Cosgrove Clayton: Sentencing (Vehicle Confiscation) Amendment Bill Summary Proceedings (Vehicle Seizure) Amendment Bill Privacy Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cosgrove Clayton: Sentencing (Vehicle Confiscation) Amendment Bill Summary Proceedings (Vehicle Seizure) Amendment Bill Privacy Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Sitting date: 20 October 2009. Volume:658;Page:7269. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I wish the Minister of Police well on the aims she outlined at the conclusion of her speech. I hope they happen. I suspect every member of the House shares the same view. I hope the problem is cleaned up and that the legislation stops the problem in its tracks because I my colleagues—Ruth Dyson Lianne Dalziel and Brendon Burns—members from Hamilton and Auckland and everybody in fact suffer from this insidious sort of activity. 
We have said that we will support the legislation. We believe that there are some very good provisions in it such as the tightening up of the provisions on hardship and the closing of the loophole so that we can go after a third party. We disagree on how that provision is being proposed but I will get to that in a moment. We support the intent of this legislation as we supported the last bill the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill. 
It is incumbent on Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition to point out issues and we have some difficulty in the gap between the rhetoric and the actual implementation. Communities were told that this Government would get tough on this issue and I say: “Good on the Government.” because it should get tough on it. I had a crack at it as a backbencher. I did not have the Minister’s vast resources of departments when I drafted my bill on this issue as a backbencher. The advice I received was that we had covered the bases. There were some things that we had not thought of obviously because I do not have a monopoly on all knowledge on this issue unlike the Minister. I have some experience though. She has no generosity in acknowledging the fact that we had a crack at this; we did not have the official advice that she had. I applaud her for closing those third-party loopholes for the hardship provisions and for a number of other clauses that are contained in this bill. 
But here is the difficulty. The community was told that this Minister would get tough. The communities up and down the country were told that every car would be closer to the crusher. As I say these words will be etched on their memories. It was a very good line I thought and although the “Crusher Collins” line was a good nickname for about 3 days I do not think it will be a good nickname as we go forward and see the results of this legislation. Everybody was under the impression that these cars would be rolled up and crushed but then we got down to tintacks. These are not my words; these are the Minister’s own words on radio and in the newspaper. She was asked how many cars she thought would be crushed. She said that she expected 10 a year. In Christchurch we know that 1000 cars maraud around the show each Friday night. How will 10 cars a year incentivise a change in behaviour? 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Not even a block’s worth. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: It is not even a block’s worth Ms Dyson says. After months of tough rhetoric today the Minister started talking about fairness balance and not wanting to be Draconian. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: She’s been told to sweeten up. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I will not comment on that but here is the serious point. The impression the communities had was that the crusher would roll. The crusher has not rolled or rather it will roll to only 10 cars a year. Then the Minister said on radio that she was absolutely confident that the courts would enforce this provision. She is a lawyer and once was president of the Auckland District Law Society. She knows that no one can guarantee what judges will do. Their job is to interpret the law. 
The other difficulty we have is with the implementation of the warning provisions. The Minister said she would get tough. I ask those who may be listening and those in the communities whether it is tough that when a boy racer changes the ownership of his or her car and allow a boy-racing mate to use the car to run amok and terrorise a community the owner who is a boy racer gets a letter saying that somebody has been very naughty in that car. How tough is that? I wonder what the communities will say. 
On a second offence by the boy racer’s mate the owner will get a second letter—it may be signed by Judith Collins herself—with some naughty words on it to frighten the boy racer saying that somebody has been very very naughty in that car. Then there is a third offence within 4 years when the boy racer’s mate takes the car to run amok in another community and a third group of residents experience the nuisance or in some cases are terrorised by this sort of behaviour. We know there is violence attached to what happens here. We have seen that. 
On the third offence it will be discretionary for the judge whether to take any action. There is no mandatory requirement as there would be if the Minister preserved my existing legislative provisions. Under my provisions on a first offence if the owner of the car is also the offender the judge may take the car forever and on a second offence the judge must take it for ever. If the boy racer is the third party and has let his or her boy-racing mate run amok three times under this legislation it is then up to the judge. The judge might do nothing or might order that the car be crushed. That is optional. Maybe the judge will order that the car be taken permanently. That is optional. 
We simply put an amendment forward that said we should give the third party a letter that says that if his or her mate takes the car and runs amok again a court will take the car forever—permanently. Where it happens to be mum’s car or dad’s car—rare though that is as we know from the police—all the mums and dads that I have talked to have said they will deal with Johnny and give him the message real quick that he ain’t taking their car. The keys will go in the pocket not on the hook on the wall in the kitchen. If the Government wants to get tough and break the back of this problem we offer a suggestion. We believe this bill is weak and that this Minister has been weak. Her only counterargument is that we must have balance and we must have fairness. I could not believe what I was hearing to be honest. 
The other point we made on the legislation was that we adhered to the Police Association’s view around crushing. In its submission the Police Association said: “the car-crushing provisions are unfortunately ‘a sideshow that looks good … but [which] in reality will have very little effect’.” I agree with the Police Association because the Minister told us that cars would be heading to the crusher. I challenge any member of this House to say that the communities did not have the impression from this Minister that the cars would be lined up in droves. I challenge any member to say that the communities did not have that perception because they did. But the Minister’s own words condemn her proposition. She has said it will be 10 cars a year. In Christchurch as Mr David Carter knows and in Hamilton—the Hamilton member may be here somewhere; Hamilton has been through hell—hundreds of these vehicles are leering it up causing mayhem. There are hundreds damn near every night of the week. The Minister said 10 cars a year will be crushed. That proves that the Police Association’s point is right and that it will be “a sideshow that looks good”. Members can imagine what Judith Collins will say when the first car gets crushed and then when nine others are. I have met boy racers and I have been threatened by them. I have talked with them and they will not give a rat’s about 10 cars a year being crushed. 
The other reason we oppose crushing is a practical reason. Most of the boy racers as the Minister rightly points out have huge numbers of fines and court costs to pay and often the only asset they have is a souped-up wagon. They do not drive heaps; they are very proud of the wagons that they drive. Some have told me they have put $30000 or $40000 into them. That is great stuff if they are acting legally. Given that that is the only asset that many of them have and given that they owe fines and court costs the question is how we should deal with those fines and court costs. My belief is that we should maximise the asset value and dollar value of that asset the car in such a way as to utilise those funds so that the offender—I will not put words in Mr Garrett’s mouth but I suspect even he may agree with this—pays his or her own court costs and fines. If that does not happen and the wagon is crushed and is useless who ends up paying those court costs and fines? The taxpayer does. I do not think the innocent should have to cough up for the offender. If the car is cut up for parts what will they do then? We could maximise its value through selling parts. The issue of recycling has been trumpeted in this Chamber where a boy racer goes and buys the wagon back but even in the police’s own submission not one shred of analysis or evidence has been given to us that shows that boy racers are running around the back of Turners Auctions and buying the wagons back. Not one piece of evidence has been given to show that. The Minister’s only suggestion was to go and talk to the police and they would tell us. Well I have. Some time ago I even visited a police yard and had a look at all of the wagons that were impounded—some were very impressive I have to say. But no evidence at all has been put before this House by that Minister to show that this sort of mass recycling is going on. 
This issue is serious and I will tell members why it is serious. People are dying. The police told us there were 56 fatalities last year and a couple of hundred injuries. People are dying and people are losing friends. It is more serious than just the leer-up and the doughnut on the footy field lawn. It is mainly young people and they are dying on the roads. I am a rugby fanatic. If guys were playing rugby on State Highway 1 I would say to those fullas that I love the game but I would ask why they do not go and do it safely on the footy field at the club. I think this House has made that plea for many years: people should go and join a car club act legally and then come to MPs and councils and say that they have doubled the membership of the car club and they want us to provide them with more facilities. I would buy into that if they act legally first.