Cosgrove Clayton: Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill — First Reading 
Cosgrove Clayton: Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:4107] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 Labour will support the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill going to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. We will reserve judgment on the bill until that time so that as the Minister in charge of the bill Judith Collins has said people can have their say and others can contribute to it. I acknowledge the Minister’s speech. It was a far more measured communication than the others she has launched on this issue to date. She has worn the tag I think of “Crusher Collins”—somebody called her that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: The member should be careful. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I will not adhere to that name but she has worn that tag as a sort of badge of honour. 
I say that history will judge this bill for what it is. We will examine it closely in the select committee. As someone who was in this Parliament as a backbencher and attempted to address this issue I learned a lot from listening to submitters. When my member’s bill—which was then adopted as a Government bill by the Government—was being passed I recall saying in my third reading speech that I did not believe that my legislation would be a panacea nor a silver bullet. I invite the Minister to look closely at her rhetoric about crushing cars and at the Dirty Harry routine that she has perfected par excellence in many areas of her portfolio and I invite her to reflect very carefully on making promises that she cannot deliver on. 
I agree with the Minister and unlike many on that side I have personally been threatened and my family has been the subject of intimidatory tactics by some of these thugs. I do not speak from a position of theory; I speak from a position of personally being on the receiving end of some of those tactics. I share the Government’s view and I share the view of all New Zealanders that this sort of stuff is grotesque. It has moved on. I note there is an ACT member in the House and I note that ACT was one of the few parties in the last Parliament in 2002 and 2003 that voted against my legislation. I will be waiting for the speech from Mr Garrett the man who is tough on law and order. My legislation provided the New Zealand judiciary with more extensive powers than those of their Australian counterparts even though that legislation was based on an Australian model. It is true today that if a judge is of a mind to that judge can confiscate a vehicle for ever on a first offence. Judges have that power today. Sadly—and I choose my words carefully—our judiciary choose to use that power in only 2 percent of cases. 
My simple view of the world is that if people do not have their wagons or their souped-up death machines they cannot do a lot to destroy communities and the lives of communities around them nor more important can they do a lot to kill themselves or their mates. That is also an issue in our communities. I sympathise absolutely with and have lived amongst as Christchurch members have communities that have been subject to thuggery and intimidation. It has actually gone beyond that. There were those who wrung their hands as I recall when I put my legislation through and said: “Cosgrove’s being a killjoy. It’s always been a bit of fun hasn’t it? Our dads did it—those of our dads who had a wagon that had got to fourth gear when they reached the party.” It has actually gone well beyond that to now hundreds if not thousands of mostly young people but also not-so-young people—some slightly closer to the pension than a number of us—who do not engage only in the odd doughnut in the footy club car park but also in intimidation. I have walked through crowds where I have seen violence and people being set upon. As we know good police have been set upon by thugs. It has gone beyond just burning a bit of testosterone and live and let live as I think members of the ACT Party back in 2002 tried to put it. Communities have been done over and are done over nightly. 
We have a hospital in Christchurch we know where patients are moved from one side of the ward to the other on a Friday night. Our tourism is in jeopardy. Now there is a group with one member who was beatified I believe by the Christchurch  
Press 
 at the time one Mr Hemi. He has got a record longer than my arm I am told. He was beatified by the  
Press 
 because he wrote a few letters to the editor defending boy racers. Then we found out what he was like as he committed very serious offences. There is now a group that likes a fair bit of violence. 
We will support this legislation to the select committee but I make a couple of points. Many of the aspects that are trumpeted in this legislation are available today. It is interesting that we move from a position where in my legislation after one offence over 4 years a judge can and after two offences over 4 years a judge must confiscate the vehicle to a situation now where the Minister says it is three offences over 4 years. I invite members to reflect on that. Some would call that a weakening of the legislation that is before us today. 
Then we come to the so-called car crushing. I have to say that I do not really care how you dispose of the vehicle. If it is off the road and communities are set free and lives are saved I am for it. But I am also for legislation that works. If judges in only 2 percent of cases use their discretion to confiscate a car on a first offence this Minister has given them the discretion—yet again; it will not be mandatory—after three offences in 4 years not only to confiscate the vehicle but also to have it destroyed. I raise this issue with the Minister. One reason we did not put crushing in my legislation was because I did not want to be a politician who passed a law that was very populist with everybody’s support at the time and then have the problem that everybody but the offender paid the bill for it. 
In many cases the only asset some of these thugs have—and many are thugs—is the souped-up death machine worth two or three grand. If we take it and crush it and they owe fines reparation and court costs they have nothing else that can be clawed back from them. So who ends up paying the bill? The taxpayer does—the innocent party. I raise that as an issue not to defend boy racers but to defend the community. It should be I would have thought the offenders who pay the bill out of their asset base rather than everybody who did not offend—that being the community and the taxpayer. 
I raise another issue. One would think listening to the Minister that it was the first time in history that we could seize property or assets in the form of motor vehicles or other property to pay people’s fines. Well in the Justice and Electoral Committee last week members asked justice officials about this and they confirmed that we have been able to do it for years. In fact in Christchurch and other places I have sat in the back of a police car as the police have pulled over people—not for boy racing but just because they have thought they would check those people out—run them through the computer and found they owed thousands of dollars’ worth of fines and court costs. The cops ring up the bailiffs. The bailiffs come get the car on the tow-truck and tow the car away. There is nothing more pleasing in my view than to see the tears in the eyes of generally grown men as the souped-up jalopy is taken away. On one particular night the police said: “Well how are you getting home young fella?”. He said his mates were going to come and pick him up. So the police waited for his mates to pick him up and did their car as well. Cars can be confiscated. The bailiffs do it all the time. They confiscate property and have it disposed of to pay fines. 
I say that there is a fair bit of window dressing in this bill. It does promise much. If the bill matches the rhetoric then I am sure all New Zealanders will be happy. But the Minister said in respect of crushing that she expects only 10 cars per year to be crushed or destroyed. Now people who live in Christchurch Hamilton or Auckland know there are a heck of a lot more cars out there with hoons doing the business on communities. So it will be interesting as this legislation progresses to see whether the practical effect matches the reality. I say to the Minister in good faith that it is worth a go. I said in my third reading speech on my legislation similarly to the Minister’s that I hoped people—because I do not have a monopoly on all knowledge—would bring better ideas in the select committee process. 
I do also recall that in 2002 not one Opposition member in the 9 years those members were in Opposition got off his or her chuff and put up a private member’s bill in respect of—[ 
Interruption 
] no not noise—the boy-racer and speed issue. So we will support this to the select committee because we will back our communities. But it will be interesting to see as I say whether the rhetoric matches the practical effect. We will back what works. We will not back rhetoric.