Mark Ron: Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Mark Ron: Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4572] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 Therein is the point that counters the speeches made earlier on and in particular the speech of the member of the Green Party. He said that this legislation was not necessary. He said that the police have all the powers that they need yet during the time that I was on the Law and Order Committee we heard consistently—as did colleagues who took over on that committee for this term and who continued to hear the submissions to work their way through them and to produce the report—that the law as it currently stands is not adequate. I will say that again: the law as it currently stands is not adequate. 
I say to the good member of the Green Party that the people involved in this activity are not all young men. A lot of men in their 30s and 40s have hot cars and like to be out there displaying their driving prowess. They are not all men or boys either. I say to the hoon over there on the Government side of the Chamber Paul Adams that he is a United Future party member and a road racer himself. The people involved get a buzz out of it. In a court of law how does one prove that a car that is actually stationary—not speeding—on the road is being driven dangerously? The things that are moving are the back or front wheels; the car is stationary because it has no traction. What would we charge such people with? Would it be with exceeding the 50 kilometres an hour speed limit? They are not doing that! Would we charge them with driving in a manner that might have been dangerous? They would argue that the car was not moving that they had full control over its front wheels that they were doing a burnout in a static spot and that they were in full control of the vehicle. They would also say there was no danger to anybody because they were doing that in a country burnout spot that they had chosen behind the Christchurch airport where there were no members of the public present other than the other street racers who were standing around watching drinking booze smoking dope and having a great time. 
They could argue in a court of law that they were not driving in a manner that might have been dangerous and that the activity was not dangerous driving. The point is this: the law as it currently stands is not adequate for us to get the sorts of convictions that are required. 
Let us go one step further. We already have laws approved by this Parliament—I know Labour voted against them—that gave the police the power to confiscate the vehicles of unlicensed drivers. If it is OK for this House to give the police the power to confiscate the vehicles of people who are not licensed to be driving them why is it not OK for the police to confiscate the vehicle of a hoon who is doing a burnout in a city suburb and keeping the neighbours awake? 
This law has been redrafted and presented to us to give the police specific powers to deal with an issue that is vaguely interpretable. The bill has zeroed in on the offence of operating a vehicle in a position of sustained loss of traction. The purpose of the bill has been very clearly defined and its terminology has been refined to make sure that it captures only those people who are in the act of doing that illegally or in an unauthorised manner. The bill does not deal with or aim to capture rally drivers. It does not aim to capture the Christchurch City Council if it hosts a burnout competition on a street specially closed off for the event. 
And here is the point: if people want to enjoy that activity with their specially tuned-up hotted-up cars then they should be able to go along and participate in any authorised legal event that is hosted by a club. But they do not want to do that because their very reason for being there on any particular night is to enjoy the illicit atmosphere that they indulge in. That is their culture—to be out there “sticking it up the nose” of authority of society or of whomever they got away with doing that to. What do we propose in response to that? Should we use the current law and give those people more fines which they chuck in their glove boxes and laugh about? No. This law change allows the police to go that one step further and having caught the individual red-handed in the act to execute straight away the law that allows them to impound the vehicle. That is what the country actually wants. 
The purpose of this bill as defined very clearly by the piece that is left—by that I mean there has been a lot taken out of Part 1; there is only a very very small part of it left—is to amend the principal Act in order to address the problem of unauthorised street racing drag racing wheel spinning and other stunts involving motor vehicles on roads. The other point that was very well dealt with is the issue of whether it is illegal for someone to tip diesel on a road. Can the police today charge someone who goes out and tips diesel on a road? After this bill is passed they certainly will be able to do so.