Cosgrove Clayton: Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill — In Committee 
Cosgrove Clayton: Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7241] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I begin where I began in the second reading of the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill and that is to commend the Minister in the chair the Hon Steven Joyce for a couple of points. To be fair there are a number of loopholes that are closed through this legislation. As I said in the second reading when I tried to push my bill through a number of years ago I did not anticipate—I cop that and neither did the police or transport agencies who gave advice—the loophole regarding third-party ownership. I commend the Minister for closing that loophole. I think that is a good thing. I do not think it should matter who owns the vehicle; if there is an offence it should be dealt with. 
The second thing I commend the Minister for is the hardship provisions in the bill that have been tightened. I anticipated as was the advice at the time from the Ministry of Justice the Ministry of Transport and the New Zealand Police that judges would use the full powers of the legislation and confiscate cars as they can do today on a first offence and they must on a second offence. Sadly as the Minister of Police has publicly said and I think she is partly right through the loophole judges have not been able to exercise the full option that they can. Also judges have taken a view as is their right and privilege that permanent confiscation is a secondary or tertiary option. 
Although we have some difficulties with this bill we will show the Government the courtesy it showed me when I pushed my bill through and we will support it. But we do so because there is an issue of accountability. We have put up Supplementary Order Paper 73 because although this bill does a good thing and closes a loophole it goes further. It closes the third-party loophole and allows someone to potentially move on the vehicle owned by a third party. That is a person who has not committed the offence but one who owns the vehicle in which an offence has been committed. The difficulty is that this was trumpeted by the Minister when she said that all the boy racers would be closer to the crusher; they would have all their cars crushed. We will get to that little bit of idiocy in a moment but the problem is that the current legislation says that the court may take the vehicle for ever from an owner and an offender on a first offence but must take the vehicle—and that is the key point—on a second offence in 4 years. That is as it should be and that is how it will go. 
But when we get to a third party the Minister went further than just closing a loophole; she went and weakened the legislation. I quote from the Police’s own advice to the select committee: “If you are a third party owner and somebody takes your car”—and we know that over 50 percent of these vehicles are signed over in their mates’ names; it is not dad’s or mum’s car it is their mates who sign their cars over in their respective names—“and commits an offence firstly the owner gets a letter.” The owner will be shaking in his or her boots when he or she receives a letter to say that somebody has been very naughty in his or her car. Then there is a second offence. What happens? This is how tough this Minister is. On a second offence in 4 years the owner of the vehicle will get another letter saying that somebody has been very very naughty in his or her car. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Call your mum. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Yeah right! Call your mum! The boy racers are shaking in their boots after two letters have been received by the third-party owner of the vehicle. Then on a third offence in 4 years—and here is where the rubber does not hit the road—the Minister has taken away any reference to mandatory confiscation or even mandatory crushing. What happens on a third offence is that a court has the discretionary right on a third offence to take the car permanently and/or crush it. There is no “must take it”; there is no “must crush it”. After receiving one letter that says one is naughty and then two letters that say one is naughty on the third occasion a judge can toss a coin or do what he or she wants to do and exercise his or her discretion. 
The only defence that the Minister has put up to justify that is that it strikes a balance. We know the Ministry of Justice’s briefing is that that strikes a good balance. The little hoon who terrorises people around the show flicks ownership of the car into his mate’s name because this is not about somebody taking mum and dad’s car. The owner then receives another letter and then a court might do something. That is really tough is it not? I am sure that when Judith Collins was wandering around saying: “I’m going to sort this out.” when she was swaggering around with her six-guns saying: “I’m going to have all the cars crushed. I’m going to sort it out.” communities did not know that there was no mandatory provision. If one is a third-party owner the courts do not have to do anything in respect of crushing or permanently confiscating vehicles. Labour has introduced an amendment that simply says that if one is a third-party owner and somebody runs amok in one’s vehicle that owner does receive a letter to say that if it happens again the car will be taken. A court must and will take his or her vehicle. 
Every parent I have talked to has had this reaction: “Well if my son or daughter took the car and I got a letter saying the car was going to go because of what they did I’d sort it out pretty quick.” I think that strikes a fair balance. But really this is not about striking a fair balance with mum and dad. We know from the police evidence that these kids do not take mum and dad’s car. They flick the ownership into their mate’s name. The Minister has said that many times herself. A fair balance would be: “Johnny somebody’s run amok in your car. Here’s a warning. Next time the court will take it.” Labour has put up that amendment to be helpful. Labour thinks it is in line with the existing legislation that if one is an owner and an offender the owner gets a warning and then the car goes. I think that is tough and I think that is what the communities want. We offer that to the Minister in good faith. She said to me in the House: “You’ve never come to see me about it.” No. There is a Supplementary Order Paper here and it is pretty simple if one understands one’s own legislation. It was on the Order Paper this morning which is far more notice than that Government ever gives Labour members when it drops hundreds of pages of Supplementary Order Papers on us. 
The Minister and I will be on  
Morning Report 
 tomorrow—we are going to duke it out on radio over this one. Labour does not support the crushing of vehicles but it will not torpedo the bill. I will tell members why. It is because it does not work. What evidence do I cite before Government members interject on me? I cite the Minister’s own words. The Minister on Radio New Zealand—and we have the transcript—and in other places when asked: “How many cars Minister will be crushed?” do members know what she said? She said 10. But that was not the rhetoric that was used as she built up a big head of steam over months on the crushing issue. No she said that everybody will be closer to the crusher. 
I say to the Minister that in Christchurch there are 1000 boy-racer cars a night on a bad night on a Friday or a Saturday night. I know that Christchurch is not the centre of the universe so I cite Hamilton and other places. The Minister says that 10 cars a year are likely to be crushed. Then when pushed on it on Radio New Zealand she said: “Oh but I know the judges will do it.” I say to the Minister that she does not know that I did not know that and no one knows that but I hope they will. The Minister is a lawyer and she does not know that the judges will do that. It is 10 cars a year that will be crushed which proves it is a stunt. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: It’s more than you’ve done. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I do not have 10 cars. We can see the photo opportunity now of the Minister hitting the button at the first crushing. I wonder whether the Minister would be prepared to tell us why crushing 10 cars a year is going to work. What sort of signal will that send? 
Then there is the other issue of course about somebody whose vehicle might be the only asset that person has. The Minister has put out a press statement saying she is going to have cars recycled back into the community. If by the Minister’s own words only 10 cars a year are going to be crushed then this press statement from her is bunkum; it is absolute bunkum. There is no evidence and the police have produced no evidence to say there will be recycling. We can dispose of the car any way we like. I say we should maximise its value because most of these people have fines and court costs and I do not think the innocent should pay the fines and court costs of the offender. 
But there it is. Ten cars a year will be crushed. That proves it is a stunt. We have 1000 boy-racer cars a night in Christchurch and hundreds of such cars a night around the country and the Minister is condemned by her own words. Only 10 cars a year will be crushed. How many people out in the real world actually thought when the Minister was going around huffing and puffing that it would be only 10 cars a year? “Every car will be closer to the crusher.” she said. She is desperate absolutely desperate to get this crushing clause through so that it can be worn as a badge of honour. At the end of each year she will have 10 badges of 10 cars as 500 600 or 1000 cars maraud their way around Christchurch. That proves it will not work and that proves it is a stunt. I say to the Minister that even the Police Association in its own submission—and the Minister is wont to quote the Police Association—said: “the car-crushing provisions are unfortunately ‘a side show that looks good’ ”.