Cosgrove Clayton: Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill — Second Reading 
Cosgrove Clayton: Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:6979] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I say from the outset that I will do what Minister Judith Collins does not very often do to those in front of her: I will commend her for her efforts in this regard. I support the Minister’s efforts in closing a number of loopholes that were not anticipated either by myself or by the police back when we passed the legislation. Specifically as the Minister says there is the loophole regarding the ability to if you will penetrate the third parties and go after their vehicles and there is the tightening of the hardship provisions. 
I do not believe that anybody disagrees with the impact of this behaviour. No one disagrees with that. Labour members will not stand in the way of this bill but we say to the Minister who read the Ministry of Justice notes very succinctly that in putting forward the bill her rhetoric does not meet her action. I will explain why. The Minister said before we had this bill that every boy racer’s car will get closer to the crusher. She told everybody in New Zealand that people who engage in this behaviour will have their cars crushed. That is what she said. She ratcheted it up she jumped up and down she stomped her feet and then we got through to the detail of this bill. 
Although we will not stand in the way of the bill we do not support the car crushing because its theory is defeated by the Minister’s own words. She said as recently as a couple of weeks ago on Radio New Zealand National that far from every boy racer’s car heading for the crusher she anticipates that as few as 10 cars will be crushed per year. That is what she said: 10 cars per year. That proves— 
Brendon Burns 
: Less than one a month. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: My colleague Brendon Burns’ constituency bears a heck of a lot of the brunt of this. The Minister’s own words were that 10 cars a year will be crushed. If one goes to Christchurch on any given night one will see 500 to 600 boy-racer cars if not more just in our area. Sometimes it is more like 1000 cars even in Amy Adams’ electorate. The Minister told everybody that all the cars will head straight to the crusher but now we know thanks to the Minister’s own words that it will be 10 cars a year. It proves that that part of the bill is a fiction. It is a stunt. It will not work simply because only 10 cars a year will head to the crusher as the Minister says. 
We are giving the Minister the opportunity in the Committee stage to toughen this bill. Here is what is wrong with it. As the Minister has said on the first offence under the existing legislation where the offender is also the car owner the court today has the discretionary power to confiscate the vehicle for ever but it rarely does. One could argue and there will be a few hisses groans and noises from members opposite about this that some of our judiciary have been less than strong in their implementation of the legislation. On the second offence if the offender is the owner the court must take away the car for ever. 
Then we get to closing the loophole with regard to the third party and to the measure put in place by the Minister which I support. But this is where she is weak. This is where the legislation is weaker than the existing legislation. The Minister has ratcheted up the rhetoric but she is weak. She penned a reply I am told to the feature article that I put in the 
 Press 
 noting some of the points I am making tonight. I am told that when she wrote the article and talked about balance she pulled it because it was not tough enough for her persona. 
Here is the problem: if a car owner is a third party and another person takes that car and commits an offence then what happens to the owner? Well Judith Collins sends the owner of the car a letter via the police saying that somebody has been naughty in the owner’s car. That is how tough the Minister of Police is. A real beauty! Somebody has been naughty in the car. Then somebody takes the owner’s car and commits a second offence. The Minister sends another letter via the police to the owner saying that somebody has been very naughty in the owner’s car. Ooh that is tough. My word I can hear the boy racers shaking in their boots. 
Then on a third offence—and if members do not believe me then they should look at the police briefing to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee from which I quote—“a court has the discretion” to take the car. It is not “must” take the car. It is not “must take the car for ever”. A court has the discretion on the toss of a coin on the whim of a judge to take the car for ever and maybe if it is one of the 10 cars crushed in a year the court will order the vehicle to be crushed. 
I ask the Minister how tough that is. It does not even line up with the existing legislation which provides that on a first offence the court may take the car and that on a second offence the court must take it. But if there is a third party then that person gets two letters from Judith Collins and the police saying that somebody has been naughty. I am sure that the people in Amy Adams’ electorate in my electorate of Waimakariri and in Brendon Burns’ electorate will be really rapt with that. They will get a letter saying that someone has been very naughty on a second offence and then it is up to a judge’s discretion to take the car. [ 
Interruption 
] Members opposite are saying I am a tough guy. Dr Mapp is a doctor of law apparently although I do not know how many arguments he has ever made in a court of law as an advocate. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Zero. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: The member says it is zero. I ask Dr Mapp to get up and refute anything I say because that is in black and white in the police briefing paper. 
This law will be weaker than existing legislation because it takes away the mandatory provision that requires a court to take a car on the first offence simply because the car belongs to a third party. Minister Judith Collins said—and I agree with her—that half of the offences committed by boy racers are committed by those who have their cars licensed in someone else’s name. She said that the right balance is that two naughty letters will be sent and then something might be done. Well I have talked to parents who say that if their son or daughter took their car and got a warning to say that if it happens again an offence is committed then those parents would sort it out pretty quick. Their son or daughter would not get the car. I offer the Minister— 
Nicky Wagner 
: Well it’s done then. That’s the answer. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: The member said that is the answer. Great lovely wonderful! 
Labour members are here to help. We will put forward an amendment in the Committee stage that simply states that car owners who are third parties—[ 
Interruption 
]; I think members opposite have gone a bit troppo; they do not like it because they have been found out—will get one warning and then the court must take the car on the second offence. We know because the police have told us that the hoons do not sign the car over to mum and dad. They swap ownership amongst themselves. 
I say to the Minister that what she has proposed tonight is a grand hoax. The media wrongly reported that Labour would stand in the way of this legislation—which we will not do—because it would show her up. I know that the Minister was in turmoil because at that point she did not have the numbers to get the legislation through. She did not have ACT or the Maori Party and she is desperate as one person who would know has told me to get that crushing clause through. 
If members of this Parliament believe that it is being tough to crush 10 cars in a year and to write to car owners who are third parties to say that somebody has been naughty and then very naughty and to then leave it up to a judge—when judges take cars in only 2 percent of cases now sadly—then I say that it is not tough. I say that it is rhetoric. One of the reasons we will let this one go through to the keeper is that I look forward in the next year as does Mr Burns as does Ms Dyson and as do all our colleagues in Christchurch and around the show whose constituents are impacted by this to showing up the Minister when it comes to the gap between the rhetoric the foot stomping and the Clint Eastwood impressions and what is real. 
The Minister has the opportunity now. I asked her in the House whether she would support an amendment from us that would toughen the legislation and she said that she had not seen it. It is a pretty simple amendment. It is about one line long. She does not even know her own legislation. 
This is a hoax on people. I will wait for my constituents to come to me to say that boy racers have gone nuts around their street—on Blackett Street and in Kaiapoi for example—and to ask what has happened. Well Mr Jones or Johnny who has signed over his car to somebody else has got two letters from Judith Collins saying that the car owner has been very naughty and then we will leave it up a judge. Then as the coup de grâce the Minister said in some sort of clairvoyant way that she knows that judges will take the cars. Well I say that they should take the cars make it mandatory and use the parts to pay off the fees and the court costs. Let us get really tough.