Hughes Darren: Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Hughes Darren: Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:4101] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to support the first reading of the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill. I signal to the Minister of Transport that I have found a mistake in the explanatory note and I want to see whether the Minister can find the mistake by the end of my speech. I will give him a hint: it is on the third page. I will return to that point when the Minister has got to it. The Minister is now getting a copy of the bill which is a good start for a Minister sponsoring legislation through the House. 
As previous Opposition speakers have said Labour will support this bill being referred to a select committee. The previous speaker Amy Adams talked about the difficulties a lot of communities have faced with what are colloquially known as boy racers and the terror and fear that they can strike into communities. I do not think there is any debate in Parliament tonight about the impacts and the effects of such activity. What is more difficult is to know exactly how to respond to such activity in a way that will actually change behaviour. We are very good in here at giving all the right speeches making all the right noises and saying all the right slogans about how to clamp down on boy racers and the aspect of their activity that we do not appreciate or approve of as a society but it has been much harder to enforce the will of Parliament and bring about proper change in communities. That has been very difficult indeed to achieve. 
Some aspects of the bill pick up on work that the previous Government was doing and that is welcome. It is a very good thing. I refer particularly to the work we were doing on road safety goals for 2010. 
I think a couple of parts of the bill are quite interesting and I look forward to seeing what the select committee has to say about them and equally how they will act once they are in operation. For example when Parliament has wanted to send a signal about activity that we do not approve of we have—for a long time—raised fines. That has been the way in which we have signalled to the community that this is something that Parliament is worried about—we have raised the maximum fines that can be imposed. But I think all members know from their work in their communities that sometimes a fine of $1000 may as well be $100000 in terms of the ability of the person being fined to pay that fine. People can rake up significant levels of debt and it becomes quite meaningless. It can become almost a competition in itself in relation to how many fines can be incurred. 
This bill in one area actually lowers the fine to a much more realistic payable level of $100 but in order to balance that with the comments of members across the House about their disapproval of aspects of the behaviour of boy racers the bill increases the demerit points. I think that is a really interesting innovation that the Government has put in the bill and we look forward to seeing how it will play out particularly at the select committee. It raises the issue as to what happens down the track when drivers get to the end of their demerit points and their licence is taken off them but they continue to drive. What options are open to law enforcement agencies and the courts at that point? We may be just delaying the cycle we have been on with people not wanting to pay their fines; we may be getting back into that area. But it is certainly worth the attempt because in addition to the tough side of this bill and the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill we are trying to send a signal about community expectations. 
I do not think people are against people enjoying the use of their motor vehicles against performance vehicles or against organised displays of cars. In fact a lot of people get a lot of joy out of that. I do not think this is Parliament being anti-fun; I think this is Parliament saying that many of these boy racers cross a line and seek to use what might have started out as a hobby for them as a tool of intimidation against law-abiding people. I do not think it is fair at all for people to use their own personal interests to intimidate people who are law abiding and who want to enjoy life in their community. So striking that balance is important. A lot of young people in all of our communities will say to us: “Hang on it’s all very well to be toughening up the law but what avenues are you giving us to explore our hobby? Where can we go to have organised safe controlled burn-offs? Where can we go to be in our cars?”. I think it is a challenge for all communities to try to find platforms to enable people to use— 
Hon David Parker 
: The Chatham Islands. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Mr Parker suggests the Chatham Islands but I do not think the vehicular ferry has been going to the Chatham Islands for quite some time. We might have to put that suggestion on the bright ideas list to come back to at some point. 
I think all the examples that have been given of people’s behaviour being reprehensible show that we do require a much tougher approach. That is the challenge here. There has been very good language from the Government and it has been supported by the Opposition but making this actually happen will be a real challenge for the Government. The proof will be in the pudding. 
On previous occasions Parliament thought that it had toughened up the law only to find that the tools it thought it had given had not been used. I know that the Minister of Police in particular is aware that that will be the test of the legislation and we are all very interested to see how it will work. I think back about 6 years to the Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill which set out yet another response of Parliament in relation to the impounding and confiscation of cars. I think we heard in the House the other day that for a first offence less than 2 percent of cars have been taken under some of those provisions. Sometimes it is not just a case of Parliament not acting; it is a case of our making sure we send that message as carefully as we can. 
Unfortunately I missed the Minister of Transport’s speech but I pore over his  
Hansard 
 record so I look forward to checking it at a later time. I am not sure what costs he thought will be associated with the bill. I have read the regulatory impact statement and I am waiting for the Minister to add the cost of this law to the cost of the Waterview Connection project in Auckland because every cost the Government faces gets piled on to the cost of that particular project. I look forward to that. 
The bill raises the issue of Government policy with regard to road policing. In the recently issued Government policy statement—GPS2 I believe it is known as—in May the Government has cut $49 million out of future funding increases for road policing. It seems to me that just as important as the measures we are passing tonight is being able to police the law. We are sending as strong a message as we are able about enforcement by the court. Anyone reading  
Hansard 
 will see a certain level of frustration by Parliament that previous measures have not resulted in the full extent of the law being exercised in that respect. But we also have to focus on what happens on the night when these things are occurring. Often our first line of response is the police when there is community frustration and intimidation. We know that one police officer or a couple of cops in a patrol car will be hopelessly outmanned in a lot of these situations when they turn up. So we have to try to make sure we have effective road policing. This Government is overseeing a $49 million cut in future funding for road policing and I think those two things have to be put together. If they are not there is no point in our passing this law. For this law to be used to its full extent will require arrests and for those arrests to take place will require the containment of situations. 
All members have spoken about the way that members of the community feel intimidated and I suspect that when the police arrive in some of these situations they advance feeling a degree of intimidation themselves. They need resources behind them. So the cutback in road policing is relevant. It is not just the effect on the safety component—and once again this weekend we have seen why that was so misjudged. I think that in the operation of this law we will need to see a much stronger commitment from the Minister of Transport to those resources that his colleague the Minister of Police needs. 
A lot of speakers have covered what the bill does. I do not plan to go over that but only to re-emphasise some of the behavioural aspects of the bill around the lowering of the fine and the increase in the demerit points. I signal a concern about the cycle we will get into when some of these drivers reach the maximum demerit points. Obviously there is a strong need for us to be backing up the police when they are there on the ground. 
Finally the select committee will hear submissions on the bill throughout the rest of the year it will come back for the third reading and it will be law before Christmas. So it will be 12 to 18 months before we know whether the measures that we have put together have worked. Labour supports the bill. We wish the process well and we come to it with a great deal of support but I make it clear that we are not trying to target all young people and say that every young person everywhere in a car is a problem. We know that is not true. There must be opportunities for young people to enjoy the safe use of motor vehicles. But where that line is crossed we need legislation like this and Labour is pleased to support it being referred to the select committee.