe, about how much money flees Kiwis wallets because of the cost of living. But, no, when I looked at the bill, this is actually about land transport, not about MPs or the cost of living. It’s about those who flee police and the consequences that this bill tries to address.

Unfortunately, fleeing drivers is well-known in my electorate of Tāmaki. We’ve had over 40 ram raids in the last year, and I’ve been able to visit just about all, if not all, those businesses. And as many, I think, have indicated in the House, often it’s young people in stolen cars. Actually, kudos to our local police; they’ve caught most of those young people. But fleeing drivers is a major issue, not just with the ram raids—in fact, our Eastern Bays Community Patrol, the other week, identified a fleeing car in Glendowie and were part, ultimately, of the result where the vehicle—actually riding on its rims, of all things—was caught by police in Ōtāhuhu.

Again, fleeing drivers is well-known, so, look, National supports this bill, but it doesn’t go far enough by any means. First and foremost, it doesn’t address the very fact that people are fleeing the police already, which tells you they are not as afraid, if you will, of police as people should be. Secondly, we also know that the police don’t have the same operational powers, ultimately, to actually pursue. As many people have noted, once someone decides to put their foot down, the police, effectively, rely on the Eagle helicopter, or others in Auckland, to work out where the vehicle is going to stop. They do not pursue as frequently as they used to. That’s a fundamental problem. The second thing that I also alluded to very early on is that these cars are stolen. So it’s all well and good to talk about “We’re going to impound the vehicle.”; well, OK, but they’re usually stolen—and that’s multiple vehicles, by the way; certainly with the ram raids in Tāmaki, we’re talking two or three cars—so there’s no point in impounding the stolen vehicle.

And I would just hope that the select committee addresses this in some ways to go, “Actually, the person who has done the thieving or the fleeing—let’s take their car, not the one that they’ve already stolen.” So that’s something we need to address. But as I say, unfortunately, fleeing drivers’ criminal behaviour is well-known in my electorate. It’s something which I will continue to push against and demand more action from this Government. And while I support this bill, the Labour Government needs to do much, much more to restore law and order to this country.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Kōrero mai, kōrero atu, mauri tū, mauri ora. Like my colleague Shanan Halbert, I also want to acknowledge colleagues across the House who have been supporting Pink Shirt Day today and standing up for diversity and against bullying.

It’s a pleasure to take the last call on the Land Transport (Road Safety) Amendment Bill. Many people have traversed the details of the bill, and I want to finish the speeches on this bill today by going back to the heart of what this bill is about, which is the goal, I believe, of all MPs: to reduce the number of fatal and serious-harm car crashes in Aotearoa. We need to take all the steps that we can to do that. I’m certain that every MP in this House has members of their family and friends, and acquaintances who they know, who have been killed or seriously harmed in a vehicle incident.

When it comes to the issue of speeding and fleeing drivers in my own electorate, I just want to acknowledge the devastating crash, as a result of a fleeing driver, in 2018 that killed an innocent Nelson woman, and also acknowledge another crash in my electorate that was devastating, where we lost a young woman I knew with a very bright future: Christine Kelly. She lost her life due to a driver travelling at a speed of 98 kilometres, and with alcohol, along one of our State highways.

This is what we’re here to do; this is what this bill is about: it’s another tool in the tool box to prevent serious harm and crashes in our country, which is something I believe we all are committed to doing. On that note, I commend this bill to the House.

The question is, That the Land Transport (Road Safety) Amendment Bill be considered by the Justice Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Justice Committee.

Instruction to Justice Committee