Coddington Deborah: Land Transport (Street and Illegal Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Coddington Deborah: Land Transport (Street and Illegal Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4558] 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ) 
: 
 The ACT party did support this legislation going to select committee. We believe that that is an important part of the democratic process. It allows the public to have their input. But we do not support this legislation now. We see the bill as a stalking horse for increasing the powers of the police. That is what it is doing. There is no doubt that these so-called boy racers so-called hoons in motor vehicles so-called thugs in cars—whatever these people like to label them in this sort of discriminatory way: bogans petrol heads—do cause problems in some parts of the country. But we already have legislation to deal with them if they break the law. Nothing under the laws on reckless driving or dangerous driving prohibits the police from arresting these people and convicting them. 
Marc Alexander 
: So why did the police ask for more powers? 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: Because this Government gives the police only $6 a day as opposed to giving the Department of Social Welfare $72 a day. So members should ask themselves why the police cannot cope with these problems when there are problems. 
But let us get back to this legislation. Yes nuisance noise offensive—a lot of people out there upset us and disturb our peaceful lives. But do we pass laws to ban them when they have not even broken the law? This is what we are doing here. How do we define a boy racer? How do we define a bogan? Is it someone who wears a mudflap hairstyle a mulletee in black jeans? One member said he wanted to ban boom boxes. Are we going to ban people wearing stonewashed black denims? I can remember a few years ago when we were all getting up in arms about window tinting. 
 If we turn to page 3 of the commentary we see that the bill does define who these boy racers are. It states that they come from middle-class or affluent families. Well we cannot have that can we! That is fine—the Labour Party can pass laws to ban people if they come from affluent families; that is all right then! 
We have a problem in this country that occurs in various sectors of the community and the whole country throws up its hands in horror and says: “Let’s pass a law under urgency to ban it.” It is an unseemly rush to increase the powers of the police. It is not even clear in this legislation what we are seeking to ban. This Government would happily pass laws making us criminals if we discriminate against thin pretty female young heterosexual secretaries. It is happy to be the thought police when it comes to our private lives but it now wants to pass a law that discriminates against those whom we might not like and whom we might find offensive. 
I did a very quick search this morning and there is evidence that people who break these laws are being dealt with. In South Canterbury in March just this last month a 19-year-old Timaru youth was sentenced to 9 months in prison when Judge David Holderness said he wanted to send a stern warning to boy racers. The youth was charged with dangerous driving causing injury. There is legislation to deal with this. The judge said the community was becoming increasingly concerned with the dangerous conduct of young speeding drivers in city and country areas. 
Just in case Government members thought they were not being discriminatory enough it is not just boy racers it is girl racers as well. In a recent Christchurch court case a 19-year-old girl was jailed for 15 months for being a street racer and breaking the law. So I get back to my point that there is already legislation. We do not have the right to speed up and down the country break the law and drive at excessive speeds. The bill acknowledges that the current laws can deal with that. The bill deals with something called “difficulty for the police in identifying the offenders” and that is one of the reasons the Government wants this bill passed. 
Nothing in this legislation makes identification of the offender any easier. What will happen is that if the car is seized for 28 days—which the New Zealand Law Society and the Automobile Association have said is far too excessive in terms of the crime we are talking about here—all the police have to have are reasonable grounds to believe that the person first is the offender and second is breaking the law. The police are there to enforce the law. Under this legislation the police become the law. That to me is a glimpse of a police State and I think it is a very very dangerous road to start going down. 
A third party should be involved in the right of appeal. That does not happen so we will have the police acting as the enforcer of the law the judge and in a way the executioner of the law in terms of seizing the car. The person is guilty until proven innocent. 
What about after the 28 days when a person is proven innocent and the car is returned to that person? It is a serious breach of the property rights of people going about their legal business if they have their car taken off them. Often it is a tool of their trade. Even under the bankruptcy laws people are allowed to keep their tools of trade. As somebody pointed out these are expensive pieces of property and this seems to be a justified way of as someone said hitting people where it hurts. 
Let us take the analogy of the Resource Management Act. Under the Resource Management Act one might have reasonable grounds to believe that someone is doing something with his or her farm that breaches the Resource Management Act. Should we then seize that farm off that person and hold it for 28 days until he or she proves that the Resource Management Act is not being breached? [ 
Interruption 
] I think the member is saying that I should not say that too loudly in case the Government gets ideas and passes a law stating that. The bill that the State can seize the property on reasonable grounds. 
Clayton Cosgrove talked very passionately about people in his electorate who had died as a result of people breaking the law. He talked about people being shot. I congratulate him on being moved by that but there is already legislation in place. Is he telling me that if I go out and do a drive-by shooting I will not be breaking the law? Is he telling me that if I go out and drive dangerously and kill someone I am not breaking the law? Is he telling me that if I go on to Lambton Quay and pour petrol diesel or oil on the road I will not be arrested? Hello! I think I would get arrested. 
Is he telling me that if I go out there and do a doughnut on Lambton Quay I will not be arrested? Of course I would be arrested. Of course I would be breaking the law. I would be driving in a dangerous or reckless manner and there is already legislation to deal with that. Nothing in this legislation defines things like “sustained wheel spin” or as I said “reasonable grounds”. The danger is that we will get ease of discrimination. Who will be prosecuted? Will it be the hoon in his WRX revving his engine and goading the police? Obviously he would be targeted. But I doubt whether a member of the Wadestown set on the way to the opera or the symphony orchestra in his or her Saab 9000 who is a bit late and who races off at the lights and does sustained wheel spins without traction or whatever the legislation states would be arrested. It is absolutely essential for there to be a third party in the right of appeal. 
I believe that this legislation will increase contempt for the police amongst youth. I am not surprised that at the moment we have youth who— 
Marc Alexander 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is just a question as to whether Deborah Coddington has been reading the same bill that everybody else seems to have. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That is a point of debate. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: New Zealand youth are contemptuous of the law now because we have a useless youth justice system whereby youth are not held accountable. They have endless family group conferences. Out of 40000 young offenders 2000 are taken through the court. This Government is not interested in fighting real crime and keeping citizens safe. If it were it would increase the Police vote and give them more than the $6 a day of our taxes that it spends on police. It would increase front-line policing so that it is able to enforce the current legislation against people who do break the law and it would not go around arresting people who just look like they are about to do so.