Garrett David: Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Garrett David: Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:6965] 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 It is always a great pleasure to rise and find things to support in speeches from the opposite side. In this case I was glad I was sitting down because I thought for a while there I would have to agree with everything that Dr Norman said. The first part of his speech was extremely sensible. He said he would support the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill and made some very sensible comments. Then sadly he departed a wee bit and provided me with something to act as a foil which was the idea that these guys and girls are basically just sad youths who really need facilities to be provided for them. It is the idea that if we provide burnout pads they will all happily pour their diesel there in a paddock somewhere surrounded by hurricane wire fencing and everything will be fine. Well— 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Not from the libertarian wing of the ACT Party are you David—not from the freedom-loving wing? 
DAVID GARRETT 
: I will come to that I tell Dr Norman; I will address that in a moment but I was obliged to respond to the points he made earlier. It is the same as the phenomenon of skateboard parks. Every time I am driven to the airport when going home from here I pass a large skateboard park down by the supermarket in Chaffers Street. I think the most skateboarders I have ever seen there would be two. But that does not stop them from going down Molesworth Street frightening pedestrians going up walls and on to fences because part of being a young punk—as many of us were—is breaking the rules and causing trouble. I tell Dr Norman that I am sorry but the idea that all we need to do is to provide them with alternative outlets and everything will be fine is very naive. Again— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Hear hear! 
DAVID GARRETT 
: Good God! I am glad I am propping myself up because Mr Cosgrove is agreeing with me and that is a rarity. Dr Norman said quite rightly that the ACT Party was the party of freedom and for that very reason there have probably been more debates on this among members of our caucus than there have been in the Greens’ caucus and that is amusing— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: More than the gang patches bill? 
DAVID GARRETT 
: At least as much! The question is the balance between the rights of people to do as they wish which some people say is classical liberalism—I do not quite agree—and the rights of others to enjoy their lives without their rights being infringed. That is the balance. Doing what we like regardless of infringing others’ rights is not liberalism. With the limited amount of political philosophy I know I believe that that is anarchism and we are not the party of the anarchists. Liberalism means freedom to act without State interference or interference by others as long as one does not interfere with others. All the speakers from Labour and National as well as Dr Norman have pointed out that this bill is about stopping those people who are causing sleepless nights anguish and distress to people who are going about their lawful business. It is about people being able to enjoy a balmy evening barbecue in Christchurch without having a bunch of clowns driving up and down the street with their large-bore exhausts which substitute for other things. It is about having a balance. 
The Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill is not a perfect bill. It would not be here at all if Mr Cosgrove’s measures had worked. They were a good effort a good try. He tried to make the measures work but this bill is necessary because those guys as is the nature of the beast have found ways round the legislation. 
People sometimes say that these things have always been with us and that nothing has changed since the internal combustion engine was invented. I am someone who is sadly in the upper quartile of the age range in this House—or beyond the middle anyway—and I can say that in my lifetime hot-rodders—as they used to be called—have always been with us. But there is a difference. I remember seeing a chap on the telly the other day talking about traffic cops in Auckland. He was about 65 and he said that a particular cop was probably still looking for him and everyone laughed. It was a game but people knew the rules. If people went hooning down Queen Street and got caught they took their medicine and paid their fine; or in those days if they did not pay their fine they did 14 days in jail. 
As other speakers have said—Ms Beaumont for example—we have a generation today who know because they are very skilled-up on their rights but not on their responsibilities that fines do not matter. Fines are essentially a voluntary thing in this country and are paid only by the middle classes. Someone can rack up 30 grand in fines and eventually some silly judge will say that that person will never be able to pay that amount and the judge will waive the fine. These guys know that. This bill attempts to take a different tack in the realisation that fines are not working. It recognises two things that those guys value: their car and their licence. It moves away from the focus on fines and towards demerit points leading to a loss of licence. That is sensible because the fine approach has not worked. 
It comes back to rights which are competing rights. No one has the right to race up and down suburban streets with big-bore exhausts causing upset to others. It is as simple as that. If people want to do that on their own property or on daddy’s property that is fine; they can do what they like. I personally believe that they can kill themselves if they like; I do not really care. But if they want to race up and down Moorhouse Avenue or Harper Avenue in Christchurch or wherever the spots are in South Auckland and disturb people going about their lawful business then we need to find ways of curbing them. 
The legislation that has gone before has not worked so this bill is an attempt to have another go at it. We can laugh about the limitations of the definition of “cruising” and everyone has been very careful not to extend the analogy too far but it will be shaken out and we will see whether it works. Some members of our party have said—as I have admitted freely there has been considerable debate in our caucus and among our membership—we do not need this law because the problem seems to be solved in Auckland. I met with the police up there and the problem is not solved. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Come out west! 
DAVID GARRETT 
: Exactly. The police target a particular area. The boy racers—for want of a better term—decide it is not worth the hassle so they lie low for 3 weeks then turn up out west. So the problem is not solved. 
The other sinister thing is a significant difference between the Christchurch problem and the Auckland problem. Whereas the Auckland boy-racers are predominantly working class mixed race and from the lower socio-economic group the Christchurch group are predominantly white middle class relatively well-educated—especially about their rights; they know all about rights but not about responsibilities—and include a significant number of white racists. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Are you out of touch completely? 
DAVID GARRETT 
: No not at all I say to Mr Cosgrove. I am probably more in touch than him. I bothered to turn up yesterday to the Crimestoppers launch which he was invited to but was too busy to attend. 
This law is necessary because previous attempts have not worked. It is not perfect. We may well amend it next year or the year after but it is another attempt to ensure that people’s lawful enjoyment of their lives is not interfered with by those who simply wish to disrupt them. Thank you.