Garrett David: Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill — First Reading 
Garrett David: Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:4114] 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I rise to support the first reading of the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill. For the second time today I am happy to say that I am surprised to be able to support a speaker from the other side of the House who normally is not on the same wavelength as me. I refer of course to Mr Cosgrove. When debating the previous bill the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill it was Mr Jones whom I supported. Mr Cosgrove made a great deal of sense as indeed did many of the speakers from the other side of the House. 
Before I get into the speech I have prepared I want to turn to the speech made by the new co-leader of the Green Party Metiria Turei on the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill. As usual she found that everything is incredibly complicated. Her speech reminded me of the reaction in New York state about 15 years ago after the zero-tolerance policies—commonly known as Broken Windows—were instituted in New York City by a former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani. The policies resulted in a plummeting crime rate for both large and small crimes and changed the city from being one of the most dangerous in the country to being one of the safest. It changed Times Square from being a place where I personally witnessed drug dealing and was offered a hooker at 4 o’clock in the afternoon to being a place where families now go to celebrate New Year’s Eve. When the crime rate plummeted the American equivalent of Ms Turei and other left-wing academics and politicians were absolutely shocked. They launched a fevered search for any other reason because it could not have been something as simple as Broken Windows; all those questions on the causes of crime are so complicated! They desperately searched and they came up with the availability of abortions as the reason for the plummeting crime rate. 
In our view sometimes things are quite simple. Here is an example from this bill. For 30 or 40 years New Zealand has allowed boy racers to behave inappropriately in cars without consequences. Mr Cosgrove and the previous Labour Government introduced commendable efforts to do something about it. What I have heard mostly from the speakers on the other side of the House are very helpful indications of how this bill could be improved at the select committee which of course is the major reason we are supporting the bill being referred there. 
The bill is not perfect. It is far from perfect. In fact Ms Dalziel referred to the fact which I noticed myself that there is a discretion whether to confiscate and destroy a vehicle after the third offence which is contained in the proposed section 129A of the Sentencing Act 2002 inserted by clause 8. The court “may order the confiscation and destruction of any motor vehicle” blah blah blah. Perhaps at the select committee there will be submissions that say that that word should be changed to “shall” or “must”. As members will know that is a huge difference in law. There will be all sorts of suggestions at the select committee. No doubt more faults will be identified. Although I am not certain of the Maori Party’s position it is quite clear that with the support of three parties in the House there will be a multipartisan effort to improve whatever faults are found. 
One of the reasons the ACT Party is supporting this bill is that it is entirely consistent with its “three strikes” bill for more serious violent crime. The bill is based on a “three strikes” principle which is an escalation principle. If an offender offends once there is a penalty; if the offender offends a second time there is a stronger penalty; an offender who offends a third time may lose his or her vehicle altogether as the bill is drafted. The “three strikes” principle has been derided as a silly American idea. Actually it is not. Getting a second chance is a very very Kiwi idea. New Zealanders by and large believe that people should be given a second chance at all sorts of things but not 102 chances. 
The bill recognises that fines have become largely voluntary in this country. How often do we hear judges say that they are remitting $20000 $30000 or $50000 in fines? As one of the National speakers noted fines pasted up on walls have become a badge of honour among the idiots whom this bill attempts to deal with. Of course in days gone by there were no overdue fines because fines used to be an alternative to imprisonment. In the old days judges would hand down a fine of $100 or $200 and in default 14 days’ imprisonment. There were never any overdue fines. But we have moved on from those days—sadly in my view. Maybe we need to have a look at it again. 
But in the meantime—and without using those lovely words “Draconian legislation” that members on the other side love to use so much—this bill addresses the problem of people not paying fines by taking a different tack: the demerit point tack. The bill states that on someone’s third offence he or she has had his or her chance and that is it. As I have said it may well be that at the select committee submitters will say that the confiscation and destruction of a car should be mandatory not discretionary. 
The Labour Party has very usefully identified the fact that only 2 percent of cars eligible for confiscation have been confiscated under the current law. That fact is a strong indication of a need and here again I am happy to agree with Mr Cosgrove to send a signal to the judiciary. Because this House is where the law of the land is made not over the road at the Ministry of Justice it may be time for Parliament to tell the judiciary what needs to happen with these people. They are not just boy racers. In my speech on the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill I referred to them very deliberately as road criminals. 
Members on both sides of the House have talked about death and serious injury as well as intimidation. That is not some kind of cap-on-backwards group of idiots playing with their trolleys; that is dangerous criminal activity. I agree with other speakers that this bill will not be a panacea. But it will reduce the number of ridiculous vehicles on the road whose drivers do not use them for the purpose of shopping or taking the kids out or doing any of the other things we use our cars for but to intimidate and cause mayhem. 
But one thing that is correct is that those boy racers do love their cars. In that sense they are car enthusiasts. I am a car enthusiast: I have an old Jaguar which sucks up a lot of money. My club is the Jaguar club. The only thing that I have in common with boy-racer clowns is that I love my old car too although it costs me lots of money. Often those guys have their manhood tied up in their cars too. They are not legitimate car enthusiasts but they love their cars. This bill gives the eventual option of destroying their pride and joy as they say. It will make them think twice. It will make them think twice about buying another car which could also be destroyed. 
So far I have covered all the positives. The ACT Party is very very aware of the bill’s potential risk to private property rights to lenders and to other owners. But the bill is a very careful attempt to address those problems and to make sure that innocent people do not suffer as a result of some clown who may have access to their car. But it may well be that at the select committee other problems are shown in that regard. With the tripartisan approach to the bill at this stage I am quite sure the National ACT and Labour members and possibly the Maori Party members on the select committee will be able to find solutions to that problem. So at this stage the ACT Party is very happy to support the bill.