Cosgrove Clayton: Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cosgrove Clayton: Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 20 October 2009. Volume:658;Page:7258. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I thank Mr Garrett for his bipartisan approach. I think it is the second time in almost a week when the ACT Party has pulled the rug out from under the National Party. First was the levies bill which ACT was very sceptical about. Mr Garrett said exactly the same thing in that he would be back here to back us if the legislation did not work and likewise with this legislation today. I will address a couple of points that the Minister made in her speech. It was an astounding contribution. 
Not many months ago the Minister of Police Judith Collins said like MacArthur’s “I shall return” statement those infamous words “every car will head towards the crusher.” They will be burned and etched into our memories. This Minister has declared war on everyone. She has declared war on gangs war on P war on boy racers—war on everyone. She is the General Custer of the Parliament except General Custer had a last stand. He had a last stand. Suddenly we had a speech today that is all about fairness balance and not wanting to be Draconian. The Ministry of Justice’s notes are riddled with the term “We need balance” but this is not about photo opportunities. It is not about sending a signal. 
Hon Judith Collins 
: Ha ha! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I tell the Minister in the chair Judith Collins to hang on a minute. I invite the journalists who might be taking an interest in this issue to go back and read the transcript of the Minister’s statements and the media statements. Somehow Labour is now being too tough. The Minister said that she thinks that grandads parents and finance companies should have due warning so that they can retrieve their vehicles or provide a remedy if someone has taken their vehicle and run amuck. In the case of a finance company it can preserve its assets. No one on this side disagrees with the Minister on that. 
This is what we disagree on fundamentally. It is not parents’ cars that kids take and run amuck with; they take mostly—one in five according to evidence the police gave before the select committee—their mates’ cars change the ownership and run amuck. The Minister said that herself. She is trying to construct an argument that in the case of parents whose sons or daughters take their cars somehow the Labour Party will give them only one warning and then the car is gone and that is terrible. There are two problems with that. Firstly kids are not taking their parents’ cars; they are—deliberately—taking their mates’ cars. I do not think we should give quarter to that. Secondly all the parents I have spoken with have the view—including a couple I talked to in Belfast a week or so ago—that if they got a letter a warning saying that little Johnny had taken their wagon and run amuck and that the next time he does that their car is gone well they would sort it out and that would not happen again. Likewise I believe that a finance company should get a warning to say that its client who owes it $20000 on a car has run amuck in it. We say give the finance company one warning and then take the car. I suspect that finance companies will put clauses in contracts in the future to say if they get a letter if they get the encumbrance the finance company will come around and take the car off the boy racer the first time themselves in order to preserve that asset value. 
But the problem is that the Minister has found her kinder gentler fairer more balanced side which translates to the fact that she is weak; she trumpeted around the country that she would get tough. We believe that the appropriate balance is to give one warning to the third party and if the offence happens again the court must take the car. On a second offence a court is required to take the vehicle in the same way as provided for in existing legislation that the Minister has preserved. If someone is the owner and offender the court may take his or her car on a first offence but must take his or her car on a second offence within 4 years. But this Minister given how tough she is has written into law that third-party owners will get a letter if someone takes their car and commits a first offence. That is how tough that Minister is. They will get a letter saying that Judith Collins says that someone has been very naughty in their cars. On the second offence they will get another warning letter that says that Judith Collins says someone has been very very naughty in their cars. Then on the third offence it is up to a judge. There are no mandatory provisions on a third offence in respect of cars owned by a third party that says as with an owner and offender that a judge must take the vehicle. That is what we proposed last night and the Minister would not accept it given how tough she is. 
I say that Minister has hoodwinked people. I ask whether the people in Kaiapoi in Blackett St and in Hamilton will think that this Minister is tough on boy racers when after a third offence of making people’s lives hell in the streets of New Zealand—after shaking in their boots when they got a letter saying “You’ve been naughty” signed off by Judith Collins Minister of Police and then a second offence saying “You’ve been very naughty” signed off by Judith Collins Minister of Police—on that third offence it is up to a judge. I wonder how tough the Minister of Police Judith Collins will be viewed by people in respect of that. 
On recycling I say that the Minister has provided no evidence apart from hearsay. She told me to go around some police stations. Well I have and I do; it would be good if she did. But the ones she turns up to are the ones she opens that the previous Government built and then claims the credit for. Well I hold up the evidence that was before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that the New Zealand Police provided. Here it is in black and white. In this document there is no evidence provided by a professional excellent hard-working effective police force that talks about recycling in the numbers. It produces numbers in respect of changes in ownership—one in five people. It produces numbers of offences fines crashes fatalities tragedies and industries but there is not one figure in here in respect of recycling. Yet the Minister gets up and thinks that it is OK to say go and talk to the police. I do and I have for many years. Maybe there was a slight oversight. Maybe a line dropped off the presentation at the select committee. But I would have thought this Minister—smug though she is sort of the Cheshire cat of the Parliament—who is so humble and who cannot get the smile off her face would get up and say: “OK fair go. I’ve made a claim that there’s mass recycling all over the show. Here is the evidence Parliament.” But she said nothing. 
I say to that Minister that we support the bill and we support it for a couple of reasons. We support it because I believe we should show this Government the courtesy it showed me when we had a crack at this issue. I agree that there are some loophole changes. [ 
Interruption 
] I cannot even give these guys a compliment without Mr Quinn going troppo over there but that is OK. We know which room he should be in in the Parliament. The second reason is that the bill does close some loopholes around hardship and around third-party ownership. But the other reason we will let this go through is it will give us a very very important point a litmus test to judge and hold this Minister accountable. We believe this legislation is not tough enough and we put up a very simple Supplementary Order Paper. We said that we do not support crushing for two simple reasons. One is we support permanent confiscation—it should be mandatory. After the Minister told New Zealand that all the cars will be heading to the crusher she admitted and she even admitted it again today that about 10 cars a year—10 cars a year—will be crushed. I am sure the boy racers are shaking in their shiny shoes. I am sure they are terrified of Judith Collins pushing the button 10 times a year on the crusher. 
The other reason we do not support it is it makes no sense. 
Paul Quinn 
: You just said you do support it. Where’s this guy at? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: We do not support the crushing provision but we support the bill. If the member is going to go nuts I say to him that the reason we cannot vote against one clause in Part 1 is because we are voting on Part 1 in totality. He says he is a lawyer but he does not understand when we debate a bill part by part. So there are parts of Part 1 and Part 2 that we do support. But we only get one vote I say to Mr Quinn who is a silly silly member. The other reason we do not support crushing and we support permanent confiscation—[ 
Interruption 
] Oh the members on the opposite side of the Chamber are awake now; the lattes have kicked in. The other reason we support permanent confiscation is because we can dispose of a vehicle in a certain way for instance for parts whereby we can realise the asset value of that vehicle and use that asset value to pay the fines of the offender and not have the innocent pay the fines and the court costs through taxes. That will be the only result of what happens with crushing cars. It is 10 a year.