Tanczos Nandor: Land Transport (Street and Illegal Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Tanczos Nandor: Land Transport (Street and Illegal Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4560] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 The Greens opposed this bill at the first reading and we continue to oppose it. That is not because we support car racing but because it is bad legislation it is unnecessary and it is dangerous. I have been appalled at some of the previous speeches that have failed to address the issues the genuine concerns raised about this bill but have relied on personal insult and on emotional manipulation to try to make the point. 
The select committee says that it has substantially rewritten this bill—Ron Mark made reference to that as well. I would say that it has not so much rewritten it as tidied the drafting. Unfortunately it has retained the poor policy intention of the bill. Ron Mark said that the select committee attempted to make the bill just. It absolutely failed. He then went on to talk about targeting young people and crushing their cars—does he mean all young people? This bill overturns a basic principle of justice that one is innocent until proven guilty. The select committee recognised that the advice it received from the Attorney-General was that this bill breaches the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Basically the select committee said that it did not care that this bill breached our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act based on international conventions developed to protect the human rights of people around the world. It did not care. It did not think that that was important. 
The select committee did not care that it breached the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and that is in the report. The select committee said that a right of appeal was sufficient protection against the misuse of these draconian powers to confiscate vehicles. How was that a protection against the misuse of those powers? It is seriously inadequate. There is no remedy for the loss suffered by a person who might have his or her vehicle improperly impounded or confiscated. There is no penalty—there is no deterrent to the police whatsoever to make sure that they do not improperly use that power. 
What is more when people go to appeal against the impounding of their vehicle improperly what authority do they appeal to? The appeal goes to the police themselves. We are expecting that the police will police themselves and we think that that is adequate protection against the misuse of these powers! [ 
Interruption 
] John Carter may think that. Sometimes I wonder what planet some members of Parliament live on. 
Then people can appeal to the District Court if they are not satisfied by the outcome of appealing to the police. By that time the car will probably have already been returned to them and it would be a moot point. 
The select committee should be ashamed of this report and this House should be ashamed of itself in seeking to pass this bill under urgency. I know that some members of the Government and members of the Opposition are ashamed. I know that some of them do recognise that this is deeply flawed legislation. They are not allowed to say so in their votes in this House but they know that and they will talk about that privately. This bill is deeply flawed. 
The select committee said that the police powers were inadequate—it took the word of the police for that—but it presented no credible evidence that that was the case. As Deborah Coddington has pointed out all of the behaviours designed to be covered by this bill are already covered by the offences of careless and reckless driving and those offences already carry serious penalties including a potential prison sentence. Under that legislation there is already a power to confiscate vehicles for people found guilty of those offences. The point is that the power exists after someone has been found guilty. The difference in this bill is that the police now have the powers to impound a vehicle before someone has been found guilty of an offence. 
Ron Mark 
: Yes! 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: Ron Mark applauds that. Ron Mark thinks the principle of being innocent until proven guilty does not matter. It is not important to Ron Mark. He thinks that is fine. There are cases where the police already have such powers to impound for certain breaches of the law but those are of a different nature. Those are quantifiable breaches of the law. They are things like driving while disqualified or suspended. There is no subjective test. That is an objective breach of the law. The police can incapacitate a vehicle for driving that occurs while over the breath-alcohol limit. Again that is a quantifiable breach of the law. For people who breach the laws relating to careless or reckless driving or commit offences covered by this bill there is a subjective test of guilt—someone has to judge whether someone is guilty of taking part in a legal race or one of those kinds of things. That should be up to a judge or a court to decide. It should not be up to the police. This bill makes of the police the judge jury and executioner. 
As I have said under the Transport Act all of those kinds of offences can already result in a vehicle confiscation after guilt has been properly found by a judge. That is appropriate. If those powers were used those powers would provide an adequate deterrent which is what this bill was intended to provide. The problem is the powers are not being used by the police now. The police say that it is difficult to identify offenders. This bill will do nothing to address that. It will do nothing to make it easier to identify offenders. This is about making the Government feel good—and about making Clayton Cosgrove feel good. 
Clayton Cosgrove said this is not about politics. This is all about politics. This is about responding to a media-driven hype. The media told us we had a massive problem with boy racers and the police were caught with their pants down. When they looked at it the police were doing nothing to address the problem. What did the police say? They said: “Oh we need more powers. That is the problem.” [ 
Interruption 
] Marc Alexander said “Why did the police say that?”. When did the police ever say they do not need more powers? That is the police response to everything—that they need more powers. The problem is that the police have not been using the powers available to them. 
Tony Ryall made the point—and he was absolutely correct—that if there is not resourcing for the police to deal with these kinds of offences nothing will happen. Whether or not we pass this bill if the police are not resourced to deal with the issue the issue will not be dealt with. 
Ron Mark 
: The police don’t have enough resources to deal with violent crimes. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: Conversely if the police put the resources into investigating the offences they would deal with the problem. Ron Mark raises a question. I tell Ron Mark that the point is that if the police are not investigating crimes of violence the answer is not to change the law the answer is to resource them adequately to address the problem. That is exactly the point being made. It is not the law that is at fault it is whether the police are putting the resources into addressing the problem. If the police would use the powers available to them we would not have to pass this unnecessary legislation. Clayton Cosgrove says that this bill is about saving lives and he talks about over 400 people who have died. Those people did not die in drag racing. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Not boy racers. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: Exactly. Those people did not die in drag racing. It is part of the emotional manipulation. We all feel bad about people who die in road accidents. There is not a person in this House who does not. But passing this draconian and unnecessary legislation is not the answer. 
 I received an email today as I am sure probably all members of this House did that put forward the figures of people who have died as a result of racing wheel spins intimidating driving etc.—responsible for 0.4 percent of injuries and 0.7 percent of fatalities on New Zealand roads. The person who sent the email told us that those figures are less than those that attribute death or injuries solely to the poor condition of New Zealand roads. 
If Clayton Cosgrove is serious about addressing people dying on the roads why does he not do something about better funding for maintenance of roads? Even better why does he not do something about the overwhelming car culture that exists in our country? If we had an adequate public transport system and we got people out of cars and into trains buses and other means of alternative transport we would then start to address deaths on roads seriously. The majority of people who die on roads do not die from drag racing and those kinds of things. They die from our dependence on a fossil fuel - guzzling outmoded means of transportation. As Tony Ryall said this bill will do nothing to address the problems it is intended to address and this Government should be ashamed of trying to pass it under urgency.