Beaumont Carol: Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Beaumont Carol: Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:4099] 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 Like my colleagues I rise in support of the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill at least its referral to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. We are doing so because there are a number of issues involved and I will discuss those at a later point in this speech. I start by saying that judging from the debate it is obvious that everyone in this House is concerned about the issues of illegal street racing the boy-racer phenomenon and associated antisocial behaviour. 
Those activities have a range of consequences that fall into a whole number of different categories including issues of intimidation of other people safety—both of other people and of the drivers and their passengers—noise and public nuisance. Those consequences have implications for individuals. Already a couple of previous speakers have referred to the incident involving the security officer in Christchurch. Like others I can only begin to imagine how hideous that situation must have been for the woman involved. I listened to a hotelier in Christchurch talking about the implications of noise for his business and about customers saying they would not come back. There are implications for whole communities too and as Tariana Turia mentioned the problem seems to have particular implications in Christchurch and it would be very interesting to try to analyse why that is so. But Christchurch is not the only place in New Zealand where this issue has currency. 
It is important that we start to address the issues and certainly Labour has made a number of attempts to get to this issue in a way that is meaningful and will have some sort of effect. At the moment police are perhaps hampered in trying to deal with some of the issues because they must clearly identify the suspect in the act of committing the offence. It can sometimes be quite difficult to do so when a group of people in cars is involved. Bystanders are often unwilling to be involved in identification as well so there are low apprehension rates. There is no question about that. Arguably the deterrent value of the existing law may also be low. 
This bill is an attempt to disrupt and deter illegal street racing and related activities such as cruising by enhancing the powers of road-controlling authorities. Presumably given the comments made so far this bill will be passed by the House in some form but a number of factors will come into play in determining whether we can expect to see some changes as a result. They include whether sufficient officers will be present at the right times and the right places to make arrests and to safely intervene. We can look at cases where police officers have been put in very difficult circumstances in group situations as is often the case with boy racers. By itself this bill will not tackle those kinds of issues. It does not tackle the question of whether there will be sufficient police at the right time and the right place. 
Current law also provides a number of solutions to this issue but tough law works only when the courts back up the lawmakers. There is a question about whether the current provisions are being used to their full effect. If we are keeping an open mind about what needs to change here I think the select committee will need to look at what is currently in place and whether there are any barriers to that law being actioned by the courts. For example at the moment confiscation of vehicles is taking place only in a relatively small proportion of cases. The select committee will need to ask why that is. 
If the courts do not back up legislation that is passed by this House we get into a situation like that referred to by Michael Woodhouse where people who are committing crimes are effectively able to thumb their noses at Parliament. In a civilised society like New Zealand that is not an acceptable outcome. We need to know that the laws we pass will be enforced and also that they are enforceable practical and all of those things. As I have said we will support this legislation’s referral to the select committee for further scrutiny but we do not want to see this as just “tough talking” or Judith Collins taking on the boy racers as if this issue has not been considered quite significantly in this House by people who have tried to deal with it. 
Let us recognise that there have been a number of attempts and that this is not just a case of finally Parliament acting tough and talking tough and sorting it out. That is the attitude we will take to the select committee to try to actively engage with the issues here. Some provisions in the bill have been raised in other situations. One of those is around demerit points for breaches of the conditions of the graduated driver-licensing system. I draw the attention of the House to a case where this issue was dealt with quite significantly in a previous road safety consultation the See You There—Safe As consultation. In that case a number of propositions were put up about the graduated driver-licensing system and how to use it better. I would commend that work to the select committee as well and suggest that it should be part of the committee’s considerations. 
Reference was made to my colleague Darien Fenton who went through a number of the actions that are permitted under this bill. She was not trying as David Garrett suggested to brush off this issue as unimportant or to say it is all OK. She was trying to point out that many of the actions permitted under this bill can already be undertaken within existing legislation particularly the Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Act of 2003. I would urge people as part of the select committee’s consideration to think about why existing provisions are not adequate and if they seem to be adequate why they are not being enforced in a way that is meaningful. 
I will go to some of the points that have been raised and which are more to do with why this happens rather than what we do in relation to the events of illegal street racing and boy racers. Keith Locke and Tariana Turia have both made some points that I think are really important. What is it that leads the young people who are involved in these activities to do that? What sense of alienation is leading them to find in their cases a sense of belonging among groups of other people with vehicles and in behaving in a way that is intimidating a public nuisance and unsafe? We need to think about those things and to do so is not to adopt some sort of “soft on crime” approach as Mr Garrett was I think referring to before. 
It actually is important that we as legislators look not only at the particular events and how we respond to those acts or events but also at what leads up those acts and events and what the consequences of those acts or events are and what the outcomes from our intervention potentially could be. Will we stop those acts or events taking place in the future? Will we create a different sort of climate or culture that will make them less acceptable? Will we change the attitudes of people who are breaching the law? I think it is very important that the select committee also tries to analyse why these events happen and what interventions are likely to stop them happening rather than just saying straight up that this is the punishment people will get if they do those things. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.