Burns Brendon: Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Burns Brendon: Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7236] 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I will just pick up on the comments made by the previous speaker Tau Henare who said that this bill is not about noise but about harm. Well I challenge him to tell that to my constituents—to tell them that no harm is caused by cars 500 at a time with modified exhausts roaring down Fitzgerald Avenue or Bealey Avenue at 2 o’clock on a Saturday morning with unabated noise coming from their modified mufflers. He should tell that to my constituents to whom Nicky Wagner pledged and promised that she would deal with this issue and that she would see the allowable noise level cut from 95 decibels to 90 decibels. She said that it would be a priority for this National Government. She blackguarded Harry Duynhoven and called him a petrolhead yet here we have Tau Henare saying it is OK to roar about in V8 cars like he did in the 1970s. Well as I say he should come down and tell that to my electorate. 
My colleague Carol Beaumont quite rightly categorised this bill as covering three things. It is about noise cruising and antisocial behaviour mostly linked to alcohol consumption. I have to note at this point that in the Committee stage and so far in the third reading we have not heard from a National member from Christchurch— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: What? 
BRENDON BURNS 
: That is right—not yet. Much noise was made during the election campaign and throughout the last 3 years by people like Nicky Wagner like Kate Wilkinson and like Gerry Brownlee. We have not heard a peep from them so far on this bill. Ms Wilkinson is in the House tonight and I hope she will take a call and explain to the people she sought to represent and to whom she indicated that National would deal to the noise issue why she has not. 
It was not just the Christchurch MPs who gave this indication. The petition considered by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee was in fact launched in Nelson in February 2006. The reason it was there was that the environment spokesperson for the National Party Dr Nick Smith wanted the petition launched in Nelson. At that time he told the  
Nelson Mail 
 he had had more than a dozen residents approach him angry at the noise from the popular wide-bore exhausts—I think that refers to the car not the member. He said that thousands of cars were being imported from Japan with perfectly good mufflers but they were being replaced with systems designed to be noisy. He said that it was environmental vandalism and that no other country allows perfectly good muffler systems to be ripped off and replaced with mufflers that do not work. He was very keen to support Nicky Wagner’s petition supported by a member’s bill about the control of noisy exhausts. 
Not only was that petition circulated around Nelson and Christchurch but also it was available at National Party electorate offices in the run-up to last year’s election. 
Hon Member 
: Was it? 
BRENDON BURNS 
: Absolutely. Members of the National Party were encouraging their supporters would-be constituents and voters to sign the petition. They said: “Come and sign the petition. Make sure you support it because we as a party in Government are going to deal with the noise issue. We are going to make sure that the noise gets reduced from 95 decibels to 90 decibels.” 
Of course we have not heard a word in the debate on this bill around that issue. There has truly not been an explanation from the Minister as to why that did not occur. Perhaps the reason is that finally after years of talking up this issue National realised that there were between 50000 and 100000 ordinary Kiwi mums and dads who happened to own a car with a noisy exhaust system who could be faced with fees of up to $500 if they were forced to take that back to the original muffler system. Maybe that was the penny that dropped in the ranks of the National Party even though Nick Smith as the environment spokesperson was saying that it was environmental vandalism for 95-decibel cars to be allowed on the roads and even though Kate Wilkinson Gerry Brownlee and Nicky Wagner were also saying that we need to deal with this issue and were telling constituents in Christchurch that we must reduce the noise from 95 decibels back to 90 decibels. So maybe the penny dropped. Maybe they began to realise that that is why the issue had not been tackled by the then Labour Government. 
So there was the opportunity in front of the new Government to deal with this issue. All sorts of pledges promises and indications were given to the electorate last election and I know there will be many many people in Christchurch who will feel disappointed to say the very least that they have not been listened to. [ 
Interruption 
] No I would hope that Nicky Wagner would call a public meeting as she has done several times on this issue to explain why she could not get the support of her colleagues on this bill because that was the raison d’être and the basis of her campaign not just in 2008 but also in 2005. Repeated pledges undertakings and assurances had been given to voters in Christchurch Central and across the Christchurch electorates that this issue would be addressed by the incoming National Government. There we were a month away from election day with a bill that provided a perfectly legitimate vehicle for this issue to be tackled but the Government was not prepared to follow through on the undertakings given by its members when in Opposition. 
Again we see a situation where we have people who are quite prepared to be lions in Opposition but lambs when it comes to Government. It is very easy to talk up an issue it is very easy to call public meetings it is very easy to operate a website saying we are going to deal with this issue it is very easy to send out petitions and regular newsletters and it is very easy to work with the Noise Off lobby and say “We are going to deal with this issue.” That must be a very disappointed lobby group tonight because I think Jonathan Gillard and the members of Noise Off would have had every expectation and belief that this National Government would fulfil the promises and undertakings given to constituents in Christchurch. They had an expectation that they would have seen action on this issue but in fact a deafening silence is left in its place. 
I will turn to a couple of other aspects of the bill. I note now that Minister Collins is in the House her acknowledgment that this bill and its companion measure are not as one or two other members opposite have claimed the first action taken on these issues. This is an ongoing response from Parliament to the terror and tyranny that boy racers can present to electorates such as mine. I suspect this will not be the last that we see of the issue. But this legislation is attempting to tighten some of the nuts and deal with some of the loopholes that sometimes clever if devious people are able to find in legislation. 
I note that many of the actions being introduced under this bill are in fact already covered by existing legislation particularly Labour’s Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Act of 2003. An example is that the existing law allows police officers who believe on reasonable grounds that a vehicle has been operated in an illegal street race to impound that vehicle for 28 days. Now we are seeing that period moved so that the capacity for vehicles to be impounded on a second offence is for up to 90 days. I commend and support those kinds of measures. 
I have some questions about the way the select committee has dealt with the issue of passengers drinking in cars. Quite recently I visited some businesses off Tuam Street in my electorate a major thoroughfare. It is not the Tuam Street frontage that has been affected; around the back is a cul-de-sac where boy racers gather. Tens of thousands of dollars worth of damage has been caused to businesses by boy racers parking up drinking up smashing bottles pulling down coverings to windows climbing up drain pipes and pulling them down—tens of thousands of dollars worth of damage has been caused. I think that the to leave this to local body by-laws is not providing the necessary teeth that might be required to deal with that. I am very conscious that the Law Commission report covering all aspects of liquor law has been released. I understand that we have seen some 400 submissions on that process go to the Law Commission. There will be a final report to Parliament before the end of this year. 
I hope the Government will look very seriously at whether leaving it to local authorities gives sufficient power to enforce the issue of drinking in cars because the sorts of mayhem that I have described in that quiet cul-de-sac off Tuam Street is but one example of the sorts of problems that are emerging. We already have in Christchurch a by-law that prevents people drinking anywhere within the inner-city area. So it is absolutely forbidden whether one is sitting in a car sitting on the riverbank or sitting outside yet that sort of damage is being caused. I hope the committee’s position on that is picked up developed and enforced by the Government when it responds to the Law Commission review. 
In summary I think that the bill does take some steps in the right direction. It deserves to be commended for that. There are some loopholes that deserve to be filled. There is no silver bullet on this. Noise is an issue that I think will have to be addressed by this Parliament—that absolutely will need to be addressed—but this is a good step in the right direction and Labour is very very pleased to be able to support this bill. We believe that it will fill some of the loopholes. However I do believe that this will not be the last that this Parliament sees of these issues.