Cosgrove Clayton: Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill — In Committee 
Cosgrove Clayton: Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7248] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I will start by quoting from the Police Association on this car-crushing bill the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill. The Police Association said a very interesting thing in its submission to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. It stated: “the car-crushing provisions are unfortunately a ‘side show that looks good … but [which] in reality will have very little effect’.” That is what the Police Association said. 
I will address what Mr Woodhouse I think said about the recycling of cars. We cannot have it both ways. If we want to prevent recycling as the member said then we would have the mass crushing of cars which is what the Minister in the chair the Hon Judith Collins basically told everybody would happen. Everybody would be “closer to the crusher” she said in baritone-like tones. But now that the Minister says only 10 cars a year will be crushed I ask the member how that will prevent recycling. That is nonsense; it is complete bunkum. It is a complete stunt. Everybody out there thought that the Minister was talking about mass car crushing when she said everybody would be “closer to the crusher”. Then she said—and we have the transcripts; she said this on at least three occasions—it would be 10 cars a year. Well I am sure that boy racers will be shaking in their boots knowing that 10 cars a year out of the thousands that cause mayhem around the country damn near every day will be crushed. I am sure they are shaking in their boots at the thought of 10 cars going per year. It is just illogical and it is a stunt. 
If the Minister wants to have any credibility in this debate she ought to explain why she gave everybody the impression that there would be mass crushing but now says it will be 10 cars a year. I tell the Minister that that is not being tough. That is being weak. That is being incredibly weak and we know that this Minister really wants to appear to any audience to be tough. I bet that people out there did not quite realise when she was scooting up the popularity stakes over this bill that only 10 cars would be crushed per year. 
I ask the Minister whether she will accept our amendment. The amendment simply states that instead of sending out two naughty letters—one letter to say somebody has been naughty and then another letter to say a judge might actually do something by ordering that the car either be crushed or be confiscated car permanently—one letter will be sent to the owner of the car to say that if somebody runs amok in the wagon again it is gone and to say a judge will order that. The amendment takes away the option of merely not crushing the car because if the car is not crushed it would be confiscated permanently. I asked the Minister whether if she will not accept that amendment but is desperate to keep the crushing provisions in the bill she will put forward an amendment to say there will be one warning and then the car will be subject to mandatory confiscation and mandatory crushing. She might have thought about doing that if she wanted to be really tough but she has rejected that without giving any logical reason for doing so. 
There has been no real evidence of recycling. If anybody thinks that a boy racer who loses his $30000 souped-up Nissan Skyline can nip around the corner to Turners Auctions and spend another $30000 to buy it back then I say that person should wake up. The car does not have to be sold as a whole; it could be disposed of in parts as my colleague said. It could be disposed of in a number of ways but the value would be preserved. We may wonder why we would want to preserve the value of a boy racer’s car when he or she has gone around and made life difficult for people and caused havoc for the community. Boy racers as a number of folk on both sides of the Chamber have said normally have a heck of a lot of fines and owe a heck of a lot of court costs. If we take their car away from them often it is the only asset they have. I am not getting teary-eyed over boy racers but I think that the smart thing to do would be to utilise the value of the parts the bits—or of whatever form the car may be in; I do not mind—to pay off the court costs and the fines the tow truck fees and the full disposal costs rather than to have innocent folks in the community doing that through their taxes. 
It will be interesting. Maybe the Minister will propose an amendment if she is desperate to keep the car-crushing clause in the bill to say there will be one warning and then a judge must take away and/or crush the vehicle. That would give the Minister what she really wants which is the photo opportunity with her finger on the button and her hands on the launch codes of the crusher. I ask her whether she will propose such an amendment. It would be really interesting to have her response on that. 
I wonder whether Nicky Wagner who did not speak in the noise debate—she was rolled on the 90 decibel issue—but who had put a stake in the ground and said the Government would sort the matter out is prepared to go to the people of Christchurch and say that in the case of a car owned by a third party the first thing that will happen if somebody runs amok is that the third party will get a letter to say somebody has been naughty. The third party will then get a second letter maybe a letter from Judith Collins herself to really scare him or her saying that somebody has been really naughty. Then on a third offence Nicky Wagner will be able to tell her community small though it is that a judge may if he or she sees fit on a good day if the stars are aligned take the car forever and/or crush it. But there is nothing in the bill in respect of a third-party owner that says a judge must act in the way I have described whereby the car is taken or crushed or both. There is nothing in the legislation; it is entirely up to the judge. 
I say to the Minister that I—even in respect of my legislation—and the police believed in our learned judiciary and believed that judges would act on this issue. Even those people who did not go through the loophole that the Minister has quite rightly closed believed judges would act on the issue. Even the Police Association as I have said called the Minister’s crushing of 10 cars a year a sideshow. 
I support the legislation because I think what happens to our communities is an indictment of boy racers. We are offering goodwill on this side of the Chamber. We will support the bill but we are offering an amendment. The Minister may want to put up her own amendment which may agree with the provision in the amendment that relates to mandatory confiscation and crushing on a second offence. We are offering some assistance in this way but it will be very interesting to hear the Minister’s explanations as to why a third-party owner receives one letter that says somebody has been naughty receives another letter to say somebody has been even naughtier and then it is all over to a judge. It is a lottery. 
How does the weak Minister explain that? She wants to be seen as tough. How does she explain that and how— 
David Bennett 
: Jealous! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I am certainly not jealous I say to that member in all sincerity. I am certainly not jealous. That is a silly comment. How will Nicky Wagner or Gerry Brownlee in Christchurch or other members explain that the Minister is so tough that someone receives two letters and then the decision is up to a judge. Everybody thought that all the boy racers’ cars would be lined up and maybe Gerry Brownlee would attend personally to do the crushing himself. People believed the cars would be lined up and crushed one after another. In the immortal words of the Minister which are etched on to the memory of every journalist every car was to be “closer to the crusher”. That is what she said. People thought it was a good thing. 
I can understand why people want these cars to be crushed: they thought it would be done en masse and they thought it would get rid of the problem. Now that the Minister has been forced to come clean she said on Radio New Zealand National when challenged about the 10 cars that are to be crushed per year that she knew judges would order this. Oh really? Well maybe she has a crystal ball that the rest of us do not have. Maybe she has received commitments from judges who have said they will crush 10 cars a year. But the Minister cannot have it both ways. If Mr Woodhouse is worried about recycling then why would we not crush the cars en masse? Why would we not make it compulsory that the cars be crushed? The bizarre schizophrenic argument that is now brought up is that the Government members do not think the mass crushing of cars is a victory. Well the Minister did say it would be; it was a cause célèbre for the Minister. This was her big Clint Eastwood moment in the sun in MGM gun-slinging style. Everybody believed that the crushing of cars en masse would occur. I thought that would occur until I saw the legislation. I could not believe what I saw because I thought the Minister would be as good as her word. 
Paul Quinn 
: You can’t look us in the eye. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I can look that member in the eye. Absolutely! It is a pity he cannot make a decent argument. 
I say to the Minister that members on this side of the Chamber have some goodwill. We have put up Supplementary Order Paper 73 in my name in good faith. If she wants to amend it to preserve her crushing clause she could do it. My amendments say someone would get one warning as a third party then the car would go for ever. That is far tougher than any clause in this bill. I do not beat my chest over that but I offer that measure to the Minister. I ask her to give me a good reason why we should give someone two letters that say a driver has been naughty and then leave it up to a judge to decide what happens to the car other than the Ministry of Justice advice that the legislation provides a good balance. Well the Minister should tell that to the people of Blackett St in Rangiora who are terrorised by a hoon each night. The owner will not control the vehicle because the owner is a mate of the person who offends yet the owner will get two letters from the police that say somebody has been really naughty and then it will be up to a judge. How tough is that? How will the Minister explain that to a person in Blackett Street which is in my patch and has been particularly hit hard by boy racing? Is she prepared to give us an explanation now? Is she prepared to tell us why somebody should get two warnings and then it is up to the lottery of a judge’s decision as to whether the car should be disposed of in any way? Is she prepared to answer that question? She is not so tough now. There is silence. There is silence from all of the members on the Government side of the Chamber. 
But I want to be given an explanation. I really want to be given an explanation and I know that the communities would like to be given an explanation. Maybe as the debate on this bill goes on we will get one. The bill ain’t tough at all and the Minister knows that. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 69 in the name of the Hon Judith Collins to Part 1 be agreed to.