Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7230] 
Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Debate resumed. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I will take a short call in regard to the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill. I congratulate the Minister on his sterling effort in getting this bill through Parliament. I also congratulate members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on the way they dealt with the issue. They basically looked at the bill from an objective point of view and tried to get the best solution for New Zealand residents and citizens. The issue predominantly affects a lot of urban centres not just Christchurch but also major centres throughout the country. This bill is the best we can do to deal with that issue. 
Opposition members have said they see a few holes in the bill but they had a chance for 9 years to address the issue; the member who has been talking for the last 10 minutes Clayton Cosgrove actually put up his own member’s bill a few years ago. Now he has had revelations about what he should have put in his bill but did not. He knows that the reality of what he has been talking about for the last 2 hours will not happen. This bill is the best attempt and the best solution we can get to the issue we are dealing with. Labour members know that are voting for it and know it is the best solution. We commend this bill to the House and congratulate all the officials who have helped us as well. We have been through many a different avenue to get to this result. I thank them for their time and effort as well. We support this bill to the House. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call in the third reading of the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill. I too add my thanks to the officials for the work they did in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee which I think was done under some pressure at some stages. I acknowledge the members of the select committee. 
I particularly acknowledge the submitters once again. We heard from various submitters—some in Christchurch some in Auckland and some in Wellington. On the first day that we got back from Christchurch where we had heard the first round of submissions on the Government’s two so-called boy-racer bills—this bill and its companion bill—I made a note that it was far more interesting than I had thought it would be. I came away with a very clear view after hearing from the residents in Christchurch who were affected by good boy-racers bad boy-racers the police and officials that there is no quick fix to this problem. The legislation makes us feel as if we are doing something but the question for the select committee and this House is whether these two bills will really make any difference or whether they are just window dressing. Having been through the select committee process and the consideration of the bills I still believe that both bills this bill and its companion bill are window dressing. 
I do however acknowledge that some useful tools are provided in this bill. I have acknowledged that in previous contributions. This legislation gives more powers to the police and again I want to share my colleagues’ concern that that is great but that there are still issues around police resourcing. We did not get an answer from the Minister about the issues around the cuts to the police resourcing we are seeing. Three hundred police cars have been cut—300 front-line vehicles. Enforcement is a really important part of making this bill and the next bill we will be discussing work. For example the police on the North Shore where I work tell me that one in six calls that they attend relates to family violence. If there will not be additional police resources to deal with the measures in this bill which give police more enforcement powers what will happen to the issue of family violence? The previous Government was definitely committed to addressing family violence and this Government may be committed to it. It is an ongoing issue. There is more and more reporting of family violence. There will also be ongoing issues with accident compensation actually and with sexual abuse counselling. However I will put those issues to one side. 
As I said it was pretty obvious from the beginning that there was no easy fix to the problem. Submitters told us that noise was the big problem. I must admit that I came away with my colleagues thinking that if noise was the problem then we should fix it. It felt as if it should have been easy to fix. Certainly we had listened to Nicky Wagner who had submitted a petition and to all of the rarking up she had done over the last 3 years around the issue of noise from the 2005 election through to the 2008 election—“This is something the Government has failed to address. Let us do something about it.”—and I think that that is a very sobering lesson for those members who are now in Government. It is very easy to rark up people. It is very easy to keep people distressed about things. It is very easy to say that we will fix it. But when it comes down to the problem I say to Jonathan Coleman it is not that easy to fix it. 
I am particularly concerned that the expectations of the public have been raised about this bill and the companion bill. I think the public have been led to believe that this bill and the next bill will address the issue of illegal street racing and that suddenly in the four avenues in Christchurch which are at the heart of the problem we have heard about that street racing will stop. There will not be boy racers behaving badly. There will not be any noise. There will not be any of the bad social behaviour we have seen. Overnight it will stop when this bill is passed. I am really looking forward to coming back in a year and asking whether it has. Has the bill made any difference? I think that the people of Christchurch and the other cities who came along and made submissions to the committee about this issue—which is affecting them and for whom we have a huge amount of sympathy—have been misled by this Government. As I said it is a lesson for this Government about rarking up the issues when the issues are actually much more complex than this Government seems to think. During the select committee deliberation on this bill I wondered how much thinking was done by the Government in putting up this bill and whether there were some other approaches they considered. 
All members I am sure who have any interest in road or transport safety as I do will have read the Automobile Association’s report  
Saving Ourselves 
 and its submission on the transport safety consultation Safer Journeys that is out there at the moment. Some of my colleagues have mentioned that there have been successful police approaches to dealing with this issue. For example there was Operation Sniper and I think my colleague Carol Beaumont will talk a little bit about that operation in Manukau. Some young people enjoy baiting the police. The more those young people are out there the more they will bait them. But the police have shown under Operation Sniper how the problem can be dealt with without this sort of legislation. 
Another interesting thing in the AA report is the approach in South Australia. It is said that although New Zealand has stuck firmly to social marketing as an adjunct to enforcement Australia has recognised that driving information campaigns on matters like fatigue cannot be linked to enforcement. Moreover the Australians have gone further with social marketing campaigns to denigrate antisocial driving behaviour. The objective is to achieve a social consensus similar to that achieved on drink driving. The “small finger” campaign is aimed at young men showing off. I am interested to know whether this Government has had a look at what they are doing in South Australia because I think that a lot of it is not just about enforcement and putting more laws in place and making sure that the police have the resources; it is also about changing behaviour. 
The Opposition does support some parts of this bill. We support the increase in demerit points because it is very obvious that fines do not work. In fact fines become a badge of honour for many young people. They boast about the level of fines they have with no intention of ever paying them. But again safe driving behaviour still relies on enforcement on having police on the road and on making sure they have the resources to catch people. As I said we support many other useful tools but that is one of them in particular. I think that a whole lot more work needs to be done around the demerits versus fines issue. There needs to be a whole lot more thinking about that and what it means. Labour is supporting this bill because overall we take a balanced view. The bill has more useful things than useless things in it which is why we are supporting it. 
I think that some real questions will be raised by communities that made submissions on this bill. I will be very interested to see whether in one year those affected by the serious harm that illegal street racers do to communities have found that things have changed. I suspect they will not have changed. I have to say that if the Government thinks that boy racers are a problem then it should wait until the bikers get on the road and start rallying outside this Parliament with the concerns that they have around accident compensation levies. The bikers are just one group; I will not go into all the other groups. 
Some other things were mentioned that people submitted on and one was compulsory third party vehicle insurance. As reported in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee report that insurance was suggested by several submitters as a means of altering drivers’ behaviour and reducing the numbers of unsafe vehicles. We understand that the Ministry of Transport is reviewing this type of insurance. We consider that it needs detailed investigation. The issue is outside the scope of this bill but I suggest to the House that it is pretty urgent. It seems to be from the submissions that this is one way of really tackling the problem of what we have in New Zealand which is a number of cheap cars that are easy to access. We can take them away confiscate them and crush them but then people can get new ones. We have to make it more expensive through that compulsory third party vehicle insurance. Thank you. 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to support the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill as we have done from the beginning. Until the new-found rapprochement between Mr Cosgrove on the other side and me was made we were frequently at loggerheads. He mocked us on occasion and no doubt will again about what we were doing supporting bills like this one and whether we were not the party of freedom. I will not target Mr Cosgrove because he is being very nice and polite at the moment. 
But I will say that freedom is not the same as a word that is not heard much these days: licence. Freedom is the freedom to do what one wants to do with the huge caveat that it does not interfere with the rights of others. Licence is the right supposedly to do what one wants to do. But it comes with a disconcerting consequence which is that those who have their rights infringed can do what they like to another. That is called anarchy and nobody on any side of the House I do not believe supports that. We support this bill because people do not as speakers on all sides have said have the right to disturb people’s sleep drive them half mad or simply interfere with their enjoyment of their back garden on a summer’s night. Classical liberalism does not allow that and we do not support it. 
I also agree with Mr Cosgrove about the reluctance of judges to use the law that he sponsored and pushed through Parliament. Sadly judges’ reluctance to use the ambit of the law is all too common. That is one of the reasons why the “three strikes” bill which the ACT Party has sponsored and which now forms part of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill is necessary. I will use the example of Andrew Peter McGlynn. He is currently facing his fourth recall—yes his fourth recall—from parole. Originally he committed murder 23 years ago. He was released from a life sentence after 9 years committed an aggravated robbery and was recalled. He was released again committed another aggravated robbery and was recalled. He was released again and assaulted a female. 
That man should and would have been banged up for 14 years after the second aggravated robbery on parole had there been a “three strikes” law at the time. Sadly the judges who dealt with him on those two occasions chose to give him sentences in the single figures cut down by the Sentencing Act that was passed by the previous Government. This man is articulate and intelligent and he has been able to fool the Parole Board not once not twice but three times. He is about to go back again. So I absolutely agree with Mr Cosgrove that the laws that we pass here are only part of the picture. Sometimes it is perfectly justified to blame the politicians but not always. The judges must use what they are given by us and if they do not do that in my view that reflects very badly on the judiciary. This man as I have said is set again for recall after breaching parole conditions for a fourth time. 
I will also speak briefly about Darien Fenton’s contribution in which she said that we may have to come back here in a year because the bill we are debating tonight may not achieve its aims. That is perfectly true but there is nothing unique about that. Taxation law is amended constantly for the very good reason that loopholes are found by lawyers who are paid a great deal more than I ever was as a lawyer. Those loopholes are closed and they find new ones. Parliament then has to close those loopholes and so on. That is why the Income Tax Act and similar legislation gets fatter and fatter by the year. It was ever so and sadly it will always be so. 
That is no reason to denigrate what we are doing here tonight. No doubt there will be clever lawyers—so-called civil liberties lawyers—who will take on these cases and find loopholes. We may well be back here next year. If we are we will support whatever the Government proposes if it appears to be a sensible response to those loopholes. Experience shows that in the case of both the boy-racer problem and the gangs constant enforcement of the law by the police and constant proper application of the law by the judges does work. 
We talked briefly about the boy-racer thing in the last sitting week. I observed that at that time the problem had apparently abated somewhat in South Auckland. Mr Tau Henare has observed that it has moved to West Auckland. That is what happens. It is similar with gangs. I am reliably informed that when the police relentlessly applied the law in Wanganui and turned over as they say gang cars whenever they got the chance and there was reasonable cause to do so gang crime went down. So it does work. It is a combination of effort by the police and by the judiciary. 
As I have said the boy-racer problem subsides when the law is enforced. There will be loopholes no doubt that will be uncovered and created by clever lawyers who somehow think their vocation in life is protecting those who make other people’s lives a misery. If we need to we will come back here next year the year after that and the year after that to plug those loopholes just as we do with tax law. Thank you. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak on the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill. I also thank the Minister officials and other committee members for the work they have done on the bill. 
This bill is about making our roads safer. It gives police and transport agencies greater powers. It is all about tackling illegal street racing and the antisocial behaviour that goes with it. It is also about what happens in the aftermath of illegal street racing—the litter the broken bottles and the alcohol-fuelled hoon-like behaviour. It is about the terrorising of residents. We heard from moteliers from Bealey Avenue about how it had affected their businesses: the negative impact on their businesses and the fact that their clients had had disturbed sleep. 
We heard about mob-like attacks on police officers. In January this year Christchurch Hospital had to move its patients from the front part of the hospital which was by the street to the back of the hospital. That was a major disruption for a service like that. We heard unfortunately of a number of deaths that have occurred from illegal street racing. On average 137 crashes a year result in injury or death caused by this activity which involves mainly younger people. These are unnecessary deaths and that is a tragic waste of human life. This bill will stop the menacing cruising behaviour by boy and girl racers and the intimidation of residents and pedestrians. 
The Government’s Supplementary Order Paper which will allow a 28-day vehicle impoundment period for the offence of failing to stop when requested is a good measure. We were quite astonished to hear in the select committee that the police were very concerned that the youth driving these vehicles did not stop when asked to; they sped off and played cat and mouse and flouted the law with no respect for the law whatsoever. Clearly the current penalty of 35 demerit points and a fine of no more than $10000 is not working and I am confident that the 28-day impoundment provision will send a clear message to these street racers that this Government is serious. I commend this bill to the House. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 Like others who have risen to speak on the third reading of the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill I would like to acknowledge that illegal street racing is a real problem and something we need to address. Like many others on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee I was very moved by some of the submissions we heard on the bill and particularly by some of the submissions made in Christchurch. People’s lives were seriously affected by their inability to sleep at night. Not being able to sleep on an ongoing basis is a serious issue. In some cases people were not able to use certain parts of their houses or their businesses were being affected. Ms Blue said that in some cases people had to put up with menacing and intimidating behaviour. We had a situation where a person actually chose not to submit on the bill because of being scared of the consequences of doing so. In the end the Hon Lianne Dalziel submitted in that person’s place. Labour recognises the seriousness of the problem and we will support and we are supporting any genuine effort to deal with the issue of illegal street racing and the antisocial behaviour that goes with it. 
The chair of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee David Bennett mentioned earlier that this is the best that we can do. I am afraid I do not agree with that. I think genuine efforts had been made by the previous Government and I would like to acknowledge the work of my colleague Clayton Cosgrove in that regard particularly and other Christchurch MPs. I think the Government is trying to progress those efforts and take them a step further but this is not the best we can do; there is a lot of window dressing in this bill and its companion bill and there are some areas of concern. 
But before I go into those areas like others let me acknowledge all of the people who made submissions on the bill—and there were a significant numbers of submissions. Likewise I would like to acknowledge the officials. They worked very hard and a lot of particularly interesting questions were thrown their way which they attempted to respond to and often responded to very clearly. We were under quite a lot of time pressure which was unfortunate; the consequences of that are that some areas are not as clear as they might be. 
The bill aims to disrupt and deter illegal street racing and related activities such as cruising by enhancing the powers of road controlling authorities to create by-laws in relation to such activities and to provide enforcement officers with more powers to tackle illegal street racing. The elements that are part of that are first of all the issue of cruising which has been well canvassed tonight. The definition of “cruising” causes Labour members some concern. We are not sure that the wording in place will do the job. A change was made by the select committee. The definition stated that cruising refers to the act of “driving repeatedly over the same section of a road” to draw attention to the power or sound of the motor vehicle or in order to create a convoy that impedes traffic flow. But now the definition talks about “driving repeatedly in the same direction over the same section of a road” thereby excluding going backwards and forwards over the same section of a road. That is a concern because the noise will be the same either way. 
Likewise I am concerned about the issue of by-laws. Although I can see the logic that by-laws enable local authorities to make specific and relevant changes in their areas all of the local authorities—certainly all the ones I can recall—did not want that power. That is a very interesting point and one we did not come to terms with. They were saying that they did not think by-laws would be the right tool. They thought there should be legislation yet we have gone ahead and put in place by-law provisions. It remains to be seen whether they will be effective. 
My point earlier was that after listening to all of the submissions I think there is no easy answer to this problem and the real issues are quite significant ones that require a range of responses. Overwhelmingly the significant issue is noise—it almost goes without saying. The problem with illegal street racing is the noise it creates and the disruption it causes. That is the biggest problem. The second and third problems are road safety issues arising from the actions of those illegal street racers and their antisocial behaviour which is often fuelled by alcohol. 
The terminology of “cruising” and the use of by-laws to stop cruising are effectively a proxy; a proxy to try to stop the cars from going round and round if you like so the noise will not be there the road safety issues will not be there and the antisocial behaviour will not be there. In theory it is possible to imagine a situation where a car or several cars drive round and round some of the places we are talking about without causing trouble without creating unnecessary noise without creating road safety problems and without antisocial behaviour. So it is not the actual cruising that is the problem; it is the things that go with it and I do not think that we have effectively tackled those questions. 
We decided the decibel issue was too hard so we have left it alone. We heard from the police that they have a couple of noise provisions that are potentially very effective and can assist them. They are the Land Transport Rule: Vehicle Equipment 2004 and the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 both of which give the police quite a lot of scope to deal with the issue of noise. But to do so they need to be there and they need to be there in sufficient numbers and at the right time to utilise those provisions. The police made those points to us quite strongly. Likewise road safety issues and policing of road safety problems are about having adequate policing. 
Members can see that there are a whole range of possibilities relating to the third issue of antisocial behaviour. Why do young people congregate in these ways and take the actions that they do? Alcohol is certainly one of the reasons and I guess there is an opportunity to look at that. The Law Commission has flagged the issue of drinking and cars and whether more needs to be done in relation to that issue. We have quite strong drink-driving provisions but in the case of illegal street racing and boy racers the issue is not just the driver but the passengers and there is a need to look at their antisocial behaviour which is fuelled by alcohol. Significant things can be done in all of those areas. 
I want to talk a little bit about some of the policing initiatives because I was very impressed with what the police have been doing in some parts of New Zealand. We were led to understand that very effective initiatives and interventions are being undertaken by the police in regard to illegal street racing such as Operation Sniper in Counties-Manukau. I will talk a little bit about that but first I put on record my acknowledgment of the work of the police in relation to this issue. I think the police try very hard with the resources they have to tackle the problem. 
What became clear to us is the need for greater consistency in police behaviour across the country. What has worked well in some parts of the country can be utilised elsewhere. I will explain a little bit more about Operation Sniper in Counties-Manukau. It targets illegal street racing and driving complaints in Counties-Manukau. Basically a full-time sergeant has been put in place to deal with the problems. A number of initiatives have been looked at. These included looking at intelligence around illegal street racing staff training on the relevant legislation and what could be done within the existing rules education campaigns at the local high school using the existing by-laws in place in Manukau City looking at overt and covert police tactics working with partner agencies such as the Manukau City Council and the Department of Corrections working with affected local business owners and residents and trying to develop new initiatives. There has been a significant impact as a result of those initiatives and the numbers bear this out. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I am glad I was part of this bill. I want to thank Steven Joyce; David Bennett the chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—and a good chairperson he is too—Nicky Wagner who went out of her way to collect many many signatures; and Paul Quinn as well. Nicky Wagner went out and collected many many signatures because this was an issue particularly in Christchurch. 
I want to talk about the meaning behind this bill. This bill is about reducing harm reducing the nuisance reducing disorder and reducing antisocial behaviour. It has nothing to do with noise. If it had something to do with noise then fellows like me and my mates in South Auckland in the best part of the 1970s would have been done for making too much noise. There would have been legislation all over the place about making noise. It is not about noise. It is about reducing harm to the community. I know that those people who get up and talk about noise are getting a wee bit old. They cannot handle the sounds that the little Honda Civics and Nissans make. Some of us can handle the noise that the V8s and the Fairlane 500s make going up the street. I know that it is a long time since we heard that big grunty sound. The issue is about the harm and the disorder that is created around the use of vehicles today. 
What I like about this bill is that it states that a licence is a privilege not a right. When somebody gives us a privilege we have certain responsibilities: to act nicely and to act within the law. If people do not act within the law then their licence should be taken away from them. I like the idea of a licence as a piece of property belonging to the agency. Licences do not belong to individuals they belong to the agency and it is a privilege for individuals to hold that piece of property until they no longer need it or they have transgressed and they have to give back that property because they have stepped over the mark. 
So I think this is a good bill. Obviously to some people it will not be the biggest Christmas present they have ever had but it does go a long way to reducing harm nuisance value and disorder and everybody knows what comes from disorder. The bill is also about reducing antisocial behaviour. I too commend the bill to the House. 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I will just pick up on the comments made by the previous speaker Tau Henare who said that this bill is not about noise but about harm. Well I challenge him to tell that to my constituents—to tell them that no harm is caused by cars 500 at a time with modified exhausts roaring down Fitzgerald Avenue or Bealey Avenue at 2 o’clock on a Saturday morning with unabated noise coming from their modified mufflers. He should tell that to my constituents to whom Nicky Wagner pledged and promised that she would deal with this issue and that she would see the allowable noise level cut from 95 decibels to 90 decibels. She said that it would be a priority for this National Government. She blackguarded Harry Duynhoven and called him a petrolhead yet here we have Tau Henare saying it is OK to roar about in V8 cars like he did in the 1970s. Well as I say he should come down and tell that to my electorate. 
My colleague Carol Beaumont quite rightly categorised this bill as covering three things. It is about noise cruising and antisocial behaviour mostly linked to alcohol consumption. I have to note at this point that in the Committee stage and so far in the third reading we have not heard from a National member from Christchurch— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: What? 
BRENDON BURNS 
: That is right—not yet. Much noise was made during the election campaign and throughout the last 3 years by people like Nicky Wagner like Kate Wilkinson and like Gerry Brownlee. We have not heard a peep from them so far on this bill. Ms Wilkinson is in the House tonight and I hope she will take a call and explain to the people she sought to represent and to whom she indicated that National would deal to the noise issue why she has not. 
It was not just the Christchurch MPs who gave this indication. The petition considered by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee was in fact launched in Nelson in February 2006. The reason it was there was that the environment spokesperson for the National Party Dr Nick Smith wanted the petition launched in Nelson. At that time he told the  
Nelson Mail 
 he had had more than a dozen residents approach him angry at the noise from the popular wide-bore exhausts—I think that refers to the car not the member. He said that thousands of cars were being imported from Japan with perfectly good mufflers but they were being replaced with systems designed to be noisy. He said that it was environmental vandalism and that no other country allows perfectly good muffler systems to be ripped off and replaced with mufflers that do not work. He was very keen to support Nicky Wagner’s petition supported by a member’s bill about the control of noisy exhausts. 
Not only was that petition circulated around Nelson and Christchurch but also it was available at National Party electorate offices in the run-up to last year’s election. 
Hon Member 
: Was it? 
BRENDON BURNS 
: Absolutely. Members of the National Party were encouraging their supporters would-be constituents and voters to sign the petition. They said: “Come and sign the petition. Make sure you support it because we as a party in Government are going to deal with the noise issue. We are going to make sure that the noise gets reduced from 95 decibels to 90 decibels.” 
Of course we have not heard a word in the debate on this bill around that issue. There has truly not been an explanation from the Minister as to why that did not occur. Perhaps the reason is that finally after years of talking up this issue National realised that there were between 50000 and 100000 ordinary Kiwi mums and dads who happened to own a car with a noisy exhaust system who could be faced with fees of up to $500 if they were forced to take that back to the original muffler system. Maybe that was the penny that dropped in the ranks of the National Party even though Nick Smith as the environment spokesperson was saying that it was environmental vandalism for 95-decibel cars to be allowed on the roads and even though Kate Wilkinson Gerry Brownlee and Nicky Wagner were also saying that we need to deal with this issue and were telling constituents in Christchurch that we must reduce the noise from 95 decibels back to 90 decibels. So maybe the penny dropped. Maybe they began to realise that that is why the issue had not been tackled by the then Labour Government. 
So there was the opportunity in front of the new Government to deal with this issue. All sorts of pledges promises and indications were given to the electorate last election and I know there will be many many people in Christchurch who will feel disappointed to say the very least that they have not been listened to. [ 
Interruption 
] No I would hope that Nicky Wagner would call a public meeting as she has done several times on this issue to explain why she could not get the support of her colleagues on this bill because that was the raison d’être and the basis of her campaign not just in 2008 but also in 2005. Repeated pledges undertakings and assurances had been given to voters in Christchurch Central and across the Christchurch electorates that this issue would be addressed by the incoming National Government. There we were a month away from election day with a bill that provided a perfectly legitimate vehicle for this issue to be tackled but the Government was not prepared to follow through on the undertakings given by its members when in Opposition. 
Again we see a situation where we have people who are quite prepared to be lions in Opposition but lambs when it comes to Government. It is very easy to talk up an issue it is very easy to call public meetings it is very easy to operate a website saying we are going to deal with this issue it is very easy to send out petitions and regular newsletters and it is very easy to work with the Noise Off lobby and say “We are going to deal with this issue.” That must be a very disappointed lobby group tonight because I think Jonathan Gillard and the members of Noise Off would have had every expectation and belief that this National Government would fulfil the promises and undertakings given to constituents in Christchurch. They had an expectation that they would have seen action on this issue but in fact a deafening silence is left in its place. 
I will turn to a couple of other aspects of the bill. I note now that Minister Collins is in the House her acknowledgment that this bill and its companion measure are not as one or two other members opposite have claimed the first action taken on these issues. This is an ongoing response from Parliament to the terror and tyranny that boy racers can present to electorates such as mine. I suspect this will not be the last that we see of the issue. But this legislation is attempting to tighten some of the nuts and deal with some of the loopholes that sometimes clever if devious people are able to find in legislation. 
I note that many of the actions being introduced under this bill are in fact already covered by existing legislation particularly Labour’s Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Act of 2003. An example is that the existing law allows police officers who believe on reasonable grounds that a vehicle has been operated in an illegal street race to impound that vehicle for 28 days. Now we are seeing that period moved so that the capacity for vehicles to be impounded on a second offence is for up to 90 days. I commend and support those kinds of measures. 
I have some questions about the way the select committee has dealt with the issue of passengers drinking in cars. Quite recently I visited some businesses off Tuam Street in my electorate a major thoroughfare. It is not the Tuam Street frontage that has been affected; around the back is a cul-de-sac where boy racers gather. Tens of thousands of dollars worth of damage has been caused to businesses by boy racers parking up drinking up smashing bottles pulling down coverings to windows climbing up drain pipes and pulling them down—tens of thousands of dollars worth of damage has been caused. I think that the to leave this to local body by-laws is not providing the necessary teeth that might be required to deal with that. I am very conscious that the Law Commission report covering all aspects of liquor law has been released. I understand that we have seen some 400 submissions on that process go to the Law Commission. There will be a final report to Parliament before the end of this year. 
I hope the Government will look very seriously at whether leaving it to local authorities gives sufficient power to enforce the issue of drinking in cars because the sorts of mayhem that I have described in that quiet cul-de-sac off Tuam Street is but one example of the sorts of problems that are emerging. We already have in Christchurch a by-law that prevents people drinking anywhere within the inner-city area. So it is absolutely forbidden whether one is sitting in a car sitting on the riverbank or sitting outside yet that sort of damage is being caused. I hope the committee’s position on that is picked up developed and enforced by the Government when it responds to the Law Commission review. 
In summary I think that the bill does take some steps in the right direction. It deserves to be commended for that. There are some loopholes that deserve to be filled. There is no silver bullet on this. Noise is an issue that I think will have to be addressed by this Parliament—that absolutely will need to be addressed—but this is a good step in the right direction and Labour is very very pleased to be able to support this bill. We believe that it will fill some of the loopholes. However I do believe that this will not be the last that this Parliament sees of these issues. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I am very pleased to take what will probably be the final call in the third reading on the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill. Given that this is the first time tonight that I have spoken on this issue I take the opportunity to thank the officials for their very good work through the Committee stage and also during the deliberation on this bill by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. I am sure the officials are around because the companion bill will be debated shortly by the Committee so there is still some work to do. This opportunity is my one chance to thank them for that effort. 
I also thank the hard-working chairman of the select committee David Bennett not only because he told me I should but also because I think he did a very good job. In fact I am surprised that other members of the select committee particularly those on the other side of the House have not joined me in doing so. It strikes me as symptomatic of the very passive-aggressive kind of approach that members on the other side took in the select committee. They sat as quiet as mice when we were talking about some of the issues yet they were up like lions in the Committee stage saying things that were not part of the select committee process. I will give members one example. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Did the member shut up for long enough to listen to anyone else? 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: What? 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Did the member shut up for long enough to listen to the other members of the committee? 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: Oh goodness me that is the Cosgrove interjection is it not? I am sure Labour members are being paid by the word tonight. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just want to be helpful. Either that member may be colour blind or there might be a sight problem: that is Mr Hughes; I am Mr Cosgrove. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I ask the member what Standing Order he is talking to. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Misrepresentation—106. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: There is no Standing Order on colour blindness. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: I can assure the member that I knew exactly which member I was referring to although it is not surprising that he checked given that it appears there are doppelgangers on the other side—people who look very much like the select committee members but could not possibly be because they do not act as if they were there. 
I am very interested in Ms Beaumont’s plaintive cries that somehow this Government is working just a little too hard for her liking. Every time a bill is reported back to the House she is concerned that we have rushed it through or that we have not considered it. Well that is what a determined deliberate carefully considered decisively acting Government does. In fact the member was very concerned about the officials. I think the officials relished the opportunity to get clear articulate questions in a timely manner that they could report back on. It probably made their lives easier. 
I will also touch on a point that Ms Fenton made in the Committee stage about expectations being raised. Frankly in relation to this bill the only people who were raising expectations were those on the other side. We have always said this bill is a very important step on a journey. It is not a magic bullet; it is not going to solve all the problems. Members on the other side know that. If they did not they would have said so in the select committee or they would have come here with a minority report or a Supplementary Order Paper. All we have had is bagging and no constructive contributions to the discourse. 
I will finish by touching on three important areas that were raised by members in the Committee stage. They concern the police. I congratulate the police and also the Police Association on their contribution to this discussion. They raised some very good questions. In relation to police resources we have heard ad nauseam that they will not be enough. I would much rather take the advice of the police on that issue than the advice of members on the other side. The police told the select committee that they have the resources to give effect to this legislation that it will probably make their role easier and that it will free up resources for doing other things. I am very happy to accept that; they know best. 
I will also touch on the “They will know it when they see it.” comments and the derisory response we got from the other side. That insults the police. It says that the police are too stupid to distinguish Mr Cosgrove’s grandmother who is rolling around the Kaiapoi Pak ’N Save car-park— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Both of my grandmothers are dead. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: —well OK I defer to the member on that—or a campaign contribution or the Christmas parade from what we are talking about. I think they would be insulted by that sort of logic. On the other hand I have every confidence that they know what they are talking about that they will act appropriately and that they will use their constabulary discretion. 
The last thing I want to touch on is noise. Boy have we heard a lot of noise about noise. I want to refer to Nicky Wagner’s new campaign manager Clayton Cosgrove and remind him that although there are some serious issues with illegal street racing in Christchurch it is not the centre of the universe. We have issues in Auckland Hamilton Lower Hutt and Dunedin. The fact that the Canterbury members on the other side who have spoken are not members of the select committee should not be a problem. 
There was very careful consideration of the noise issue and I am really surprised that those members on the other side who were on the select committee could be so dismissive of that. We had the officials arranging noise tests out the back of the parliamentary precincts. They were very helpful in understanding that an arbitrary noise limit would not be effective. We also heard from the police that they believe that the powers given to them through this legislation although it might not be a magic bullet will definitely aid their attempts to rejoice—reduce—the amount of noise coming from illegal street racing. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Rejoice! 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: It might not be a case of “Rejoice!” but it is certainly an improvement. For that reason I commend the bill to the House. 
Bill read a third time.