Tanczos Nandor: Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Tanczos Nandor: Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4607] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I would like to begin my speech with an apology to Martin Gallagher. Apparently I questioned his sincerity and I certainly did not intend to do that. I would just like to give him my apologies. I do question his judgment on this issue but not his sincerity. 
I make the point that has been made before: that this bill is being rushed through the House under urgency—urgency agreed to by the United Future party. That shows a real lack of regard for the basic democratic process. The House does need urgency from time to time. It needs extended hours now and then so that we can deal with some of the backlog of legislation that builds up. The Greens have been known to give the Government urgency now and then as well but only for one reading at a time of a bill. To ram poorly thought-out legislation through all the remaining stages—the second reading the Committee stage and the third reading—under urgency is a travesty of the parliamentary process. As Stephen Franks has said that does not allow Parliament to properly scrutinise and consider a bill and does not allow us time to reflect. Perhaps that is why Ron Mark likes ramming legislation through under urgency so much. 
This bill is poorly thought-out and is unnecessary. Of course the bill will pass this evening but the inability of its supporters to argue their case in a rational fashion and their reliance on personal abuse put-downs straw arguments and generalisations has proved to me beyond all doubt that the bill is ill-conceived. Maybe the supporters of the bill just do not quite understand what it states. It certainly seems to have been easier for the supporters of the bill to put up a straw argument to say the opponents of the bill are saying something and then to demolish that argument than it has been for them to grapple with the issues that have been raised. 
I have not yet heard a supporter of the bill deal with the issues—the real problems—that have been raised both by members of the Green Party and members of ACT. The supporters of the bill have been reduced to saying that if people do not like road deaths they must support this bill. That is a pathetic argument. No attempt has been made to address the issues and no answer on those issues has been forthcoming from the supporters of this bill except derision and ridicule. It is interesting that there has been more comment about which parties are opposing the bill than there has been about the arguments they have put forward. For the benefit of those who have not quite grasped the issues I will reiterate some of those concerns. I challenge the supporters of the bill to stand up and refute these arguments. 
The first concern is that the bill is unnecessary. As Deborah Coddington has said very clearly all the offences covered by this bill are already offences under the Land Transport Act. The police already have the power to charge people for all those behaviours. Far from the police only issuing an infringement notice as has been put forward so often by members of this House the courts have the ability to both jail people and confiscate their vehicles when they have been found guilty of an offence. The difference between that power and the provisions of this bill is that under the current Act they have to be found guilty of an offence. Some members of this House want to do away with judicial process; they are not worried about having to prove guilt. But some of us do find that a serious issue. The Law and Order Committee stated that the only limitation the police have on the use of their current powers is the inability to identify offenders. This bill will not address that. If it is difficult to identify an offender at present it will be just as difficult under this legislation. 
The second concern is that the bill is an unwarranted breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Ron Mark clearly has not listened to the debate on that. Again he has put up specious arguments. He said that the Greens were inconsistent in supporting the impoundment of vehicles driven by disqualified drivers but as has been pointed out a disqualified driver is guilty of a quantifiable and clear breach of the law. Under this bill we are talking about someone having his or her vehicle impounded simply because an officer believes that the person has committed an offence. 
Brian Connell 
: We trust the police implicitly. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: Mr Connell says he trusts the police to get that right so why do we not just do away with all our courts? Why bother with the courts at all? Let us just say we believe that someone has committed a theft so we will lock that person up without needing to prove his or her guilt. That is the implication of the member’s arguments and it shows just how specious and flawed that position is. 
Brian Connell 
: No defence in the corporate fraud. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: I would like to ask Mr Connell what he and his National colleagues would say if we removed the necessity to prove guilt or intent in cases of fraud or breach of trust. In cases of corporate fraud what did the member say then? Would he have the same disregard for the same basic principles of justice and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act? No he is shaking his head. We are seeing a double standard in this case. 
The third point is that the bill is dangerous because the provisions are so broad as to be ridiculous. Again it has been mentioned numerous times that a police officer can impound a vehicle because that officer believes on reasonable grounds that a person operated it in an unnecessary exhibition of speed or acceleration. As has been pointed out by the ACT party what is an unnecessary exhibition of speed? 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Clayton Cosgrove running away from the television cameras. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: I think he would probably consider that very necessary. The bill has the potential to be used to target people who should not be subject to the quite serious consequences of having their vehicles impounded. In a country where public transport is so pathetic and where many people are reliant on their personal transportation to work and earn an income that is a very severe penalty for someone who is just suspected by a police officer of having committed an offence. That is one of the most problematic issues—OK an officer believes that a person has committed an offence. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: They see them with their eyes. They use video cameras and take pictures; wakey wakey. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: Clearly Mr Cosgrove does not care what the bill states. He has not read the bill. He is not concerned about what it states; he is just concerned about what he thinks will happen. The bill states that if an officer believes on reasonable grounds that an offence has been committed he or she can confiscate the vehicle. It does not state that the officer has to see the offence being committed or to videotape it. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: It sounds like Nazi Germany. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: Exactly. One of the most problematic aspects of the bill is that a person who has been unjustly deprived of his or her vehicle has to apply to the police. If someone thinks a vehicle has been taken unjustly he or she has to apply to the police. So the people who took the vehicle off that person in the first place are to be the people who will adjudicate as to whether that person’s vehicle has been unjustly impounded. One has to question what chance those people will have. To my mind it is just inconceivable that Parliament is seriously considering passing this kind of legislation. In the unlikely event that the police do find that a vehicle has been unjustly impounded by one of their members and they return the vehicle who will pay the towage and storage costs? The bill is silent on that. We have to assume that the aggrieved party—an innocent person who has had a vehicle taken off him or her for no good reason and had that vehicle towed or impounded—has to pay for the privilege— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: $160. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: Obviously Mr Prebble has had more recent experience of that than I have. However that sounds like something out of the movie  
Brazil 
. We are to charge people for the privilege of having their cars impounded by the police all because when the media created the hype about boy racers the police were caught with their pants down because they had done absolutely nothing about boy racers. Instead of the police saying that they would put more resources into that issue they said that they would need more powers. As I have already asked when did the police ever say that they had plenty of powers and we should take some away? That just does not happen. The police’s response to any criticism is that they need more powers. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: It’s a bit of a worry; you’re talking sense. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: I thank Mr Prebble. That is a rare compliment from him. I reiterate to the House that this bill is unnecessary unwarranted and dangerous. I finish my speech by expressing the forlorn hope that members of this House will have some sense and oppose this bill.