Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4583] 
Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed. 
Part 2 Substantive amendments to Land Transport Act 1998 and consequential amendments ( 
continued 
)  
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 In speaking to the bill I just want to cover some aspects quite quickly. Firstly this issue does concern local authorities greatly. Therefore it was no surprise to me to find that 25 local authorities had made submissions to the select committee. Secondly I also know from discussions that took place at that time that a number of those local authorities were not happy with what they thought was light-handed treatment with regard to the possible consequences of street racing. 
The Hon Dover Samuels and John Carter like myself will have received over recent months a great deal of correspondence from the Kaitaia district relating to these very matters. At the end the inability for various reasons of the local police station to act in the minds of people correctly resulted almost in their taking their own actions with regard to matters of this nature and similar. Therefore I find it very surprising to come to the House and hear a determined call by the ACT party—which has some adherents in our district for some reason particularly in the Kerikeri district—to adopt a completely laissez-faire hands-off no-action approach. In fact its zero tolerance is zero tolerance in relation to any ability to carry out what seems to me to be very sensible consequences as outlined in the select committee. 
There is nothing in clause 4 or clause 5 that should cause anyone any concern. There is no great attack there upon anyone’s liberty. In fact with regard to the earlier debate about the purpose clause the substituted clauses pick up exactly what was intended. In clause 5 subsection (2) of section 22A which is about preventing persons from engaging in unauthorised street or drag racing states: “A person must not without reasonable excuse intentionally pour . . .”—it covers that aspect —“any other substance likely to cause a vehicle to undergo loss of traction.” Again subsection (3) states: “A person must not without reasonable excuse operate a motor vehicle on a road in a manner that causes the vehicle to undergo sustained loss of traction unless the operation of the vehicle in that manner is authorised by law.” 
Some of the issues that were raised earlier and are implicit here are ones that should not cause any sound right-thinking person any problem with regard to the retention of one’s personal liberty or one’s person. So I speak on behalf of New Zealand First to give further support to Part 2. Again I express my surprise living and working in the Northland district as I do where the ACT party has some support and had support at the last election to find that ACT opposes this bill. I believe that its supporters particularly those in Kerikeri would be quite shocked at ACT’s extreme liberal no-care attitude in respect of an issue that in our district has caused great concern and needs an appropriate remedy such as this bill intends. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (NZ Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I wish people in the Chamber would debate the parts and stop making pathetic political points. I would like the Minister of Transport to stand and answer a question I have. It relates to Part 2 where section 96(1A) in clause 8(2) states: “An enforcement officer may seize and impound or seize and authorise the impoundment of a motor vehicle for 28 days if the officer believes on reasonable grounds that a person—(a) operated the vehicle in a race or in an unnecessary exhibition of speed or acceleration on a road in contravention of section 22A(1);” then goes on to talk about loss of traction. I would like the Minister to answer whether this provision relates just to those people whom this bill identifies and defines as boy racers or whether it will be applied to anybody who is exceeding the speed limit. Obviously if one is exceeding the speed limit one is exhibiting speed or acceleration that is not authorised. 
This is going to catch everybody. There may be people in this Chamber who have never broken the speed limit but I will be honest and say that I have and I have had speeding fines and I have paid them. I have accepted responsibility for those because I accept the upholding of the law. I have given in gracefully—not without a bit of grumbling I must admit—and I have paid them. I challenge anyone to say they have not broken the law in terms of breaking the speed limit whether or not they have been caught. 
What does concern me—and I would like the Minister to stand and answer this—is whether this legislation will apply only to those people whom people in this Chamber dislike because they think they are bogans or hoons or thugs on wheels or whatever; or will also apply to people like my mother who is 82 who received a speeding fine the other day too and paid it. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Was she in a race? 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: She could be called a “Go-Granny-Go” but she could not be called a boy racer. Seriously though this is an important issue that needs to be addressed. If the police have the ability instead of issuing people with a speed camera fine which is the normal course of events at the moment to go further and take their vehicles off them and impound them for 28 days then have them prove that they were not breaking the law before they can get their property back that brings me back to this issue of compensation for property rights. If these boy racers do have their vehicles impounded for 28 days just because an officer believes on reasonable grounds that they were breaking the law—it has not been proven in court; it has not been shown that they were breaking the law that they committed an offence—if they have their property taken off them then they go through the system of proving that they were not breaking the law and they get their property back; who will compensate them for that breach of their property rights? Will we see increased claims against the State? That is the second question I would like the Minister to answer. Will this open the way for more action against the police and therefore against the State? 
If it does I think it is not too late for those who say they support this bill to pass an amendment. I must say that I think that National Party members would be surprised—those old codgers who are still alive who remember that the National Party was founded on the principles of individual liberty and respect for the law—[ 
Interruption 
] When was the National Party founded? The member cannot answer. I wonder what those people think now when they see that the National Party is supporting the Labour Party in terms of a person being guilty until proven innocent. 
I ask the Minister if he could take a call and answer those two questions: one whether this legislation allows the police to do away with prosecuting with issuing traffic fines and instead to use their discretion to take a vehicle— 
GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I would like to pick up on some of the points raised by Deborah Coddington because I think that she has identified a very serious point in the bill that the select committee seems to have failed to pick up. She talked about the clause that allows a vehicle to be seized and impounded for 28 days in certain circumstances. Clause 8(2)(1A) states that an enforcement officer may seize and impound a vehicle if the officer believes on reasonable grounds that a person operated the vehicle in a race or in an unnecessary exhibition of speed or acceleration on a road in contravention of section 22A(1). It does not just state a race but also an unnecessary exhibition of speed or acceleration and that is a very broad understanding of what we are talking about here. 
Section 22A(1) which clause 8 refers to simply states that a person must not operate a motor vehicle in a race or in an unnecessary exhibition of speed or acceleration on a road unless the operation of the vehicle in that manner is authorised by law. If a person is speeding clearly that is not authorised by law. If a person takes off from a traffic light a bit quickly and breaks the speed limit then he or she has broken that clause. According to the bill that person’s vehicle can then be impounded for 28 days. 
There is a limitation on this in section 96(9) of the principal Act inserted by clause 8 which states: “Nothing in subsection 1A applies to a person operating a motor vehicle in a manner that is authorised by law within the meaning of section 22A(4).” I know that the select committee was concerned to make sure that people engaged in legitimate motor races were not picked up by this bill and I think that is very good. However all it does is say that if a person is involved in a race or exhibition of speed authorised by law then that subsection does not apply. It still does not pick up on the point identified by Deborah Coddington which the select committee with all its consideration obviously did not pick up at all—that is that a person taking off from a traffic light a bit quickly and who breaks the speed limit can have his or her vehicle impounded by the police for 28 days. 
Members are saying: “Don’t be pathetic; the police will not do that.” Of course they will not do that to a member of Parliament or a lawyer in a BMW but when we listen to the rhetoric of members in this House talking about hoons and thugs and we think about the way in which this bill is deliberately designed to scapegoat a certain section of the population then undoubtedly those powers may well be used against certain sections of the population—not the ones who are the friends of members of Parliament in general but some sections of the population; the same ones who are targeted by the police in many of their operations. 
Once again let us remind the Committee that this is what was identified in terms of advice to the select committee. The advice to the select committee was that this bill breaches the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Some members in this House seem to think that the Greens are very quaint. We think that if we have a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act we should adhere to it. There is a quaint notion in relation to human rights—that we can take or leave some people when we choose to. 
The reality is that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is legislation based on international human rights conventions designed to protect the human rights and civil rights of people on this planet. This Parliament should think very very carefully before making an exception in this case when there is not a proven case that warrants that kind of activity. If we make an exception in this case what are we prepared to make an exception for the next time? That is what this Parliament has to come to grips with. 
We pass legislation knowing that we are contravening the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act at our peril. [ 
Interruption 
] I tell Lianne Dalziel that the difference with the breath-testing laws is that they relate to an offence for which there is no subjective test. If a person’s breath-alcohol reading is over the limit that is clear and if a person is driving while disqualified or suspended that is clear also. There is no question of subjectivity. If a person is guilty of one of the offences under this bill it is a subjective test and it should not be for a police officer to decide whether someone is breaking the law and then punish that person before his or her guilt has been established. 
The other point which I raised in the second reading debate is about who does a person who feels that he or she has been unfairly targeted by the police appeal to. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: The courts. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: To the police. I ask Clayton Cosgrove whether he has read the bill. That person would apply to the police. The bill states that that person should apply to the police. 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No and before I call the next member I say to members on the cross benches that it is a longstanding convention in the House that they do not interject across the cross benches because it muffles the microphone. 
BRIAN CONNELL (NZ National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Being a new member here I do not understand what you mean by the cross benches. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The cross benches are at the back of the Chamber. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Those ones that go across. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I thank the Minister for his help. I have a question for him so he should stay in the chair. People are tending to read this legislation or history backwards. District councils and city councils have bent over backwards to try to accommodate boy racers by providing off-street facilities. What has become very clear is that these hoons have very little interest in driving their cars in a dangerous way unless they have an audience. In fact the police in New South Wales report that the threat of impoundment has resulted in a reasonable uptake of alternative venues provided by clubs and local authorities. I think there is a message here for members of this House—if a deterrent is put in place if councils provide off-street facilities they may not be doing that in vain. 
I have a question for the Minister and it is not a question to try to trap him. As I was mulling over this legislation during dinner it occurred to me that I did not know what would happen if the impounded vehicle is leased subject to a hire purchase agreement or financed through a bank. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: It doesn’t matter. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Maybe the Minister could take a call and tell me why it doesn’t matter because I do not know the answer. Just how will that situation be dealt with? 
The second issue I would like to raise is that the police respond to public concern. That is where they put their resources. If they are overstretched at the moment it is because this issue has high public interest. If one thinks it is an issue just for urban areas it is not. This is an endemic problem that stretches from the deep South Island to the North Island. I have an email that I would like to quote from: “Vehicle noise pollution is becoming a very insidious problem nationwide. What on earth would a scrubby-arsed 1.3 litre car need a 150 to 200 millilitre tailpipe on a car other than to make lots of noise and be more of a damned nuisance?”. That is an issue of public concern and something that needs to be addressed. 
As I cast through the commentary on the bill from the select committee I note that it states: “We note the New Zealand Law Society and the National Council of Women submitted that if the police were resourced adequately and if they treated the issue as a priority the existing law would be sufficient to deal with the issue. However the police note that street racer activity tends to peak during the hours of darkness at the weekends when other more serious crime is also peaking.” The issue then is whether the police are resourced adequately. On reflection notwithstanding the commentary on the bill which I accept I was a party to I am not certain that they are. It might be something that we need to address in this Chamber to make sure that the police do have the resources to deal with an issue that has as I said become endemic. 
I said that councils have bent over backwards to try to assist these people to pursue a legitimate interest in drag racing and of course some have taken up that opportunity. Councils report that around 20 percent have taken up that opportunity. The bulk of the facilities though are left unused and particularly when this activity is peaking there is no one on these drag strips. They prefer to go to town harass people block off roads and cause huge problems. They destroy people’s quality of life. As I said before people have petitioned me in their droves to take action to do something about this problem. 
The commentary also notes that penalties imposed for these offences do not seem to act as a deterrent. People tend to get their fine deal with it at the police station and come out and wave it around as a badge of honour. Current law does not easily identify offenders. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 60 
Noes 54 
Motion agreed to. 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The question now is that Part 2 stand part. A party vote is called for. Just before we have the party vote can I remind members that we need silence during the taking of the vote. If members look at Speaker’s ruling 56/4 and Speaker’s ruling 8/2 in the Supplement to  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 they will see that silence is required. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think probably one of the things that brings issues of disorder to a head is when members feel somewhat aggrieved that the debate has been truncated. We are in the Committee stage and have already forgone the opportunity to debate this bill clause by clause. There is considerable dissent within the Committee amongst the parties. New material is being raised consistently. Nothing in the debate has been repetitive. For the record and for good order maintenance and discipline could you tell the Committee precisely how long we have spent on the Committee stage of Part 2 at this point in time. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member and refer him to Standing Order 139. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 97 
Noes 17 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8. 
ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9. 
Schedule 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I wish to bring members’ attention briefly to some amendments in my name which are in the immortal words of the Hon Stan Rodger minor technical amendments. They simply improve the schedule of the bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Before I call the next member I would like to inform the Committee that the debate on the schedule is very narrow. It is confined to the consequential amendments set out in the schedule. Members should not range over the contents of the bill except to the extent that these amendments are consequential to those provisions. The consideration of the schedule is not an opportunity for a summing-up debate on the bill. That happens in the debate on the third reading. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I have taken your advice and read Standing Order 139 which states that if the Speaker accepts a closure motion the question is put on the closure and decided without amendment or debate. Can I ask you Mr Chairperson to consider that many of the rulings given by Chairs and Speakers in the House are based on convention. One of the simple principles that determines how Committee stages are run is that the debate be allowed to continue in a timely manner and in a manner that allows the debate to be adequately aired. 
In the past Speakers and Chairs have deliberately not allowed the debate to be seen to be rammed through. They have exhausted the time available to ensure that all members have been given adequate opportunity to debate the clauses and the parts in a meaningful way. Can I once again ask you to consider that in future deliberations. We have had a very short Committee stage debate on Part 2. I would hate to think and maybe this is something that could be reflected on by yourself and Mr Speaker that we have now set a precedent by which future Governments that appoint Chairs and Speakers might seek to truncate Oppositions’ ability to debate bills. 
In the time that I have been a Government whip and an Opposition whip we have gone out of our way to ensure that the conventions are adhered to because their implications are great. I now see a debate that has been truncated and I suggest that the implications of that in terms of convention are quite serious indeed. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 As a member of now 4 years’ standing I want to endorse that concern because I need guidance on this. We have now had a warning from you in the Chair as to the relevance of debates on the schedule in terms that imply that in some way we were discursive repetitive or off the point. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The Chair is not creating any precedent whatsoever. This is the normal course and has been for quite a considerable time. I take the opportunity now to recognise that both members have made a contribution. I have heard what they had to say and I will take it into consideration. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I understand what you have explained to us. But the dilemma I have now is that with the feeling of dissatisfaction that I have and it has now been supported by the member from the ACT party— 
Sue Kedgley 
: And the Greens. 
RON MARK 
: And the Greens now have also expressed the same concern. I know that behind the scenes there are discussions and arrangements between the Government whips and the various Opposition whips and unofficial and informal agreements are entered into in the Business Committee but I have not been part of any such discussions. 
What I see right now is a situation that will lead to great dissatisfaction. If we are now to stick to the relevance of the schedule there is no opportunity for the new material that has been introduced to be addressed on either the Government or the divided Opposition side of this debate. It leaves one in the position in order to seek satisfaction of possibly recalling the Speaker because we in New Zealand First feel that our right to debate this issue fully and formally to a sensible conclusion has been rushed. To receive an arrogant response which basically stated “Read 139 and sit down” to my expression of concern is totally unacceptable if this is truly a House of Representatives and a democratic environment. I ask you to consider that and give me a sensible explanation before I am forced to consider my final option which is to recall the Speaker. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I will deal briefly first of all with one of the points raised by Mr Mark towards the end of his comments. The whole issue of urgency and any agreement about questions in the coming week was discussed by the Business Committee today. It was not informal or in any way unrecorded. The whip of that party was a party to those decisions and they will be recorded in due course. 
However having corrected Mr Mark on that issue it has nothing to do with the issue under discussion which in my view is the third occasion that the member has attempted to relitigate a ruling by the Chair. That is clearly a gross breach of the Standing Orders. He referred in a previous comment to the degree of contention surrounding this issue. The vote including the way his party voted on the previous motion shows that there is very little contention around this issue and I think his point verges on the extremely frivolous. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I do not require any further assistance on this matter. The acceptance of the closure is entirely a matter for the Chairperson to judge in each case. Members must not seek to relitigate the ruling on the closure any further. I say to members that they are getting close to being grossly disorderly. I refer them to Standing Order 86. 
DAIL JONES (Junior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am not referring to your ruling at all. I am raising a fresh point of order based on the inaccurate statements made by the senior Government whip about what happened at the Business Committee. I was present at the Business Committee. As far as I was aware the main things that were discussed at that meeting were first readings. Rushing this bill through the Committee stage was not discussed. I do not intend to take any further time other than to correct that incorrect statement. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member. I caution members that there is no need for the House to become disorderly. I think that everyone has had a fair go at making his or her point. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I seek clarification of your comments about the breadth of the debate on the schedule. I say that because it appeared to me that it could have been prompted only by a view about the debate on the earlier parts of the bill. ACT was the main subject of attack in that debate. We were not given an opportunity to address the substance. We address substance only and in the schedule there are matters on which we will be in a difficult position if the Chair is minded to take them as relitigation of earlier points because the form of notice in the schedule raises earlier points. 
The message I got is that we are not to be in a position to defend the statements that we made and that require elaboration because they simply became the subject of a political counter-charge. There was no attempt made by other parties to debate the issue. There was simply a torrent of abuse against ACT and its notional supporters. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member. It was an observation that I had made about the nature of the schedule. The consequential amendments will allow members to voice those issues so that does open it up a little bit. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 The schedule contains the machinery with which the police will impound vehicles. The form that the police officer will hand to the driver of the car will state among other things: “…you operated that vehicle in a race or in an unnecessary exhibition of speed or acceleration on a road in contravention of section 22A(1)…”. The person getting that notice will not have a clue what section 22A states. He or she will not have the faintest idea that it gives them some defence. The person getting that notice will think the police officer is saying “I seize your vehicle because I think that you accelerated unnecessarily fast.” How often is there any room for a debate about that? From the Green perspective anyone not on a bicycle is probably going unnecessarily fast or accelerating unnecessarily; any one who is driving an 8-cylinder car instead of a 4-cylinder car is probably using unnecessary force and power. 
What this does is put the police in the same position that they have been put in by being told to go out and get quotas of tickets all over the country. Instead of building their relationship with a vital section of the public—namely the most spirited young offenders; the sort of young people who are going somewhere whose hobby when they are young is to drive and work on powerful cars and who work hard—those young people will be getting a message from the police that says: “We want your car because you accelerated unnecessarily.” What we have here is legislation that is pure camouflage. In fact if those young people go to a lawyer they will find that the police cannot arrest them for that. 
There is a tear-jerking set of pleas about people going home and getting notices of deaths or injuries. Will the next thing that Labour attacks be people who go climbing or skydiving or people who smoke? It has already attacked the smokers. There are many many activities that are strictly unnecessary and it is quite within people’s individual rights to choose to do them. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Running commentaries are out of order. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: The justification for giving a notice under Part 2 should have been very straightforward: “You are endangering other people who have not consented to run that risk.” 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Please do not bring the Chair into the debate. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: The notice should have stated and I quote: “You are breaking the law driver.” The notice uses the form “you”; I have no option but to use that terminology. It should have stated: “You have broken the law. You have put others at risk.” But it should not be directed to people who have simply chosen to risk themselves because that is a right that every New Zealander with any spirit should be trying to protect. 
This is pitiful law. This is slogan law. It puts the police into a position in which the result can only be that another group is against them. This law is absolutely typical of the meaningless law that Labour promotes instead of dealing with law and order. This schedule should be amending the penalties for giving the fingers to a court order. This bill says that Labour regards the Attorney-General as a wally. This schedule allows seizure that the Labour Attorney-General has correctly said is utterly inappropriate and unjustified. What it does could easily have been done by enhancing the powers to enforce ordinary court orders to make sure that the police are tackling the people they are too scared of. How many really menacing folk will have their cars seized under this legislation? It will be the same as the people with menacing dogs; this Government will pass a law against dogs that really hits only the inoffensive—the people who volunteer to submit to the law. The really gross offenders—the people whom this Government sucks up to and curries favour with—will thumb their noses at this law in the same way that those people do who just do not bother to pay their fines under this Government. There are $457 million of fines owing. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 As the member of Parliament for Nelson I want to put on the record my support for the schedule. I invite the member who has just spoken to reflect on the practical situation in three areas of my own electorate in Branford Park—[ 
Interruption 
] Get a life mate! I just ask the members opposite to be a little more mature and allow a member to participate in the debate without being interjected on with smart alec comments. 
I invite the member who has just spoken to come to Branford Park and say that the police are able to confiscate a vehicle only when there is endangerment of life. I have a group of 300 people who live in that particular valley who time after time including this last weekend have put up with boy racers destroying their quality of life. I ask the member who spoke before me whether we have to wait until lives are in danger for those people to have peace of mind. If the people in the Matai Valley in Nelson wound up the noise of a stereo causing noise harm then the law of the land says that the police can remove the cause of that noise. 
Stephen Franks 
: This doesn’t touch it. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I tell the member that the noise is coming from the tyres squealing. I happen to know the practical effect of this. Mr Franks is incorrect. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I bring the member back to the schedule. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The schedule deals with the issue of the notice that is to be given to those motorists. 
Hon Member 
: Read the bill. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I have read it. I invite ACT members to come to Branford Park with the police who are dealing with the real practical situation. [ 
Interruption 
] I listened to the member with some dignity; why does he not just sit up and listen for a bit to a local member of Parliament who actually listens to his constituents and knows what goes on? 
Right now the police have tried their very best to deal with these problems. I have confidence that our police with the powers in this bill will be able to hit boy racers where it hurts—by serving this notice on them and taking their cars from them—because residents deserve to live in peace. I do not want them to have to wait the 4 6 or 8 weeks for the matter to go to a court hearing. Whether people live in Branford Park Victoria Heights or Waimea Road this Parliament has to err on the side of the law being in their favour. That is why I say that the provisions in the schedule are quite sensible. 
The second thing I want to say is that the Law and Order Committee did a good job. It made these measures align with the Summary Proceedings Act; that is provided for in the schedule. To me it is perfectly sensible to have the same set of provisions apply to boy racers as apply to drink-drivers and as apply to those who have their licences confiscated and repeatedly drive. It is perfectly sensible to put the boy racers on exactly the same basis. We should hit them where it hurts and take their cars off them. The notice that is provided for in the schedule is pretty sensible. I think they will get the message and that it will make the difference. I think it will need to be combined with some other local initiatives in each of our communities. It is not a magic bullet. It is not all of the answer but it is a large part of it. 
I challenge the ACT party. I appreciate its academic legal argument but those members should be practical. In the practical real-life situation out there in real world New Zealand these are the sorts of provisions we need for the police to be able to get on and do their job. 
The last thing I have to say is that I have great confidence in our boys in blue. [ 
Interruption 
] I have great confidence in him too; he is going to be a great Prime Minister. Unlike that party over there and unlike that member over there this party consistently backs the police. Those members are fair-weather friends. We back the police consistently because we have confidence in them. I know that they will use these provisions sensibly so that the communities in my electorate that have been terrorised by irresponsible boy racers will see them dealt to. 
Darren Hughes 
: Enjoy your retirement. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Long after that member has begun his! It is pity that members opposite do not want to address the schedule and the issue we are debating. They want to play political games. The reason I will be here long after that member has gone is that I focus on the job and on looking after my constituents not on playing silly political games. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I welcome the chairman’s comments about the wideness of this debate and his recognition that the schedule contains elements that should allow us to expand the debate into Part 2 in particular. I want to make one point. One of the things I like about this bill is that it restores to the men and women in blue who work on the front lines— 
Darren Hughes 
: Come on! 
RON MARK 
: It is a bit sad when young members come to the House and display their contempt and arrogance. Hopefully in time they will grow up. I hope the young man learns. Particularly when Opposition parties are trying to support the Government a little bit of magnanimity in victory is always a quality that is admired. Arrogance contempt and puerile behaviour are not. [ 
Interruption 
] There he goes; grow up young man! 
One of the things I like about this bill is that it returns to the men and women who police our streets one thing that has been lost over recent years—that is the ability to use a little discretion. Although some parties look at some of the wording in the schedule and in the purpose clause in Part 1 in particular and say that it is too broad and too vague I look at it in a positive sense and say that this bill gives some discretion to the police. I remember the day when policemen and policewomen had the ability to look at a situation and decide that it was high jinks or nonsense and that a kick in the butt and a twist of the ear would likely set a young fellow on a straight path. I thank the member on the other side for his nod; it is encouraging. Such treatment would set a young fellow on the straight and narrow again without blemishing his record. But we have got into template law and I have to say that our friends in the legal fraternity make their money out of defining each and every little aspect of law. That is how they make their money. It actually hamstrings the boys in blue. 
The Greens can say that it is a breach of human rights and I am pleased I am hearing that from them because it is consistent with what they always say. I will never agree with them but they are consistent. But what I like in this bill is the discretion that is open to an officer. If it is a flaw if members want to say that it opens the law up to vagueness and ambiguity well I would rather put my confidence in the men and women in blue to make the right judgment. 
I do acknowledge that the bill provides for the ability to appeal and to appeal further again if people feel they have been unjustly treated by the police. That is a good thing and I congratulate the Government and the Law and Order Committee on putting it in the bill. But I say do not chuck the whole bill out based on the belief that it is too vague. I welcome the ability for officers to look at a situation where a car has spun its wheels and gone away from the lights and say: “Well that’s just a person of a particular ethnicity who can’t drive and has actually dropped the clutch.” or: “That’s a hoon who is spinning his tyres to get away in a race.” That is the sort of discretion the police need on the streets to get common sense into law enforcement. I am pleased that it is there. 
The only thing I am not comfortable with I will put on the record now. I will support this bill going through the House but I will watch it. If in time I am not happy then I will come back to the House with amendments either via another bill or by amending the legislation when we are in Government. [ 
Interruption 
] I do not believe we should be confiscating for 28 days the cars of people who have offended three times. We should not impound the cars; we should confiscate them—end of story. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: If they do it twice in 4 years the car is confiscated. 
RON MARK 
: I understand it now. That is the sort of assurance I wanted. At the end of the day there are those people who continue to push the outside edge of the envelope and they never learn. That assurance has to be in there. I did not see it in the bill so if the member wants to take a 5-minute call and explain it to us all that would be very satisfying. The confiscation for 28 days and the $3000 fine are good things and the form seems to be fine and in that respect we will continue our support for the bill. But we will be watching over time. I will be listening to the cops. 
One of the things I do like about the form is that it is very brief. When I talk to police I hear too much about the endless forms they have to fill out keeping them off the beat for hours on end. The paper war is a distinct worry in the police force and it is good to see that we are down to something more manageable. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I would like to address my comments to the schedule and in particular to Part 2. I would like to begin by thanking Dr Smith for his contribution. He is always consistent when we are discussing these kinds of issues. He flagrantly and consistently has no regard for the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. He showed that with his attitude to the Local Government Act and he is showing it with his attitude to this bill. At least he is consistent and we should recognise that. 
Dr Smith invited us to go to Branford Park to check out the hooning that is happening there. Once again at the risk of boring the Committee I remind the Committee that there is adequate legislation available right now for policing this kind of behaviour. It is called the Transport Act and it includes charging people with reckless or careless driving. Dr Smith said that he could not wait for the courts to make a finding that a vehicle should be confiscated there and then. But what he was talking about is summary justice. If we cannot allow ourselves to wait for the proper procedures of law to take place for a person to be found guilty of an offence before being punished for that offence then we are sadly lacking as a Parliament. 
This bill puts all people at risk not just hoons or whatever name we want to use to scapegoat these people. If we look at Part 2 of the schedule at the form that will be given to people when the police are seizing and impounding their vehicles we see that it reiterates what we saw in Part 2 of the bill—that is if an officer believes on reasonable grounds that a person has operated a vehicle “in an unnecessary exhibition of speed or acceleration” he or she can and will confiscate the vehicle. The words “unnecessary exhibition of speed or acceleration” are very telling. We have been told repeatedly that this bill is about safety and protecting people but when we look at the reasons that are given for confiscating a vehicle we see that there is nothing about safety there. There is nothing about protecting the public. It is about an “unnecessary exhibition of speed or acceleration”. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Which is unsafe! 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: It does not state “unsafe”. That member should read the bill. It states “unnecessary exhibition of speed or acceleration”. It does not state “dangerous speed” or “dangerous acceleration”. It simply states that if people break the law and they accelerate unnecessarily the police can confiscate their vehicles. As I have already said it is not only certain members of the public who are in danger of being caught by this; the bill potentially puts everyone in danger. 
Ron Mark talked about the need for the police to have discretion. New Zealand First is a party that talks about one law for all but what he was talked about was the ability to have one law for some and one law for others. That is not acceptable. 
I would like to reiterate the comments made by my colleague Stephen Franks. He made some very good points. Once again he made the point clearly that this bill is not about safety or protecting the public; it is about creating powers for the police that can be used in draconian and unnecessary ways. Also let me reiterate that if the police are concerned about these kinds of behaviours they should use the powers available to them under the Transport Act. Those powers allow someone to be charged they carry jail sentences as their maximum penalties and they allow the courts to confiscate vehicles—not just impound them. But this Committee is saying that it cannot be bothered with judicial process with evidence or with the need to prove a case. It would rather give the police the ability to impound a vehicle without their having to prove their case to anyone because all they need is reasonable grounds to believe that someone has broken the law. That is entirely inadequate. 
Who do people appeal to? They appeal to the police. They appeal to the body that confiscated their vehicles in the first place. How can we expect an impartial consideration of the fairness of that impounding? 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (NZ Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I again address the schedule of this bill. I ask the Minister in the chair to show us where in this piece of legislation it deals with repeat offenders. I cannot see it anywhere. 
I add to that that Dr Nick Smith should go back to the 300 people in his electorate he talked about who say they welcome this bill and tell them to be very very afraid. If people speed they will no longer run the risk of just being fined; they will run the risk of having their cars taken off them. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Nonsense! 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: It is absolutely not nonsense. If the Minister looks at the schedule she will see that the notice advises the driver: “I am seizing and impounding ... the motor vehicle ... for 28 days because I believe on reasonable grounds ... you operated that vehicle in ... an unnecessary exhibition of speed or acceleration”. The only condition on that is that it was speed that was outside the parameters of the law. There is nothing in this bill that directs it to boy racers. Lianne Dalziel said that was nonsense. She may well remember when a Labour Minister said “Take the bikes off the bikies!”. There is nothing in this piece of legislation that protects people from not being simply fined for breaking the speed limit but having their vehicles taken off them and impounded. When I asked the Minister of Transport to take a call to explain where in this legislation it protects those people he did not take the call and he did not explain. I presume from that that there is nothing to protect those people. The National Party in its haste to pass this legislation is prepared to let this schedule go through that extends the powers of the police to such— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Be tough on law and order! 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: I am tough on law and order. I am tough on people who break the law. I do not agree with extending the powers of the police to people who they “believe” might be breaking the law. That is the crucial difference. It is an essential piece of liberal democracy that people are innocent until proven guilty and this legislation makes people guilty until they can prove themselves innocent. Under this schedule—in the notice under the heading “ADVICE TO DRIVERS”—the police just have to say in effect: “I’m impounding your vehicle because I believe I have reasonable grounds to believe that you have used unnecessary acceleration or speed.” 
While we are on the subject of unnecessary acceleration and speed I note that Clayton Cosgrove can show very great acceleration in speed when he is running away from television cameras. 
Hon Member 
: Why was he running away from the television cameras? 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: He was worried about his secretary. The Attorney-General has alerted this Parliament to the fact that this schedule is in breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Either the Government’s own Attorney-General is wrong or her colleagues are wrong. Both cannot be right. Some of us in drafting laws take the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act into account. We may not agree with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act but we do not flout the law just because we think it is wrong. But this Government is absolutely flouting the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act with this schedule. I say to all those people who are so happy to give the police more powers that the ACT party and the Green Party were the only parties that moved to reduce the powers of the police in the Local Government Act; all the other parties were happy to increase the powers of the police. I say to those members that they will have to explain to their constituents when they go to them and say: “Because of this schedule—the notice giving advice to drivers—I’ve had my car taken off me for 28 days. I can’t get it back and I haven’t even been convicted of anything.” 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 Mr Chairman— 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairman. My colleague Ron Mark won the call but I make this request with the good nature of the Committee. An interaction occurred between Mr Mark and Mr Cosgrove about a vehicle being confiscated in the event of there being more than one offence under a 28-day notice. A substantive very reasoned point has been raised by Mr Mark; I think it is reasonable that Mr Swain the Minister in the chair Mr Cosgrove or one of the other Government members provide some explanation rather than us just simply rolling on. I ask a Government member to take a call and provide some explanation. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No. It is up to the Minister or the member to reply if they so wish. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I thank the Hon Dr Nick Smith for that comment. I did take the opportunity to confer with the Minister and with Mr Cosgrove. When one goes back to the original bill as drafted one sees that it was very prescriptive in terms of offences and the sentences that might have been available to be used by the judiciary. 
What does get a little confusing is that when one reads through Part 1 of the schedule one sees that it specifies the amendments to the Sentencing Act. That legislation is a timely jogger because it serves to remind us how far we have progressed with some of the land transport safety law and gave me cause to go back a little further and remind myself of what happened in 1998. Many of the Acts we are now using to supplement and complement this legislation are ones we have passed previously and that is what I was reminded of. So I say to the Committee is it not curious how far we have come? 
I congratulate the Labour Party—I really do. The heart and soul of the effectiveness of this bill lies in the ability within the schedule of the police to be able to impound vehicles. That is the deterrent. That is the punitive measure. The next step for those recidivist offenders who just cannot get their heads around it and learn from the first time is to confiscate the vehicles sell them and recover that money into the coffers. It might help ACT party members to know that those outstanding fines they have talked about all through the evening might in some way be addressed through the sale of those confiscated vehicles which belonged to the recidivist offenders who could not get it into their thick skulls that burning out at McLeans Island is totally unacceptable and will not be tolerated any more. But we would never have got to this point without the Labour Party—or at least without elements of it—accepting that this bill is necessary. At this point in time it is timely to remind the Committee of how far that party has come because on 5 November 1998 the Labour Party voted against the impoundment of vehicles. That was legislation put up by New Zealand First. 
Clayton Cosgrove does not know how far he has moved his party. Senior Cabinet Ministers who have passed over him for positions of higher authority higher salary and all the perks and privileges voted against the very principles he advanced to this Parliament. That says a lot for the member. It also says a heck of a lot about his senior colleagues who gave countless speeches—they are in the  
Hansard 
 volumes I have here—and on 5 November voted against the Land Transport Bill which gave provision for the impounding of— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Tell me why—read it out. 
RON MARK 
: The Minister who is so highly paid can stand take a 5-minute call and tell us all the reason. I will just point out that the Ayes were 72 and the Noes were 48. Labour voted 37 against the bill the Alliance voted 10 against the bill and some other chap by the name of Kirton voted against the bill. It was the passing of that bill that finally gave the police the powers to impound vehicles and now we are going to the next logical sensible step in respect of hoons boy racers clowns and idiots on the road who would burn up their tyres and create public nuisance and public disturbance. 
Once again I thank Mr Swain the Minister and Clayton Cosgrove for pointing out that the Sentencing Act contains that area but maybe the Minister would like to stand and take a call merely to clarify for us all and again help the Committee to understand why Labour voted against the impounding of vehicles in 1998. Lianne Dalziel is obviously very upset by the whole thing despite the fact that she voted against that bill. It would probably help us all to become a little more enlightened once again. I know what the  
Hansard 
 record says but if there is a new modern-day reason Labour members should feel free to tell us what it is. 
STEVE CHADWICK (NZ Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put 
Ayes 60 
Ayes 54 
Motion agreed to. 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Hon Paul Swain to the schedule be agreed to: 
to insert after the expression “36A(1)(a)” in the paragraph relating to the Summary Proceedings Act in Part 1 the expression “and (2)”; 
to add after the expression “22A(1)” in the paragraph relating to the Summary Proceedings Act in Part 1 the words “ and by that act or omission causing an injury to or the death of another person”; 
to insert after the expression “36A(1)(c)” in the paragraph relating to the Summary Proceedings Act in Part 1 the expression “and (2)”; 
to add after the expression “22A(3)” in the paragraph relating to the Summary Proceedings Act in Part 1 the words “ and by that act or omission causing an injury to or the death of another person”; 
to insert before Part 2 relating to the Land Transport (Offences and Penalties) Regulations 1999 the following item: 
insert in Part 1 of the form after the words “ADVICE TO DRIVER” the words “OR OPERATOR”; 
to insert after paragraph (b) in Part 2 relating to the Land Transport (Offences and Penalties) Regulations 1999 the following item: 
insert in Part 1 of the form after the words “THE VEHICLE DRIVEN” the words “OR OPERATED”;  
to insert before Part 3 relating to the Land Transport (Ordering a Vehicle off the Road) Notice 1999 the following item: 
insert in clause 12 in Part 2 of the form on page 17 after the words “against the person who drove the vehicle” the words “or operated the vehicle”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 97 
Noes 17 
Amendments agreed to. 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8. 
Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
that the schedule as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 97 
Noes 17 
Schedule as amended agreed to. 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8. 
ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I might be too late but I have been looking at the legislation in respect of— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No—I am reporting now. 
RON MARK 
: Regarding the legislation dealing with impounding vehicles I noticed that the Greens and ACT voted for it last time. I wonder whether they are confused. Maybe they might like to recast their votes. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is not a point of order. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Third Reading 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I move  
That the Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. Sometimes Parliament comes together in a united way and does the right thing and it has done that today. Sometimes Parliament acts to address a public concern and does the right thing and it has done that today. Sometimes there is a practical solution to a social problem and today we have found that solution. I think it is good that the House has shown incredible common sense by enabling this legislation to move forward. 
The bill needed some leadership and it had that from Clayton Cosgrove the MP for Waimakariri. We do need somebody who is able to take up an issue bring it to the House and steer it through. He has done that and we should all be thankful. A bill like this needs community support and that has been demonstrated up and down New Zealand. Of course it also needs Parliament’s support and it got that by and large from most parties. The great exception during the evening was the grand coalition between the ACT party and the Green Party—the coalition made in hell. The “New Liberal Party” is what I think it could be called. There was probably too much psychedelic puha drifting across the cross benches and it has got in the way of some clear thought from the ACT party. As far as the Green Party is concerned I note that it parades itself around as having philosophy and principle—and the Greens do have those qualities. There is no question about it. But sometimes the Greens are going to have to work out that there are competing rights to consider when one comes to this House. It is not always about the rights of the criminal. The victims and the people who go about their normal daily business in New Zealand have rights too. Sooner or later the Greens will have to wake up and find out that sometimes we have to do the common-sense thing. Sometimes we have to support victims of crime as well. If not the Greens will continue to stay on the fringe and be recognised as a bit of a “loony tunes” around the edges and they will never get beyond the 5 or 6 percent polling that they currently have. 
I come now to the ACT party members. What an extraordinary performance from them! In May last year before the last election Ken Shirley supported the introduction of this bill. Not only did he support it but he fulsomely said that ACT supported the introduction of this bill. He said that ACT welcomes tougher measures to deal with illegal street drag racing and that indeed this bill is in keeping with ACT’s campaign—wait for it—for zero tolerance of crime. Now less than 12 months later Mr Franks and Ms Coddington have come to the House and said that they are opposed to the bill. Ken Shirley who I always thought was a more sensible common-sense down-to-earth kind of person has been rolled by a couple of liberal lawyer types who want to talk about legal niceties. They want to talk about outrage presumably because lawyers are not going to get such a good deal out of this bill and they want to go on about the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It is all in the waffle in the ether and it is part and parcel of this new-look liberal ACT Party. What it shows is that the ACT party is in absolute meltdown. It cannot sort out how many people it is voting for and it cannot work out where its electorate offices should be based. ACT is a party in meltdown and its performance tonight will be shown. There is going to be some great interest when we start mailing out the speeches made by Mr Franks and Ms Coddington to ACT supporters. 
Stephen Franks 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I understand that this is the debate on the third reading of the “boy racer” bill. I have not heard any reference to it or about any provisions in it for some time. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for raising that point. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I was simply pointing out that ACT supported this bill when it was introduced to Parliament and talked about zero tolerance. Those members from the ACT party who spoke to oppose the bill walked away from it and from zero tolerance. There is no question about that. That is why they will not be around this place for much longer and I say “good riddance” to them. This bill is a very very good bill. I congratulate the House. I also want to congratulate the United Future party because it was the party that pushed for progress on the bill and I want to give it some credit for that. I particularly want to congratulate the MP for Waimakariri Clayton Cosgrove who went into an area where no one had ever been before did the hard yards did the work and came up with legislation that Parliament has supported. I urge its continued support through the House. 
BRIAN CONNELL (NZ National—Rakaia) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to be able to speak on the third reading of the bill. I say for the record that I am proud to be a member of a select committee that was prepared to stand up and do the right thing—to deal with a problem that is endemic across this country and is causing distress to tens of thousands of New Zealanders. 
I find it ironic that the ACT party which says it is the party of zero tolerance would not support this legislation. That party has let its supporters down. [ 
Interruption 
] Labour members cannot escape this either. In November 1998 Mr Swain and some of his colleagues voted against impounding vehicles and now he is standing up and grandstanding. Politics is about integrity. I am confused however about the Greens and ACT coalition. I have respected ACT in the past and I still do but with this small exception—because ACT is generally a party of integrity. I am not surprised about the Greens one little bit. 
I want to acknowledge the part that Clayton Cosgrove played in dealing with this issue because he put politics aside and dealt with a governance issue. He raised the debate to a level where New Zealanders and their concerns came first and I respect him for that. However I think it only fair to point out that the legislation was dramatically redrafted in the select committee and the members of the select committee should also take a pat on the back. 
I also acknowledge the part that my colleague Gerry Brownlee played in getting this bill on the Order Paper. If it were not for his ability in the House to take the issue head on I doubt that it would have got this level of support. 
The legislation is well considered. It was modelled on the New South Wales legislation and it works. I am glad that we have taken the time to learn from it. I am not saying for a moment that we can pick up legislation from someone else’s country and impose it on ours as a model but at least we took the key components of that legislation. Now there is something with which we can say to the people of New Zealand who are concerned about boy racers and loutish activities: “Here is something for our police to grab hold of so that they can enforce the law.” Our police have been telling us for some time that if we want the issue dealt with we should give them the legislation that will allow them to do something about it. 
I am not concerned about the civil libertarians who stand up and say that we are using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I say to them: “Tough!” The people of New Zealand have had a gutsful. They have petitioned me and other members of this Parliament in their droves saying: “Please help us. Please deal with this problem so that we can sleep in our beds at night and are not disturbed by this loutish behaviour.” The people of New Zealand want to be able to sleep in their beds without being concerned that their property is being damaged. As law-abiding citizens they do not want to be concerned that out of utter frustration they will have to take the law into our own hands. It is a problem that stretches the length and breadth of this country and I am proud to say that I was prepared to stand up with colleagues in this House and deal with the issue. I am just dumfounded by the actions of ACT. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: So is the nation. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: In my view on this issue they have every right to be. I have made the statement before and I am going to make it again: the Government needs to accept that it has dragged its feet on this issue. In particular Dr Cullen displayed arrogant disregard for tens of thousands of New Zealanders who were desperately concerned about their standard of living and about this loutish behaviour. They asked through me whether the Government could bump this bill up the Order Paper. Dr Cullen’s response was to say no which tells me and those people that he was absolutely out of touch with what is happening across New Zealand in respect of this issue. It is something that we needed to deal with. Thankfully my colleagues and I directed people who approached us back to Dr Cullen by phone or email and to be fair to Dr Cullen—I give him the benefit of the doubt—he has responded in a positive way and that is why we are now debating this bill under urgency. The issue though is that people have since died and that probably did not need to happen. 
Boy racers are not just 18-year-old thugs. Generally they are aged from 25 to 30. Their life savings—and their student loans as someone has added—are invested in the vehicles they have throbbing under their bums and the only way to deal with this loutish behaviour is to hurt them by taking away their vehicles. If that sounds tough then I say: “Too bad!” This is a problem that the people of New Zealand are just not in a mood to tolerate any longer and we are prepared to stand up and help them. The life savings of these boy racers are invested in their vehicles and the evidence from what has happened in New South Wales and other jurisdictions across the globe is that if we want to add a real deterrent that will make these people take notice then we need to impound their vehicles. Taking away licences and giving fines does not take the cars off the road. The loutish behaviour continues and no one is better off. 
A huge number of submitters came to the select committee and in overwhelming numbers they said: “Please help us.” District councils city councils and members of the public said: “Please help us.” Nick Smith has already spoken of some. I could mention people in Ashburton and West Milton in particular and people in other centres around Auckland. The Manukau City Council was frustrated to the point of distraction. It has bent over backwards trying to do innumerable things to give these people an outlet to express their passion for their vehicles but it all came to nowt. Do members know why? Those boy racers were not concerned about driving vehicles; they were concerned about upsetting members of the public being more than a nuisance and engaging in criminal activity to a point where they were driving people to distraction. People going about their lawful business were stopped on roads at 2 or 3 o’clock in the morning and could not get through. The congestion caused by hundreds of people gathering was more than just a public nuisance—it was horrific. People feel threatened. People have died. How much more do we need to take before the issue is dealt with? That is why my colleagues in the National Party are quite clear about what our duty is around this issue. We have listened to the people of New Zealand and we are prepared to take action. Accordingly the National Party strongly endorses this legislation. 
I would like to finish by saying that I acknowledge the way that members of the select committee worked together to deal with an issue that is of critical importance to people right across the country. I also want to say that generally I respect the way that the House has dealt with this issue this afternoon and evening. Despite hiding behind technicalities it gives me hope that we are prepared to stand up and do the right thing. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 New Zealand politics is seemingly no longer a line from left to right but a circle. Who would have imagined the Greens and ACT together! That ACT wakes up with the Greens in its bed should have alerted it to just how wrong it was. Could anyone imagine Deborah Coddington and Nandor Tanczos in agreement about anything let alone a position against the rights of the law-abiding against the demands of the police and against ACT’s supposed law and order priority? Ranting by the Green-ACT double act about people being innocent until proven guilty flies in the face of preventive policing. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act has been dredged up time and time again but whose rights are we talking about? It has been mentioned once or twice in the House that the rights of the public who have every legal right to be on the road and the rights of the boy racers themselves—whose health we are trying to protect and whose deaths we are trying to prevent—are part and parcel of this issue. They take precedence over the property rights—and nothing more than property rights—that the ACT party in particular is trying to uphold. 
If people look like they are about to commit a crime that should be enough for us to jump in and prevent it. Is the “ACT-Green Party” suggesting that we wait for the body to drop before we do something about it? The Greens have suggested that the law is not the issue; it is the resourcing of the police. It might come as a surprise to the Greens but no matter how well-resourced the police are it is the laws that dictate the rules of the game. I suggest that members spend a night in a squad car and see the kinds of things that the police have to deal with night after night. Those who place the rights of these thugs on wheels above the rights of the community the law-abiding and responsible drivers—like ACT and the Greens seem to do—are not the ones who will be there to pick up the pieces. That will be left to our hospitals our police and the families who lose their loved ones. When we put property rights first—car property rights—before the rights of people as ACT seems to have done we have lost our way. 
The demand for this bill comes not only from the police who are sick and tired of being undermined by inadequate laws but also from communities that are fed up with living with excessive noise abusive behaviour and smoke from burn-outs—to say nothing of the injuries and death that accompany illegal drag racing. It is endemic. That is why there has been a call for action. The ACT party which has stood as the party of influence and zero tolerance for crime is now joining its new-found “buddies” the Greens in opposing a bill that has the capacity to prevent the crimes associated with these thugs on wheels. It will have a deterrent effect and allow communities to reclaim their roads and save lives. 
We will support this bill and we will support it speedily. We again thank Clayton Cosgrove and both National and New Zealand First for their efforts. We thank the select committee which put teeth into the bill and ensured that the initial idea from Clayton Cosgrove was brought to fruition. Let us hope that this bill saves lives. That is its importance and its significance and that is the reason we want to see it passed now. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 It has been a very interesting evening. I guess that is the great thing about having a bill come in and the House being able to go through each stage immediately and wrap it all up in an evening because we actually see the whole thing played out over a matter of hours. There is a great deal more satisfaction seeing that than having things dragged out over weeks at different sittings. This whole bill has been great. 
What is the need for this bill? Why is it here? It is here because frankly New Zealanders across the country have said “Enough!” It does not matter whether we are talking about the problem up in Auckland in Tauranga in Hawke’s Bay in Nelson in Christchurch or in Gore—and by crikey we do not have to think too hard about Gore and the loss of life we have seen down there—the problem of boy racers hoons and street racers has been with us far too long. There is no more tolerance for it—end of story. People want it resolved and Mr Cosgrove has brought the matter to the House. 
In the third reading I need to give the Minister and his Cabinet a bit of a flick around the ears because it is sad and an indictment on the Labour Party and the Labour Government that it took Gerry Brownlee forcing the issue by a motion to the floor to have Clayton Cosgrove’s member’s bill brought forward to No. 1 on the Government Order Paper. Otherwise we would still be sitting here talking about the bill and wondering when it was going to be passed. Regardless of all the rhetoric about saving lives and the number of people killed maimed and injured this Government sat on its hands for over 2 years happy to see the bill languishing in the lottery draw with the member being a good party member very frustrated and wondering why he was not getting the backing from his tough-talking Ministers on law and order. That should not be forgotten but it is history and the bill is here today. Why is it here? It is here because people like myself who own property in the McLeans Island area in the same area as Brian Connell’s constituents have had a gutsful of the antics of boy racers and their illegal activities on the road. 
I want to talk about the issue of pouring diesel on to a road. There is a corner out the back of McLeans Island at the intersection of McLeans Island Road Buchanans Road and a gravel road called Miner’s Groyne. That corner is a sweeping corner and with these people running illegal burnouts at that corner it was only a matter of time before the diesel that had soaked into the road and mixed with a downpour of rain was going to cause an accident—and it did. Days after the burnout activities a lady going through that corner lost control of her car and went into the fence. Did I see the Greens out there championing her right to be allowed to drive down that road safely? Did I see the Greens out there saying that that lady had the right to drive on New Zealand’s roads in wet conditions without having to worry about some bunch of hoons who had tipped diesel on that road and removed the traction she depended on to manoeuvre safely round that corner? No I did not see that. What I see once again is the same old rantings and ravings about the individual rights of a minority bunch of lawbreakers over the collective rights and responsibilities of law-abiding New Zealanders. 
Excuse me but clearly I have something wrong here because I do not agree with that argument. I believe that the collective responsibility of us as a community of New Zealanders rides right above individual human rights. I do not give a rat’s bottom about that sort of argument. I do not care about it I do not want to hear about it I do not want to know about it and I do not want to have any part of people who would stand up and champion the human rights of a bunch of lawbreakers over the collective rights of a law-abiding community. I think everyone who lives on Buchanans Road and McLeans Island Road and who frequents Miner’s Groyne has the right to go about his or her business. 
Many years ago—we are talking 1992—my son and his mate were out at our property for an overnight camp. One of those young lads has since done two tours of East Timor so they have grown up a bit. But they were very young then and we were a bit worried about them so I gave them a cellphone and told them that if anything happened that they were not too happy about and they wanted to come home they were to give me a call. They gave me a call that night all right because there were something like 100 cars full of young people at that intersection no further than 400 metres away from where they were camped ripping the place apart acting like a bunch of dopeheads boozing up spinning their wheels blocking the road and generally being rowdy disorderly New Zealanders. 
Stephen Franks 
: Having fun. 
RON MARK 
: Having fun says ACT. They were burning up their tyres on the road disrupting the traffic flow stopping law-abiding New Zealanders from driving down the road and terrorising two young boys who were just out on a quiet overnight camp. They were having fun says Stephen Franks. 
Stephen Franks 
: Did you ring the police? 
RON MARK 
: No I went out and picked them up and took them home. The point is that we have a bill here now that defines that they were breaking the law. They were operating their vehicles in a manner that sustained loss of traction; they were performing stunts and clownish acts and when this bill is passed that will be illegal. Now they will be prosecuted and I am happy with that. 
I raised the issue earlier of the inconsistency of some people’s debating positions and I have to bring the House to  
Hansard 
 Volume 572 at page 12941—the Land Transport Bill dated 5 November 1998. How ridiculous! In this bill we debated in this very Chamber such things as the police being empowered to impound a motor vehicle for 28 days if the driver is apprehended driving whilst disqualified. 
Brian Connell 
: How long? 
RON MARK 
: For 28 days. Impounding a vehicle at the roadside for 28 days but what have I heard? Let us go to the back end of this debate at page 12960. 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: Who voted for it? 
RON MARK 
: New Zealand National; ACT New Zealand; New Zealand First; United New Zealand one vote—something went wrong there because there are more of them around so we must fix that up sooner or later; Independents—there were a whole bunch of them including the Greens. No? We have New Zealand National ACT New Zealand New Zealand First—oh no the Alliance which had the Greens in it in those days voted against it and Labour voted against it. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I have to assist the member. Jeanette Fitzsimons and Rod Donald voted for it. 
RON MARK 
: Oh look there they are; they are listed as “Others”. Rod Donald and Jeanette Fitzsimons voted for the impounding of vehicles at the roadside for 28 days. Is life not a wonderful thing? Here we now have the Labour Government a party that voted against that measure proposing that we expand that law to catch hoons and riff-raff who want to boy-race and the Greens who voted for it are now voting against it and ACT who voted for it is now voting against it. I have to say to Jeanette Fitzsimons that her name is right here on page 12960. Did she change her name? Is it still Fitzsimons? It is. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: There is a big difference between the two bills. 
RON MARK 
: It clearly states the confiscation of a motor vehicle for 28 days. That member should not come to me crying crocodile tears about human rights violations and the inconsistency of this bill with the Human Rights Act when she the co-leader of the Greens voted for the very same sort of legislation in 1998. There is a word for that that I cannot use in this House but people out in the street would say it has something to do with bovine excreta. 
I offer congratulations to the MP for Waimakariri. It has been a long hard battle but he got the bill through to the House. The bill will be passed and in time enacted. Congratulations also to the chairman of the Law and Order Committee Martin Gallagher. He did a good job and it is noticed across the House that he is able to work with people. Can he educate some of his young members about working with people? Could he help impart a little maturity to some of them? I say to the ACT party that we are looking forward to its explanation in the next speech of how one can jump from the right side of the bed to the left side and end up in bed with Jeanette Fitzsimons and the Green Party. I am looking forward to hearing that. 
Debate interrupted.