Coddington Deborah: Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Coddington Deborah: Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4605] 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I am proud to stand and oppose this extremely bad legislation which is nefarious in what is actually breaking the law in this bill. I am also proud to represent a party that does have strong principles on law and order and zero tolerance of crime. That means zero tolerance of criminals; it does not mean total disregard for the courts which is what this legislation is doing. 
Every time we have a debate under urgency we see an incremental breach of individual rights. We saw it with the Local Government Act 2002 in which the police were given greater powers under that Act than they have under the Misuse of Drugs Act. It was only Stephen Franks who managed to insert some curbing of the powers of local authorities and the police by reference to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in that Act. 
Ken Shirley said over tea that he was happy to be mentioned in dispatches but he wanted to point out that yes he did support the introduction of this bill as no doubt many members opposite have often supported the introduction of a bill and its going to a select committee so that the public can have their input. That does not mean to say that one supports it all the way through. It has never been an indication that one would support a bill all the way through. 
He said in relation to his quotes that we need to get tough on those motorists who pose a danger who drive recklessly and who are unsafe drivers that he has absolutely no problem with that. But that is not what this bill is doing. This bill does not deal with people who cause death. We already have legislation for people who cause death and injury on the roads and I have no problem with impounding the vehicles of those people which is what Mr Ron Mark rather mischievously referred to. 
There is a total difference between someone who has had his or her licence revoked or cancelled and someone whom the police believe is breaking the law. They have not been convicted. We are not concerned with the rights of criminals. We are not talking about just criminals here we are talking about people who have not been convicted and that is the big problem that we have with this legislation. There is a difference between impounding the vehicles of disqualified drivers and impounding the vehicles of those who look like they might be about to break the law. 
Dr Cullen once said to me—people go on about the left and the right—that on issues of individual liberty often the left and the right converge. I know that there are individuals in both parties who are uncomfortable with certain aspects of this legislation because they know as I do that this is a stalking horse for increasing the powers of the State. I have no problem as I said with dealing with those people who break the law. But this legislation first does not deal with repeat offenders as has already been highlighted by Mr Mark and second does not distinguish between those people who are breaking the law and those who are not breaking the law. They are all dealt with under the same legislation. 
I bring it back to the words in the title—we should always be very careful when we say that those who are innocent have nothing to fear from legislation. That phrase was much used in certain parts of Europe in the 1930s. Doughnuts on the road—reckless and dangerous driving—are against the law. Excessive speed is against the law. Unauthorised racing on the road is already against the law. These are the people we should be coming down heavily on with the legislation that we already have in place. We should be giving more resources to the police and more numbers to the police so that they can deal with that. We should uphold the courts. We should not disqualify people’s fines and let them off the collection of $18000 in fines when they have breached the law just because they are unemployed and cannot pay it. That is what zero tolerance for crime is about. It is about making youth accountable for what they do when they break the law not putting them through endless family group conferences where 2000 out of 40000 get rapped over the back of the hand with a wet bus ticket. I say again to all those people who support this law what will they say to their constituents when they say instead of getting a $500 speeding fine which was bad enough “I had my car taken off me for 28 days. At the end of the 28 days I proved that I wasn’t actually breaking the law. Now who is going to compensate me for that confiscation of my property?”