Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. Well it must be election year. So unless we're going to have any more time travel of the kind needed to make sense of the Government's report-back date in the select committee in the previous bill then election year will continue in the usual fashion—in a forward kind of motion—and we will see increasingly as the election date approaches Labour discovering the desire to keep New Zealanders safe which it seems given the change of stance in this particular area and plenty of others besides is something that appears to be motivated with one eye on the ballot box and only one eye on the speed cameras and so forth. As my colleague and friend the Hon Paul Goldsmith has said we support the bill. We think it does a useful thing particularly noting that it undoes a non-useful thing that had been done previously under this Government's watch. Paul Goldsmith has outlined in typically coherent fashion the logic that has prevailed whereby we've told people that if they can think to speed up only when they would otherwise be apprehended then we should not be surprised that they do exactly that with all the consequent damage that's caused as a result. I think that's tolerably clear and so I'll just look reasonably briefly at this stage of the week at what the bill actually does to try to meet these aims which are excellent in themselves. They're excellent aims but just a bit too little too late to reduce unsafe behaviour on New Zealand's roads by increasing the speed and severity of enforcement." Well that's all very well. So to seize and impound a vehicle—that period is going to be expanded from 28 days to six months "if the officer believes on reasonable grounds that the person driving a vehicle has failed to stop". It's interesting that just reasonable grounds are needed. That's a pretty low bar really. It's certainly not the usual criminal standard and obviously we're talking of something less than a serious Crimes Act offence for example. But I wonder and this is maybe something that the select committee—and I know the chair will take great interest in this being a human rights aficionado. Will there be some sort of trade-off? Will it be more able to be contested whether reasonable grounds were held for the impounding of a vehicle to reflect the fact that that 28-day period is going to become six months? By my maths that's about a sixfold increase in the amount of time so I wonder if there's any sort of trade-off in terms of the robustness of that assessment of whether it's just as I say reasonable grounds that the person has failed to stop. We see as well that there'll be a new power for the police to seize and impound a motor vehicle—that one is 28 days—if the owner of the vehicle "fails to provide information about a fleeing driver" and the police think that "impounding the vehicle is necessary to prevent a threat to road safety." It's interesting to compel that information to be provided. It's not entirely without precedent in the criminal law. To the extent that it might require self-incrimination and violate that traditional right to silence is I think something interesting that the select committee should look at and whether there are any broader public policy implications of requiring them to provide information about someone who is a close family member. I remember this Parliament a couple of years ago—actually it was in the previous term—removed spousal immunity as I think it was named. It's a slightly quaint expression now I suppose but roughly speaking that was the concept we had on the statute book whereby a person can be required to tell the long arm of the law a thing that one's spouse partner or significant other etc. might have done that was criminal. So it'll be interesting to see how that plays out. I'd be curious to see what kinds of submissions come in at the select committee process on that one. Then we've got the "period of licence disqualification"—so you lose your licence by having done these things—"after a second conviction for an offence of failing to stop". So the second conviction would be treated more harshly than the first—well that's interesting because the argument against the three-strikes regime in relation to other legislation that's gone through in this Parliament was that every case should be on its merits. Every case should be—and of course that should be when we're determining whether someone is guilty or not. But the idea that disproportionate punishment at a second or third offence in the case of the other law is somehow anathema to the idea of the rule of law and in the real New Zealand Bill of Rights Act kind of speak that would be a disproportionate punishment because like cases aren't treated alike. Well that's interesting. It's a bit of a departure from that but on the other hand it's completely consistent with the idea that a first-time offender will get some sort of discount for the fact that they haven't done it before or haven't got caught before. There's lots to find interesting in this and lots to pick over come the select committee and I will actually just give a shout-out on a slightly more positive note to say that there's going to be a bit better use of technology to enable this. So electronic service of notices and of course electronic service and ways of doing things in the digital environment is something that could be more usefully employed in the courts. I know that the Minister for Courts takes these matters seriously and if I hadn't put him to sleep he'd probably be taking that point in right now. But that's on me not him—again. So anyway as I say we support the bill. We think it's a good thing even if it's amusing or bemusing that it's come so late in the piece in this parliamentary term and in the life of the Government that they've woken up to the need for this legislation."