Burns Brendon: Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Burns Brendon: Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7211] 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I am very pleased to speak to Part 2 of the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill and I would like to come back to the issues traversed a little earlier around noise as correctly configured into Part 2 of the bill. I note that the select committee did consider the 2006 petition from Ms Wagner and 435 others on the issue of the decibel rating. Again I would like to ask the Minister in the chair the Hon Steven Joyce to give us some explanation of the Government’s view on the issue. The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee’s consideration of the issue considered the fact that from 1 June last year all new vehicles entering the road had to meet the 90-decibel test but it also considered that the lowering of stationary tailpipe noise limits would not necessarily reduce vehicle road noise at night. I would like to ask the Minister for some advice on that point and what the officials are saying in respect of it because anecdotally at least and certainly in terms of the petition presented to Parliament in 2005— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: What party was it from? 
BRENDON BURNS 
: The National Party. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: She got rolled. 
BRENDON BURNS 
: Well she certainly made lots of noise about the fact that she was going to deal with this issue. I would like to know what the Government’s position on this is. Obviously the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee has formed a view that with the legislation before the select committee and with the changes introduced by the Hon Harry Duynhoven and the Labour Government to take effect from 1 June last year maybe this issue has been addressed but we have to ask seriously whether the police even with the provisions of this bill and the anti-cruising by-law provisions that the bill includes will be able to deal with the issue of noise. There is a significant difference in noise between a car at 90 decibels and 95 decibels. Ms Wagner made much of the fact of it being akin to being quite a distance away from a motor mower and being right up alongside a motor mower being revved at full capacity. Certainly if one is living on Fitzgerald Avenue the difference between 90-decibel and 95-decibel cars is considerable. 
It is a bit simplistic to say simply that lower stationary tailpipe noise limits would not significantly reduce vehicle road noise. We must take a closer look at the issue of the modification of exhaust systems. Many businesses around the country make a very good living out of taking stock standard noise exhaust systems and tuning them to the point where they can scrape in just a fraction below the 95-decibel recommended maximum. 
Obviously a huge increase in noise volume is created between 90 decibels and 95 decibels. I really think the Minister needs to address this question. What is the advice from officials on this issue? Do they support the select committee’s view that at 90 decibels with the measures in this bill we will see a significant abatement of the noise problem? A lot of the antisocial behaviour centres on noise. I have to confess that it is not just car exhausts. There is a lot of associated noise from people in cars shouting tooting horns and so on but it is the constant roar of the exhausts that causes a lot of stress to people living in urban environments such as in my electorate of Christchurch Central. Promises have been made to Parliament and to voters that National would address the noise issue and I ask why it is not being addressed in this bill. 
The select committee has formed the view that maybe the measures in the bill will provide an answer but I believe that that is a little simplistic. Labour’s position is that we must look at the issue of modification as there really is a difference between 90 and 95 decibels. I suspect that the position will be—and I would like clarity from the Minister on this—that by reducing the level to 90 decibels we will bring in tens of thousands of other innocent motorists who are not out there causing a problem. If that is the view of the Government then I would like to hear that. The residents of Christchurch Central of inner-city Hamilton and of places like the North Shore Lower Hutt and Wellington Central and elsewhere deserve to know why the Government having made strong indications to the electorate that it was going to cut— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Pledges. 
BRENDON BURNS 
: Pledges indeed. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Promises. 
BRENDON BURNS 
: Yes promises. Much noise was made about this issue. Public meetings were held. In fact a website was set up by Nicky Wagner “Stop the Noise”. In fact I think the website is still up. Maybe it has been turned down a bit of late but a very high expectation was created by the member that she would deal with this issue. When she stood in Christchurch Central at the last election she told the people of Christchurch Central that she would deliver on this issue. I do not see anything in the bill that will deal with it. The select committee has formed a view but the Minister is responsible for the bill. He has the benefit of officials and official advice and he can provide the Committee with an assurance as to what the view of the officials is. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Tell us why Nicky got rolled. 
BRENDON BURNS 
: Obviously she has formed a view that this needed to change but maybe she does not have any clout within the National caucus. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: It’s nanny State. 
BRENDON BURNS 
: Yes it sounds a bit nanny State does it not? That could of course be the other explanation as the Minister campaigned on the previous Government being a nanny State Government. But we have to acknowledge that the Minister has indicated that he will deal with the issue of cellphones. We are going hands-free a little later in the year. So he is prepared to grapple with some of the tough issues. He is prepared to wear the tag of nanny State from time to time. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: But they know best. 
BRENDON BURNS 
: Clearly the Government does know best! While we are on the matter of cellphones we have to ask the question that if we are going to have hands-free for cellphones then what about global positioning systems (GPS)? A GPS can distract drivers from the issue at hand whether they are roaring down Bealey Avenue at 100 kilometres an hour on a Friday night or just searching for a further indication of where to go. I would like the Minister to comment on what the advice to the Government from officials has been. Should there be as Ms Wagner promised the electorates of Christchurch and the nation a cut in the noise level down to 90 decibels from 95 decibels? There is nothing in this bill on that. The Minister is responsible for this area. He gets the official advice and he can tell us should he choose to do so. I think he should let people know because they have high expectations. 
If the Government does not give us an explanation I will continue to ask these questions. The National Government is now in power and it should tell us given all the promises and pledges made by Nicky Wagner to Christchurch voters not just at the 2008 election but also in 2005—so it is a repeat promise—that she would deliver on this issue and ensure the noise limits were reduced. She aligned herself with the Noise Off campaign group. She held numerous public meetings and put up a website saying “Stop the Noise” yet the noise will continue under the measures proposed in this bill. The Minister owes the House an explanation.