Volume 607 Week 20 - Tuesday 1 April 2003 
Volume 607 Week 20 - Tuesday 1 April 2003 
[Volume:607;Page:4531] 
Tuesday 1 April 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Points of Order 
Messages from Governor-General 
Mr Speaker read to the House messages from the Governor-General recommending appropriations for various bills. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Governor-General sent us a message before and we listened appropriately to that message but was that to ask the House to afford an appropriation for a bill that has not yet been passed? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That has to be done or the bill cannot be passed. 
Questions to Ministers 
Student Visa Scheme—Accountability 
1. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Is she satisfied that New Zealand’s student visa scheme is operating satisfactorily; if so why? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I am largely satisfied given that there were over 80000 international students in the country last year. I have to say that the scale of abuse is small. However where such abuses do occur we investigate. At present we are investigating allegations that a so-called training provider in the Wairarapa has brought in workers as students. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why do we have yet one more example of students from abroad being abused misused exploited and used as cheap labour all of course granted admission by this Minister by way of visa and given that she was spoken to late last year—and this is not a laughing matter Minister—what has she done about it? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: We are investigating that matter. A number of issues arise and they are not all related to immigration. I should advise the member that the institution concerned has in fact offered Samoan workers jobs that have enabled them to gain residence through the Samoan quota. That means there are some serious issues relating to conditions of work and I am advised that these are being investigated by the Employment Relations Service. 
Taito Phillip Field 
: Are international students in New Zealand on a student permit entitled to work; if so under what conditions? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Yes but only if a variation to the student permit allowing for work is granted. Students may apply for permission to work to fulfil course requirements—which was what was attempted in this particular instance but has not met the standard required—and up to 15 hours per week if they are tertiary students undertaking a long-term course of study or during the Christmas and New Year holiday period. 
Pansy Wong 
: How does she ensure that the New Zealand Immigration Service can monitor students’ continued enrolment attendance and performance under the new policy provision that provides for the issue and granting of student visas and permits for the length of a student’s course of study regardless of the period for which that student has paid course fees—especially in light of the fact that Australia has tightened its immigration law making prospective students provide better evidence of financial stability? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: They also have to provide evidence of certain other things in Australia. With regard to monitoring I make the point that we are very dependent on tertiary education providers and schools providing information to immigration that students are not complying with the provisions of their permits. 
Larry Baldock 
: Is the Minister entirely confident that her proposed amendments to the Prostitution Reform Bill will ensure that no overseas students will be trafficked to New Zealand for prostitution under the guise of a student visa; if not why not? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The amendments I have tabled by way of Supplementary Order Paper are designed to ensure that any work permit that is used for the purposes of prostitution will lead to that permit being revoked and the person removed from New Zealand. 
Larry Baldock 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was whether the Minister was confident that the amendment would ensure that no prostitutes were brought into New Zealand. Could she answer the question? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the Minister addressed the question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How does the Minister think that this so-called training institution conforms to any requirements she might have with regard to policy when the education consisted of a single 1-hour lecture per week where Samoans were promised $14 to $15 per hour but paid piece rates and went home with $170 per fortnight in their pockets which is less than the dole; how is it that a whole lot of Chinese entered that training programme and went AWOL and where are they now? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: They were not Chinese. They were from Nepal. A little bit of extra work would have found that out. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister is giving an answer. She is entitled to do so. The member is entitled to have further supplementaries. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The point of order cannot relate to that particular point. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I should not have to give the Minister a geography lesson particularly when she is in charge of people coming into this country from all around the world. Her opening statement is demonstrably and palpably wrong. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is a matter for debate. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I am not satisfied with the circumstances at the Fernridge Institute of Training Ltd. It is not registered with the New Zealand Qualifications Authority. The New Zealand Qualifications Authority the Immigration Service and the Employment Relations Authority have serious concerns and it will be investigated by the Government. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Well how did they get in here; was it just like the Japanese programme in Auckland or is the Minister responsible for nothing in the ministry any more? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Given that the Japanese establishment in Auckland was Given that the Japanese establishment in Auckland was established in 1994 that matter is hardly relevant to my role as the Minister of Immigration. There might have been an error with regard to the issuing of student visas when this particular establishment did not have New Zealand Qualifications Authority approval. 
Unemployment—Transition to Work 
2.  
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Social Services and Employment 
: Is he satisfied that enough is being done by his ministry to move long-term unemployed from the benefit into work? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Social Services and Employment) 
: 
 The number of people on the unemployment benefit for March 2003 is at a 15-year low which mirrors the official unemployment rate. Last year Work and Income New Zealand achieved a record result helping 55922 people into stable employment. The number of people on the unemployment benefit for over 6 months fell by over 15 percent in the year to February 2003. Those are very good results but we are not complacent and we will continue to apply common-sense answers to help the unemployed. 
Judy Turner 
: Is he concerned that the decline in the number of those on the unemployment benefit has been accompanied by a 17.3 percent increase in the number of sickness beneficiaries since the end of 1999 and by a 7.4 percent increase over the past year and can he confirm that some lifestyle beneficiaries are seeing the sickness benefit as a better option than the dole now that they do not have to have an excuse for the lack of jobs? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: It is worth knowing that the people who are on sickness and invalids benefits are on them because they are sick or have a disability. There has been no migration at all from the unemployment benefit to those forms of benefits as implied by that question. Among the things we are trying are the new employable strategies which are pilots designed to see people who are on the sickness and invalids benefits back into the workplace. The early signs are very good and we hope to expand those pilots. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What initiatives are being taken to assist people who have experienced long periods of unemployment into work? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Nationwide and regional initiatives to help people back into work include working with younger people to prevent them from coming on to or staying on a benefit; assisting mature unemployed people into work; assisting people with disabilities who can work to find suitable employment; training and support for those who lack basic employment skills such as literacy and numeracy; and partnerships with industry and community organisations to help long-term unemployed into jobs. Once again I say that we will continue to apply good common sense. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That answer was too long. 
Katherine Rich 
: If things are so rosy why is Treasury predicting the number of invalid sickness domestic purpose and unemployment beneficiaries to rise significantly by 2007 with the cost of the invalids benefit doubling to $1.2 billion between 1999 and 2007? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The situation is not rosy and the Government would never have claimed that it was. Just as the National Government experienced problems arising from the deinstitutionalisation of mental health patients the mature ageing of our working population and the accident compensation tail being moved from accident compensation on to sickness and invalids benefits so are countries throughout the OECD having to deal with those kinds of issues. We however will do something about them—unlike the National Party. 
Barbara Stewart 
: What explanation can the Minister give for the drastic 28 percent increase in those claiming the invalids benefit since 1999 and is that the solution for the long-term unemployed? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I repeat that no one is migrating from the unemployment benefit through to an invalids benefit. The answer to the member’s question is very simple and probably edifying for people in the National Party such as Dr Brash who likes to understand these issues. Obviously people are migrating on to the invalids benefit because we have an ageing population. We have more older people now moving on to a benefit from a job they can no longer do we have deinstitutionalisation and we have accident compensation people moving on to a benefit. Those are the kinds of reasons and they would be the same for any Government. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: In the light of the fact that thousands of able-bodied New Zealanders have been on the dole for more than 10 years has the Government considered introducing time limits to ensure that the long-term unemployed take personal responsibility for their future livelihoods thereby reducing the tax on working families; if not why not? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: It is worth noting that the number of people who have been unemployed for 10 years or more has dropped by 25 percent under this Government. Those people of course were 7 years unemployed under the previous Government which was supported by that member. 
Judy Turner 
: Will the Minister commit to reviewing the sickness benefit system to ensure that its recipients are indeed worthy when the 1999 census of prison inmates shows that 11.8 percent were on a sickness benefit prior to their conviction and in those cases illness clearly was not a barrier to committing some rather energetic crimes? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: This Government constantly monitors the use of the benefit by all New Zealanders. 
Barbara Stewart 
: I seek leave of the House to table the number of people on the invalids benefit. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
United States—Gore Presidency 
3.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she believe her comment that a Gore presidency in the United States would have had a different consequence for Iraq was an appropriate statement for her to make and what benefit does she think this view of United States domestic politics will have for the New Zealand - United States relationship? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes and neither here nor there. Leaders can occasionally make a difference as the National Party is contemplating at the moment. 
Hon Bill English 
: Has the Government changed its policy from staying close to our friends and allies despite differences over the war to an approach where the New Zealand Government is trying to distance itself from those friends and allies now that the war is on television? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The Government is clear that it has not supported this war. We are waiting to hear what Mr English’s position is. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Putting aside the Government’s position in respect of this war in Iraq does the Prime Minister think it is wise for her to think off the top of her head and to give vent to her mind on matters on which she is thoroughly unqualified to speak? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I would assert a little more expertise on foreign policy than the member. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: How does the Prime Minister reconcile her statement on Sunday: “I don’t think that September 11 under a Gore presidency would have had this consequence for Iraq” with her armchair generalship yesterday by publicly contradicting General Tommy Franks’ claim that the allies are on time and with her statement to Parliament in February: “We have stepped up our promotion of free-trade negotiations with the United States”—or should that be Syria? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I cannot see any link between the statements. Further I point out to the member that Mr Howard was reported only yesterday in the  
Sydney Morning Herald 
 as conceding that the United States’ belief on going into the war that the show of overwhelming coalition force would inspire a popular uprising against Saddam Hussein was misguided. The fact that Mr Howard is in negotiations for a free-trade agreement does not stop him from telling the truth as he sees it about what is happening. 
Keith Locke 
: Why did the Prime Minister not express confidence in the Green presidential candidate Ralph Nader whose anti-war stance both before and since the election has been much more evident than that of Al Gore and other Democrats and does the Prime Minister agree that her anti-war stand is enhancing New Zealand’s relationships with the many millions of Americans who are against Bush’s war? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Ralph Nader’s position on these issues is well known. For the record I say that this country values its relationship with the United States and we are determined that this difference of opinion will not harm that relationship. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Is the Prime Minister aware of any interest in or notice taken of her comments by the United States media? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I cannot say that I have had any reports drawn to my attention of my comments in the United States media at all. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Prime Minister intend to revert to her previous policy of not criticising the US in any way or will she continue to make comments about the war as if she were some kind of foreign correspondent—and continue to offend our friends and allies? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Yesterday when the Leader of the Opposition was challenged to give a single anti-American statement by the Prime Minister he could not give one because there has not been one. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Is the Prime Minister aware that her public comments made yesterday opposing the war effort against the Saddam Hussein regime are heralded in today’s issue of the  
ArabNews 
; and are we to conclude it is now her intention to substitute a free-trade agreement with the USA for a free-trade agreement with Syria? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am aware that Agence-France Presse picked up some of the comments from the press conference yesterday—statements I might say of the bleedingly obvious. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I seek leave to table today’s issue of the  
ArabNews 
 heralding Helen Clark’s comments. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There is. 
Labour Market—Reports 
4.  
LYNNE PILLAY (NZ Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Minister of Social Services and Employment 
: What reports has the Minister seen on the state of the labour market? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Social Services and Employment) 
: 
 The recently released progress report on the Government’s employment strategy shows that in 2002 the number of people with a job rose by 44000. That is a record for people who are employed. The unemployment rate fell to a 15-year low of 4.9 percent. Labour force participation remains therefore historically high. We are employing a whole-of-Government approach and it seems to be working. 
Lynne Pillay 
: How are these nationwide employment results reflected in the regions? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The rural regions had the highest percentage gain in employment. The Labour-Progressive Government’s focus on regional development and on regional and industry partnerships has seen tangible results creating opportunities that place people into real employment. For example in Motueka for the first time in at least 20 years there are no unemployed people available for seasonal work because there are no unemployed people available. 
Katherine Rich 
: When the OECD Treasury his own ministry and evidence from Australia and the United States all acknowledge that work testing and work requirements play an important part in getting people back into work why does the Minister continue to ignore these options and in fact do the opposite here in New Zealand? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Because I want to do a lot more for sole parents than the National Party did. It ignored them until their youngest children were 6 years old. We want to work with those parents every year to make sure they build their capacity and get a job. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minster aware that there are several thousand people employed casually in this country with little or no job security; and can the Minister tell us what reports he has had on this aspect of the labour market? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes a number of people work in very casual forms of employment throughout the labour market. It has been one of the things that member has been interested in—and so have we—to try to ensure we regulate the labour market in order to minimise the number of people who are in such insecure jobs. 
Points of OrderQuestion No. 1 to Minister 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave at this first opportunity to table the New Zealand Qualifications Authority’s registered providers list which shows that Fernridge Institute of Training Ltd is listed on page 3 of those three pages. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Points of OrderQuestion No. 5 to Minister 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call Question No. 5 Dr Lynda Scott has advised me that she has a slight rewording which I have looked at. I would like her to indicate what the rewording is and I will then take the leave of the House that she is allowed to ask the question accordingly. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (NZ National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I wish to insert the words: “regarding the spread of SARS” after the word “population” as this was inadvertently missed from the original question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that? There is not. Please read the question as amended. 
Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome—Rugby Sevens Hong Kong 
5.  
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (NZ National—Kaikoura) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What level of risk do the New Zealanders returning from the Hong Kong rugby sevens pose to the rest of the New Zealand population regarding the spread of SARS and what extra precautions are being taken given a Hong Kong doctor described the sevens as “a huge incubator for the rest of the world”? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I want to thank the member and other health spokespeople for their continuing engagement on this important public health issue. There is some concern of course about those attending the sevens but I am advised there is a level of risk from anybody coming from any affected country. Rugby supporters however are not likely to represent the same level of risk as those who have lived in Hong Kong. Most cases have occurred among close contacts of people who have developed severe acute respiratory syndrome including family members and health-care workers. For people who have not had contact with the disease and do not have any symptoms the level of risk is considered low. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: Now that the World Health Organization is recommending screening of airline passengers is she still “flabbergasted” as she said 2 weeks ago at this suggestion and what is being done to identify people with symptoms? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The World Health Organization has recommended that authorities in affected territories screen passengers before they depart from their destination so there is not a lot I can do for people who are leaving from Hong Kong. However we have done a lot in New Zealand in terms of passenger arrivals and as the member will know yesterday severe acute respiratory syndrome was made a notifiable disease. We have also upgraded the travel advisory for travellers travelling overseas. This morning staff of the Auckland District Health Board met two flights from Hong Kong to ensure that passengers were given appropriate information. As there is no screening test and the disease has an incubation period of 3 to 10 days it is very difficult to screen people as they arrive unless they are showing symptoms. 
Steve Chadwick 
: Are any other precautions being taken by health authorities to manage potential risks posed by travellers from affected countries? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes the Ministry of Health is monitoring this on a daily basis and is in close contact with the World Health Organization and other countries where severe acute respiratory syndrome is occurring. As I said we already have an Order in Council to be able to detain assess and isolate suspected cases. We have the travel advisory and we also have information being provided in five languages and being distributed in New Zealand to people who arrive back from overseas and to visitors to New Zealand. There is an 0800 number so that people can get information before they travel. We are fortunate that New Zealand did undertake a pandemic exercise last year which helped us to set up mechanisms to ensure that we are ready as much as one can be. 
Pita Paraone 
: Has her ministry made any recommendations to the Minister of Immigration regarding short-term and long-term arrivals entering this country from countries at a high risk of sudden acute respiratory syndrome such as China and other Asian countries which make up a large proportion of our arrivals; if so what are they; if not why not? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No I have not received any information but the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Ministry of Health are considering issuing an advisory request for tour groups and others from affected areas to postpone travel to New Zealand. It is an issue that is being dealt with at Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade level rather than at immigration level. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: What powers will the Ministry of Health have to identify and contain infectious patients now that severe acute respiratory syndrome has become a notifiable disease and does the 0800 number give advice on symptoms and action if New Zealanders are worried? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: In relation to the last part of that question New Zealanders who are worried can get information on the symptoms. In fact that information is provided to all New Zealanders and other travellers as they arrive back in New Zealand. The Order in Council that makes the disease notifiable under the Health Act does set out quite specific powers that the medical officers of health have. There are quite a number and I am happy to provide the member with them. 
Ron Mark 
: I seek leave of the House to table information that shows that at 11.30 a.m. today in Auckland some 300 people arrived from Hong Kong and not one was screened given advice or in any way checked for severe acute respiratory syndrome. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Points of OrderQuestion No. 6 to Minister 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The issue raised in this question is of national domestic importance crossing many portfolios and as the Prime Minister spoke on this issue at her press conference yesterday I seek leave for this question to be transferred to the Prime Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. Please ask the question. 
General Agreement on Trade in Services—Negotiations 
6.  
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Trade Negotiations 
: Will the Government heed calls by the Green Party and the Council of Trade Unions to publicly disclose its initial offer in the current General Agreement on Trade in Services negotiations? 
Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister for Trade Negotiations) 
: 
 The Government has previously stated it would consider making public its initial General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) offer. We intend to do so. 
Rod Donald 
: Has the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade told the Minister of the concerns of the Forest and Bird Protection Society that measures to restrict the number of tourist operators on conservation areas such as limiting the number of hotels in a sensitive area may breach New Zealand’s GATS commitments under the market access rules and how will he modify our commitments to avoid that possibility? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: I have not been told of that particular assertion but it is clearly nonsense because the Government will retain its powers to regulate. 
Tim Barnett 
: Is the Government obligated to respond to all the requests that have been made of New Zealand particularly in areas of sensitivity to us? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: The answer is no. The fact that other countries have made requests of us in any given sector does not mean that we are going to offer what they have asked for. As members will see in due course from the initial offer New Zealand is being very cool-headed in deciding what should be put on the table. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: What differences in principle does the Minister see between the Greens’ and trade union opposition to liberalising trade in services and the European Union’s and Japan’s opposition to liberalising trade in agriculture a position that costs New Zealand and the world hundreds of billions of dollars a year? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: I note that most of the Greens’ complaints about trade in services are taken directly off the Internet from European websites. The trade union movement in New Zealand on the other hand has been faithfully reflecting its members’ concerns and has been a very constructive interlocutor on this matter. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Will the Minister give this House a cast-ironguarantee that his Government’s signing of GATS will not have any deleterious effect upon public education in New Zealand? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: The currency of cast iron deteriorated considerably during the coalition Government of which that member’s party was a part. I can however give the House an assurance of the nature he seeks. 
Rod Donald 
: Is the Minister aware of the views of the New Zealand Vice-Chancellors Committee that GATS will be of no benefit to them as education exporters and that it may enable foreign education bodies to apply for funds currently available only to the domestic research funding pool thus threatening public research funding; and what is his response to these concerns? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: It would be news to me that the Vice-Chancellors Committee is not capable of speaking for itself. But if that is really its view obviously it has got hold of the wrong end of the stick. New Zealand education exports are one of the most successful parts of our external economy and going from strength to strength. The vice-chancellors would be aware of how much their universities have benefited from the opportunities to trade internationally. 
Rod Donald 
: Why are we rushing into making a GATS offer when the gains for our largest service export sector tourism are virtually nil and does the Minister concede that GATS will in fact only make it easier for foreign firms to buy up New Zealand – owned tourist ventures further increasing foreign ownership of the New Zealand economy? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: I do not concede any of that. The GATS makes New Zealand’s access to service sector markets around the world more secure and more reliable. It is entirely good for New Zealand. 
Rod Donald 
: I seek leave to table three documents. The first is the submission from the New Zealand Vice-Chancellors Committee. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Rod Donald 
: The second is the  
Dominion Post  
article in which Helen Clark expressed a dim view of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s performance on consultations. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that newspaper article. Is there any objection? There is. 
Rod Donald 
: The third is the letter from the Christchurch City Council refuting the claims made. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
General Agreement on Trade in Services—Negotiations 
7.  
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (NZ Labour—Napier) 
 to the  
Minister for Trade Negotiations 
: What progress has the Government made in finalising an initial offer in the current General Agreement on Trade in Services negotiations? 
Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister for Trade Negotiations) 
: 
 Cabinet has carefully considered the recommendations on New Zealand’s initial offer to the World Trade Organization General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) negotiations and our offer was submitted to the World Trade Organization yesterday. I will be holding a media briefing on our GATS offer later this afternoon. I will table our initial offer immediately following this question in the form in which it will appear on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade website later this afternoon. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What service sectors has the Government made offers on? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: The initial offer included some new sectors such as postal and courier services credit-reporting and collection agency services environmental consultancy urban planning consultancy landscape architecture consultancy and services relating to the placement and supply of personnel. In addition to these new sectors New Zealand has offered to strengthen its existing commitments in areas such as engineering computing veterinary financial telecommunications and transport services. The inclusion of these sectors reflects broad discussions with key stakeholders. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Will the Minister assure the House that in pursuing New Zealand’s interests in liberalising trade in services the Labour-led Government will neither bow to pressure from its friends in the trade unions nor kowtow to the Greens as it has on other important issues such as toll road legislation? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: This is not a kowtowing sort of Government nor will we succumb to pressure from people on the opposite side of the House who want us to send our armed forces to war in order to earn negotiating coin for trade negotiations. 
Stephen Franks 
: Given the announced reservation of powers to limit GATS so as to discriminate in favour of Maori precisely what kinds of projects involving Maori are contemplated as needing that reservation and why is that not forbidden by article 3’s guarantee of the same rights and privileges under the same British law for all New Zealanders? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: I am aware of the member’s desire to stop honouring the Treaty of Waitangi and stop addressing historical grievances. All that the Government’s reservations in this area do is allow us— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have two objections. Firstly the Minister has no responsibility for the ACT party’s policies. Secondly the Minister cannot authenticate that. In fact Mr Stephen Franks is actually in favour of upholding the treaty—not the made-up one but the real one. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The first part of the member’s point of order was valid. I now ask the Minister to continue his answer. 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: All that the Government’s reservations in this area do is allow us to honour the Treaty of Waitangi and to address legitimate historical grievances. 
Rod Donald 
: Does the Minister have even the slightest misgiving about the fact that New Zealand’s initial offer was tabled at the World Trade Organization in Geneva before the New Zealand public had become aware of it and before this Parliament had had a chance to debate it and does his offer include any new reservations to protect exposed non-commercial services? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: The offer does include a declaratory statement on New Zealand’s interpretation of article 1.3 of GATS which provides protection for the Government’s ongoing right to regulate supply and if desired subsidise public services. I have no reservations whatever about the wisdom of the Government’s initial offer. 
Darren Hughes 
: What steps have been taken by the Government to ensure that public services are not included in this GATS offer? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: Firstly we have adhered to article 1.3 of the GATS treaty which makes that clear. Secondly we have included in our initial offer a declaratory statement of our interpretation of that article that we believe is shared by all other members of GATS. Finally the whole scheme of GATS is designed to preserve the sovereignty of Governments and their right to regulate services in pursuit of broad public policy objectives. 
I seek leave to table New Zealand’s new and improved commitments under GATS. This document will be made available on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade website later today. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Electricity—Generation 
8.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy 
: What did he mean when he said in relation to electricity generators “There is no benefit in the generators bringing the country to its knees because the Government would bring them to their knees.”? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 I was repeating the Government’s position that electricity generators must ensure that they manage any forthcoming difficulties this winter to minimise any disruption. In other words generators must make the market system work or the market system will not survive. That is a position the industry understands very well and freely accepts. It has remained unchanged since it was first given in the winter of 2001. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Is the Minister aware that similar comments from the Prime Minister last week wiped millions of dollars off the capital value of Contact Energy; can he tell us whether he has discussed those threats with the Minister for State Owned Enterprises; and can he also tell us how bringing generators to their knees helps the current crisis? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The point that I made in my primary answer and that I will make again—and that I made in the media interview that the member has decided to become excited about—is that if the competitive environment is the one in which the five generators wish to play then they ought to play. It needs to be made to work. The generators well understand that. That is why they are active with the demand-side management that is why they are active in finding more winter fuel that is why they are active in cross-insuring and so on. 
Mark Peck 
: Has the Minister received any advice recently about Government planning for more electricity generation? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Indeed I have. Two pieces of advice come to mind. The first says that the Government should be more involved in planning future electricity generation. However the second says that the market is working perfectly and that a return to more central planning and State control would be a backward step. Unfortunately both these suggestions come from the Opposition spokesperson on energy. 
Peter Brown 
: Does the Minister accept that to ensure the necessary security of supply the electricity industry needs—in areas—more regulation more enterprising ideas and more investment; if he does accept these assertions what is he doing about it? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Those are sufficiently broad and good ideas that it would be hard to disagree with them. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: What if any steps does he intend taking to address the regional monopolies of the State-owned enterprise “gentailers” which allow them to price gouge major electricity users on spot-market prices while offering very unattractive hedging options? Will the Minister introduce more markets and more competition or will he retrench into ever-increasing regulation? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Two of those three questions can be answered. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It is a very good example of why the industry needs to make the competitive market work. About this time last year I drew generators in and said that we need to have more retail competition around the country. As a result of that the proportion of New Zealanders who have access to only one retailer has dropped—from memory—from about 30 percent 18 months ago to about 3 percent now. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does the Minister agree that what would bring the country to its knees is a continuation of the present 5 percent annual growth in electricity use which requires a doubling of our whole power station capacity every 14 years; if so does he think that the National Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy can bring demand growth under control before it bankrupts the country? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I do not accept that demand growth bankrupts a country. I do however accept that 5 percent growth if it were to occur year on year would be contrary to the idea of trying to de-link economic growth and electricity growth. The important thing about the 5 percent or 4 percent—or whatever it is—growth this month over March 2002 is that if we go back 2 years we find that growth was also about 4 percent. That is to say growth in March 2002 compared with that in March 2001 was modest indeed. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Does the Minister believe that market forces alone will supply New Zealand’s electricity demand even in low-water years or will it in his view be necessary for the Government to provide a reserve generating capability? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I have never believed that market forces alone work in the electricity system and they do not work anywhere in the world. The question of whether we need extra capacity clip-on—a regulatory clip-on to the system—is one of the many issues that is being studied by the infrastructure committee of Cabinet. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: In relation to his statement regarding electricity markets and generators where he said: “This is your sandpit. You make it work or the political process will take it off you.” in what way does he intend the political process to take it off the generators? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The competitive model bequeathed to me by that member’s predecessor Max Bradford— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: It was supported by Labour for 4 years. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: —indeed it was—needs to be made to work by those people who operate in it. I have said repeatedly on any number of occasions that the system needs to be made to work by those major players. What has happened is that we did get ourselves through 2001 though only with intervention—if you will—from a political source. We did get ourselves better competition but probably Ken Shirley would say it was still not good enough—and so would I. That is the situation we are in. We are in some form of transition and whether the market will work adequately without some further intervention is a question before Cabinet’s infrastructure Ministers. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Does the Minister agree that the current lack of new investment in electricity generation capacity has more to do with uncertainty about future fuel sources than with the wholesale electricity market structure? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I rather suspect that it is a bit of each. I rather suspect that if the Maui field were running out—if you will—on time instead of 2 years earlier we would not be talking about a capacity constraint. 
Columbus Academy—Investigation 
9.  
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What progress has been made in the multi-agency investigation into the Columbus Academy? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 All students have had their immigration permits revoked or their permits have expired. The students under 17 years of age who do not have parents in New Zealand and several older students have returned to Japan. Those students have gone home voluntarily acting on advice and assistance from the broad range of New Zealand agencies involved with the academy. 
Jill Pettis 
: What communication has there been with the parents of the students? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The New Zealand Embassy in Japan has been in contact with parents through the Japanese Government and directly at meetings so that the parents can understand why our Government considers it is in the students’ best interests for them to return home. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why did the Government do nothing in response to serious concerns about the Columbus Academy when they were first raised with the Immigration Service in November 2001 by Waitakere College and when they were again raised late last year by the Waitemata District Health Board which noted “major human rights concerns at the academy” and why did it take the death of a young person before any Government agency decided to do anything at all? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think that if the Waitakere City Council had referred the concerns to the Government rather than to the Human Rights Commission we would have made some progress. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Does the Minister consider that additional weekly payments to State school teachers who have foreign fee-paying students in their classes is appropriate in our public education system; if not what will he do about it? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is very wide of the original question but the Minister may comment. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I certainly do not. I think it is a most inappropriate and probably illegal method of paying students. It is being investigated and I think that a number of agencies are looking at that one as well. 
Health Associate Minister—Overseas Representation 
10.  
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Health 
: Is he representing New Zealand at any international forums or conferences in the coming month; if so which ones? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the 
 Associate Minister of Health 
: Yes he is. As the Minister representing New Zealand he will be attending the ministerial segment of the 46th session of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs in Vienna from 15 to 17 April. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Will he be following the example of his predecessor at that convention the former New Zealand First MP Tuariki Delamere who criticised the delegates for “the hypocrisy in which many adults openly and legally abuse alcohol and then turn around and condemn youth for using marijuana”; if not why not? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No he will be outlining the Government’s commitment to approaches to dealing with the problems caused by illicit drugs and alcohol particularly in relation to young New Zealanders. 
Dianne Yates 
: What is the role he will be taking at the Commission on Narcotic Drugs? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: He will be outlining that one of the goals of the Government’s national drug policy is to support international efforts to control the supply of and reduce the demand for both legal and illegal drugs. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: Will the Minister be discussing the recent articles in the  
British Medical Journal 
 on the clear links between cannabis use and various psychiatric illnesses and what is his opinion on Wellington Coroner Garry Evans’ warning to this Government to be cautious over cannabis decriminalisation because young people who take their own lives are commonly users often very heavy users of cannabis? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I cannot comment in detail as to what the Associate Minister will be discussing at that conference but in relation to the report from the coroner in relation to cannabis I think that warning is for the whole of Parliament because when a decision is made if it is made it will be made by the whole of this Parliament not by one or two individual members. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: In the event that Mr Delamere’s comments are raised at the conference will the Associate Minister be advising that conference that the New Zealand Government’s position now pursuant to its agreement with United Future is that it will not be introducing any moves to change the legal status of cannabis? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I would expect that would be the case. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Is the Minister aware that the only country recorded to have at least partially met the goal of that body which is the elimination or significant reduction of illicit drugs was Afghanistan under the Taliban—a role model that I am sure the Minister does not want to emulate—and will the Government support a review of United Nations conventions on control of illicit drugs on the basis that they actually hinder control as called for by a declaration signed by hundreds of parliamentarians around the world calling for a review of United Nations conventions? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No I cannot confirm any of those things. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: I seek leave of the House to table an appeal addressed to all Governments and the United Nations. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: I seek leave to table the  
British Medical Journal 
 articles “Cannabis use and mental health in young people” and “Cannabis use in adolescence and risk for adult psychosis”. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Mental Health—Patients in Cells 
11.  
HEATHER ROY (ACT NZ) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does she stand by comments made on her behalf in the House on 26 March 2003 that “keeping patients in police cells when they should be in health services is an unacceptable situation in isolated parts of Auckland” and “it does not represent a crisis in mental health services”; if so how long is she prepared to allow this practice to continue? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I stand by my comments that keeping patients in police cells when they should be in health services is an unacceptable situation. The police are a legitimate pathway into mental health services but patients should not be held for more than 6 hours before transfer. District health boards are being monitored to ensure they are using the additional money the Government has provided to put in place appropriate services as fast as possible. 
Heather Roy 
: In the light of the Minister’s answer is not the real reason that 32 out of the 360 prison inmates under psychiatric care and treatment within the last 6 months are awaiting beds in psychiatric forensic units that the politically correct drive to deinstitutionalise has been a complete failure or is it her opinion that it is acceptable to have the mentally unwell handcuffed in their cells because their conditions cannot be controlled in prison? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: There are people in prison who have mental illnesses but they have also committed a crime. Some mental health services are provided in prisons. Those who are seriously mentally unwell ought to be held in appropriate facilities. However one of the key issues for mental health and it has remained a key issue for a number of years is the lack of a trained mental health workforce to be able to provide all the services that are required. I am pleased to say that there has been some improvement in that area but there is still some way to go. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: What words of advice does she have for a mother with a depressed and suicidal son in Auckland who when the crisis team could not get there soon enough was advised to call the police—who held her son in a prison cell and treated him like a prisoner rather than a patient—and who now has absolutely no confidence in New Zealand’s mental health system? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: It is unfortunate when that happens. It is certainly not a new thing in New Zealand. If one reads back over the years one finds it has happened for decades. What we are doing as fast as we can is providing the appropriate health services for people. However I am glad that the police do work with the mental health services because I can only assume the member would prefer that the person had no help at all. 
Ron Mark 
: Who is responsible for mental patients who have committed crimes and ended up in our prisons: the Ministers who place them in the community without the proper mental health services to support them due to the unrealistic expectations of the deinstitutionalisation process or the patients themselves? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: That member consistently makes comments about mental health patients. There are thousands of mental health patients who live in the community and who do not commit crimes—they do not murder rob or beat people up—but there are thousands of New Zealanders who are said to be sane and who do so. What we do need is for those who are seriously mentally unwell to receive the appropriate services to help them. We have a deficit in New Zealand in terms of those services whether they are in institutions or in the community and I am pleased to see that considerable resources have been put in by this Government over a short period of time. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked who is responsible. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister addressed the question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If she did she took three-quarters of the question to get to an answer that was not to do with the question. She began by attacking my colleague for making speeches. She then moved on to what she called innocent mental health patients who had not committed any crime. None of that was asked of her. The question she was asked was who is responsible: the Minister or the victims themselves? She still has not answered that question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister has addressed the question. 
Heather Roy 
: Does she find it acceptable that due to a lack of psychiatric beds patients are discharged into the community only to commit murder and then to be imprisoned as has happened on three occasions in the Wellington region in the last 9 months with one of those patients going on to kill himself in his prison cell; if not why does she refuse to address the problem of the lack of psychiatric beds? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: This Government is addressing that lack—and not just of psychiatric beds. There have to be people to treat psychiatric patients when they are in the beds. This Government has put in an extra $257 million in the last 3 years. The National Government when it was in power neglected mental health. This Government has not. 
Heather Roy 
: I seek leave of the House to table a document printed in the  
Dominion Post  
on 12 March outlining how patients with psychiatric illnesses in prisons are handcuffed in their cells. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that newspaper article. Is there any objection? There is. 
Ron Mark 
: Noting that the Minister has said on numerous occasions that sane people who are not mental patients commit crimes and that there is exaggerated comment about the numbers of people who are mental patients who commit crimes can the Minister table in the House the exact crime statistics that show how many crimes committed in this country were committed by people with a psychiatric illness or problem that had been identified; can the Minister give us those numbers to verify what she is saying? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I believe I can give the member the number of people who have committed murders and who are seriously mentally unwell. I am unsure—and perhaps the Minister of Police could be asked this question—whether that can be done for other crimes but we do keep statistics on mentally unwell people who have committed murder. That member might wish to ask a question of the Minister of Police. 
Drugs—Ecstasy Seizures 
12.  
DAVID PARKER (NZ Labour—Otago) 
 to the  
Minister of Customs 
: What is the Government doing about the burgeoning problem of synthetic hard drugs crossing into New Zealand’s borders which has seen an unprecedented 3000 percent increase in Ecstasy seizures by the New Zealand Customs Services from 2000 to 2002? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Customs) 
: 
 Concurrent with the release of  
Project Horizon 
 a wonderful document put out by the Customs Service that outlines the problems of the increasing imports of amphetamine-type substances I am delighted to announce the Government has allocated a further $1.9 million to the Customs Service for a proactive drug enforcement strategy. That is in line with the actions of the ministerial action group on drugs and the Government’s objective of harm minimisation from drugs and alcohol. 
David Parker 
: What will the taxpayer get for the additional $1.9 million granted in this year’s Budget? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The additional funding will ensure that we have 12 front-line specialist investigators in Auckland Wellington and Christchurch. We will also be able to employ four full-time intelligence analysts to target transnational organised crime groups trafficking in drugs in New Zealand and we will give those investigators the resources and support necessary for them to operate effectively. 
Shane Ardern 
: In the light of the Minister’s focus on imported manufactured drugs from overseas why has his department not given him any advice on controlling or monitoring the bulk chemicals used in the manufacture of methamphetamine arguably a more dangerous drug than some of the drugs that are being targeted? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The document  
Project Horizon 
 which I commend to the member lists all the precursors to drugs and outlines the fact that many of those precursors are used legitimately in this country. Part of the resources of the Customs Service will be used to make sure that the legitimate imports of those precursors go to be used for their intended purpose. We will be making sure that they are not siphoned off. 
Urgency 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded the passing through its remaining stages of the Land Transport (Street and Illegal Drag Racing) Amendment Bill; the first readings of the Counter-Terrorism Bill the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 3) the Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Corrections Bill; the second readings of the Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill the Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) the National Library of New Zealand (Te PunaMatauranga o Aotearoa) Bill and the Ngati Ruanui Claims Settlement Bill; and the passing through their remaining stages of the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill the Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) the Hop Industry Restructuring Bill and the Social Workers Registration Bill and any bills into which those bills may be divided.  
I move this motion in order that a number of bills can be referred to select committees this week to advance four bills to their Committee stages and to pass four bills that have been widely supported or that address immediate and pressing issues. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That urgency be accorded. 
Ayes 62 
Noes 57 
Motion agreed to. 
Labour 52; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9. 
Land Transport (Street and Illegal Drag Racing) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I move  
That the Land Transport (Street and Illegal Drag Racing) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. I would like to thank the Law and Order Committee for the careful consideration it has given to the legislation. This has been a high-profile issue that has attracted a lot of media interest. I congratulate the members of the committee on coming to grips with a difficult matter and on working together in a spirit of constructive consideration. I am most appreciative of their efforts particularly as it was a new committee with three members on it who were new to the House. I would also like to thank the 72 organisations and individuals who made submissions on the bill and in particular those who took the time to travel to Wellington to present their submissions in person. I understand that the committee was impressed at the care that had gone into the submissions. Finally I would like to thank the member for Waimakariri Clayton Cosgrove for the hard work and effort he has put into bringing this bill into the House Martin Gallagher the MP for Hamilton West who went to New South Wales to have a look at the enforcement procedures there and the various mayors and councils around New Zealand who have brought their concerns to the Government. 
The bill was originally a member’s bill promoted by Clayton Cosgrove MP. It was introduced by the leave of the House on 14 May last year as a Government bill and was referred to the Law and Order Committee. The purpose of the bill which is inspired by successful New South Wales legislation is to combat the problem of unauthorised racing and related dangerous stunts on public roads. That is often more than a road safety problem; it is a community and public order problem. The races take place mostly on Friday and Saturday nights. They attract large crowds of often-intoxicated spectators and passengers. Local residents have reported acts of vandalism theft assaults acts of violence intimidation and tragically a growing number of fatalities. Substances such as diesel and liquid soap are poured on the road to facilitate skids wheelspins and other manoeuvres. That damages the road surface and can create a major hazard for other vehicles. Further racers’ vehicles may be illegal modified with lowered suspension non-standard exhaust systems and changes to the brakes and driveshafts. Those modifications can turn a car into a death trap. The problem is not confined to the main centres although south Auckland Hamilton and Christchurch seem to be the most badly affected places. 
Attempts by local authorities to deal with the problems have had only mixed success. Councils have passed by-laws targeting the areas favoured by racers but that has only displaced the racing and disorderly behaviour from one area to another. Some councils have at significant cost to ratepayers provided safe off-road facilities for racers but many racers have preferred to continue to use public roads and streets. For some time now local government has been calling for a national solution. The bill aims to provide that solution. 
Overseas experience shows that the most effective way to deter that kind of behaviour is to target the racers’ pride and joy: their cars. The policy of on-the-spot impoundment of vehicles involved in street racing has been successfully adopted in a number of jurisdictions such as New South Wales the Australian Capital Territory Queensland British Colombia and California. Under our own Land Transport Act a vehicle driven by a disqualified or suspended driver or by an unlicensed driver previously warned not to drive must be impounded. Since the police were given the authority to impound vehicles in 1999 there has been a 30 percent reduction in the number of persons apprehended for driving while disqualified. Clearly the threat of impoundment has been an effective deterrent. Accordingly the bill proposes that the police be empowered to impound a vehicle for 28 days where there are reasonable grounds to believe that a street racing offence has been committed. 
A street racing offence means broadly speaking one of two things. It can mean operating a vehicle in a race or an exhibition of speed or acceleration. An exhibition of speed or acceleration has been held in the United States to mean an individual’s deliberate drawing of public attention to the vehicle’s quality of swiftness. “Street racing offence” can also mean operating a vehicle in a manner that causes it to undergo sustained loss of traction—that is spinning the wheels of the vehicle. The select committee has endorsed that proposal and has further recommended that the bill be amended to clarify the new street racing offences and make them subject to the same penalties as reckless driving offences to require all impounded vehicles to undergo a full warrant of fitness inspection to refine the rights of appeal against impoundment and to clarify the courts’ powers in respect of the permanent confiscation of a vehicle. In addition the select committee has recommended targeting racers’ support crews by creating an infringement offence for the pouring of diesel or other lubricants on the road. I would now like to deal with those issues in more detail. 
 The select committee has recommended certain changes in order to address concerns that the bill might unintentionally apply to legitimate motoring competitions. In particular the committee has recommended that where the activity is authorised by law it is not an offence. In the case of races “authorised by law” can mean that the vehicle complies with the speed limit and is operated in accordance with all other aspects of traffic law. It also includes a race on a road where it has been closed by the council for that purpose. Acknowledging that some racing activities may be authorised under the bill the committee has also recommended the bill be renamed the Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill. 
The bill as introduced would have created a new set of penalties for street racing offences. Those penalties were inconsistent with the existing penalties for reckless or dangerous driving. Some submitters such as the Legislation Advisory Committee were concerned about that inconsistency since racing is essentially a type of reckless or dangerous driving. In recognition of that the select committee has recommended that the bill be amended to empower the courts to apply the penalties for reckless and dangerous driving to persons convicted of street racing offences. 
The select committee was concerned about modifications to vehicles and in particular those that increase the noise of the vehicle. Because of that concern the committee has recommended an amendment that requires the officer impounding a vehicle to issue a direction that the vehicle must not be driven before undergoing a full warrant of fitness test. That measure will require unsafe and illegal modifications to be rectified on the vehicle’s release from impoundment. 
The select committee also considered the offender’s rights of appeal. The bill as introduced provided a separate appeal regime for the impoundment of vehicles involved in street racing activities. The committee felt that there was no need for that. The committee has instead recommended that the appeal provisions in the existing impoundment regime under the Land Transport Act be applied to street racing impoundments. The committee has also recommended two new grounds of appeal that are specific to the offences targeted by this bill. In summary those are that the owner did not know or could not be expected to know that the operator of the vehicle would commit a street racing offence and that the owner took all reasonable steps to prevent the operator from committing a street racing offence. 
The select committee also recommended that the courts’ powers to confiscate vehicles be in line with the existing legislation. The bill as introduced would have empowered the courts to permanently confiscate a vehicle used by a person on conviction for a second street racing offence. Submitters pointed out that that was consistent with the existing powers of the courts to confiscate vehicles for other serious driving offences under the Sentencing Act. Recognising that street racing offences are a type of reckless or dangerous driving the committee has agreed that the bill should be amended to be consistent with the Sentencing Act. That Act gives the courts discretion to confiscate a vehicle for a first offence but makes confiscation mandatory for a second offence except in cases of extreme hardship. 
In addition the select committee has recommended an amendment so that to pour on to a road diesel or any other substance likely to cause loss of traction may be dealt with as an infringement offence. That will provide a more immediate alternative to court proceedings. The select committee has recommended that there be a defence of reasonable excuse to acknowledge submitters’ concerns that occasionally substances may legitimately be poured on roads. For example detergent may be used by the emergency services to clean up after accidents. 
The Attorney-General has issued a certificate under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act advising the House that the empowerment provision in the bill is inconsistent with the right to secure against unreasonable search and seizure. In considering the bill the committee reviewed the balance between the concerns raised by the Attorney-General and the concerns raised by the community in respect of the public disorder and criminal offending associated with racer activity. The committee is satisfied that a fair balance has been achieved within this bill as reported back. The select committee has redrafted the bill extensively and the bill is better for it. The bill has now achieved a balance between recognising the rights of law-abiding road users and responding effectively to those antisocial and irresponsible elements who have shown that they have no concern for the rights of others. I am satisfied that the bill as reported back will help to make our roads safer and will also address the public disorder problems that have caused so much concern to communities throughout the community. It sends a clear message that antisocial and reckless behaviour on our roads and streets will not be tolerated. 
In conclusion may I go back and congratulate the member for Waimakariri Clayton Cosgrove who as a Government back-bench member of Parliament took up an issue that was of concern to communities not only in his own area but also in other parts of New Zealand. He decided to do something about it instead of whingeing and whining—which is typical of the National Party Opposition—and as a result he decided to bring to the House a good piece of legislation that has been improved through the select committee process. Once again I congratulate the select committee on the work that it has done and the mayors and councils who have added their weight and support to this legislation. It is a good piece of legislation and I commend it to the House. 
Hon TONY RYALL (NZ National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 It is with some irony that—I think it was the Acting Minister of Transport—rushed through his pre-prepared speech at some knots. He then sought to make some politics at the end of it. I remind the House that the only reason that this bill is in the name of the Acting Minister of Transport Mr Paul Swain is because it was the shadow Leader of the House Gerry Brownlee who sought the leave of the House to transform the bill produced by a private member into a Government bill. While Government members—including the Minister of Police and the Minister of Justice—were beating their brows about what they were and were not going to do about boy-racer bills they took absolutely no action on progressing the agenda on to the legislative timetable. That did not happen until the National Party joined with New Zealand First and ACT to get leave to transfer the bill into being on the Order Paper and off to a select committee for consideration. That would probably explain the reason that the Acting Minister of Transport sped so quickly through his pre-written speech. 
I would like to bring the House back to another point that Mr Swain made—that is his comment that this bill has been substantially rewritten. It has indeed been substantially rewritten. My colleague Mr Connell and I were just talking while the Minister was speaking and we cannot recall a clause of this bill that was not unchanged as a result of the select committee hearing. In the Minister’s own words the substantial rewrite of Mr Cosgrove’s bill is for the better and we certainly agree with the Minister on that. We also want to record yet again our gratitude to the National Party shadow Leader of the House for making sure that this bill was accelerated on the parliamentary agenda when this Government decided not to do that. 
 The National Party in Opposition is still concerned about the ability of the police to enforce these laws. There is no point in giving the police new powers to confiscate vehicles and apply substantial new fines when there are no police on the streets to actually do that. We know that on a Friday and Saturday night in greater Auckland there is a police force that is understaffed by between 130 and 160 staff. We know that on some nights in south Auckland there are only two patrol cars for the several hundred thousand people who live there. We say that if there is to be a burnout and a drag race then just one cop car in the whole of south Auckland will not fix the problem. While the National Party is happy to support these new powers coming from the select committee in its multiparty recommendations we would give one word of caution—that is the public should not expect a huge and immediate change as a result of this legislation because there are simply not the police numbers to mount a sustained attack on boy racers. It is sure that there will be an immediate flurry as the police use the new powers granted to them to deal with boy racers—and that might last a month or two—but because of the considerable underfunding under-resourcing and understaffing of police particularly in Auckland this legislation will not necessarily be the long-term fix that New Zealanders have been seeking. 
The select committee did a very good job in listening to over 72 hours of submissions and deliberation and it has substantially rewritten the bill from its original form. The police could use other powers against those boy racers. There is no reason that they could not be issuing fines up to $150 for noisy vehicles with exhaust problems or issuing fines up to $600 for vehicles causing an annoyance. Those are some of the powers that the police have at the moment. Similarly if fines were unpaid there is no reason that the Department of Courts could not seize the vehicles involved and have them realised pending the non-payment of those fines. But we have a dysfunctional Department of Courts that is unable to collect enforceable penalties against the public and so the police and the public cannot rely on the laws that are currently there. I would draw members’ attention to the commentary from the select committee that says that while there are sufficient powers at the moment particularly for confiscating vehicles there are some limitations on those powers which usually relate to drivers who are unlicensed or who have had their licences suspended and also to difficulties in enforcing vehicle noise standards. 
I want to draw to the attention of the House the fact that the select committee spent some time in clarifying rule changes that the Land Transport Safety Authority is making in respect of excessive vehicle noise. The problems with boy racers are not limited to burnouts and racing but to the associated noise of boom boxes and excessive exhaust noise. That is all part of what irritates and concerns the public about the whole boy-racer issue. While we have provided some strengthened powers for the release of vehicles once they have been confiscated and are due to be returned upon the payment of a penalty it will be the responsibility of the Land Transport Safety Authority to enforce stricter rules with regard to boom boxes or stereos and similarly with exhaust systems. The draft vehicle equipment rule being worked on by the Land Transport Safety Authority under consultation is expected to contain requirements to ensure that the level of noise emitted from new or modified exhaust systems is less than or similar to that of the original exhaust system. I think that that will fix a substantial part of the problem. What is of concern is that these changes particularly those related to devices such as boom boxes and exhausts may not come into effect for some time. 
We know that the Minister of Transport was previously the Minister of Commerce. It has been reported that one of the reasons that he was dumped as Minister of Commerce was his inability to progress anything through his department. What concerns me about Mr Swain as Minister of Transport is the question of how long it will take him to do anything about the excessive vehicle and boom-box noise associated with the boy-racer problem. He has a record of not being able to deliver speedily in areas like that and that is another concern that the National Party in Opposition wants to raise with Parliament. 
Concern has also been expressed about the role the Attorney-General has played with her opinion in respect of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I disagree completely with the advice of that Minister Margaret Wilson that this bill was a breach of that Act. Many of her opinions have become a suitable device for imposing her politically correct views on the House. In fact I cannot recognise one member of this House who would think that the rights of the community should be stomped on in order to protect the rights of boy racers to speed up and down the country to create mayhem and to disrupt communities. Margaret Wilson’s opinion was specious completely unjustifiable and totally unnecessary. I cannot understand the logic that would lead her to want to table such an opinion. 
In conclusion National Party members are pleased to have been able to work with other parties to rewrite this bill completely and make sure that it is more appropriate than originally proposed. It was the National Party - led Opposition that saw this bill accelerated up the parliamentary agenda turned into a Government bill and debated today. Without the National Party and the other Opposition parties pressuring the Government to bring this bill to the fore of the parliamentary agenda we would still not be debating this topic today. It took the National Party in Opposition with the support of the other parties to bring this legislation to Parliament. 
Finally we also want to bring to Parliament’s attention the fact that there is no point in giving the police these new powers if they are insufficiently resourced to enforce the laws we are giving them. We must say that we have that very real concern. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (NZ Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 It is with great pleasure that I rise to support the bill. As I have said on a number of occasions this is one of those rare occasions in Parliament when to some extent politics—apart from parts of the previous speech—have been put aside. As MPs we have done what the country wants us to do and that is forget about who thought of the idea forget about which party thought of the idea put all the politics the rhetoric and the showmanship aside and do what is right. 
I start my speech today by acknowledging in fairness the way Opposition parties and Government colleagues—apart from the Greens—have assisted in facilitating this bill. I think it is right that we acknowledge parties because we have done what people wanted us to do which is to get on with the job. Today we are putting in place a measure that has overwhelming community support. In that regard I also want to acknowledge United Future. The truth is that United Future also assisted in a major way in facilitating the promotion of this bill. 
I refer to Mr Ryall’s comments. He is a bit like a general. He arrives at the battle after the war is won and bayonets a few wounded. I remind Mr Ryall that his party had 9 years in Government. I am no genius and I acknowledge that. I do not think of all the good ideas—no one person does—this problem has been around for many years. I just remind Opposition members that they were in Government for almost a decade and could have produced a member’s bill or a Government bill to fix this problem. Unfortunate though it is I think the real reason that this bill has been promoted the way it has is that Parliament is attempting to save some lives. 
In my city of Christchurch on the weekend—apart from the chaos which is unacceptable and the beer bottle through the back window of a police car the night I was out—we had the tragic death of a young man but God willing hopefully the three other occupants of the car will survive. A large number of people—brothers and sisters wives husbands and loved ones—have been killed in this country as a result of this activity. When I started campaigning on this issue 3 years ago—and this is no disrespect to the fourth estate upstairs—it was considered to be a bit of a giggle. I had the odd media commentator say to me: “Oh you’re just a killjoy. What are you doing this for? It’s been around for years. It’s a bit of a giggle.” That stopped the day two young people were killed in Motueka through drag racing. Suddenly someone in the fourth estate realised this was not a stunt; this was not a bit of a politicking; this was about saving lives. 
I want to thank a couple of people. A lot of the credit goes to a uniformed police officer in my patch Sergeant Geoff Kenna. I mention him at the introduction of this speech because Sergeant Kenna head of the North Canterbury highway patrol went to New South Wales found the legislation brought it back thought it was a good idea and flicked it to myself and the Minister of Police. That was the germ of the idea that has brought us here today. I want to take the opportunity to thank Sergeant Kenna and his team in Christchurch and around the country for what he and they did to create this idea. I want to thank Hugh Hannah a senior lawyer with the Ministry of Transport who provided a lot of assistance in the drafting of this legislation together with Superintendent Steve Fitzgerald and his police officials and also Martin Gallagher. I launched this bill with Russ Rimmington the then Mayor of Hamilton in Mr Gallagher’s electorate because he had a huge problem with this activity and still does. 
I also thank Sir Barry Curtis. Probably the catalyst for getting the bill into the House and to a select committee was the shooting in Manukau City where groups of these lunatics shot firearms at each other. That was a sad day for Auckland. Every time we have had a debate about this bill another local authority has given myself or colleagues on either side of the House a call and said: “We have a problem here as well.” The objective of this bill is about saving lives. It is about giving back to our communities their roadways and properties—releasing them from the siege they are under through this lunacy. 
As I have said the origins of this bill are to be found in New South Wales where the legislation has been effective. I travelled there and I know that members of the select committee travelled there also and talked with senior New South Wales police officers. The legislation there has knocked the problem on the head. The bill however will not be a panacea; it will not solve everything. We have laws on murder but tragically we still have murders and killings in this country. But I think the bill will go some way to alleviating the hoon problem. What is the difference between this activity now and 20 years ago? When our dads or mums or whoever had a beer and went out and did a donut on the footy field they were not driving souped-up high-performance motor vehicles; they were not in numbers of 200 or 300; they did not assault people and they did not engage in property damage. Sure there were probably a number of deaths—more related to alcohol I would say—but the carnage in which young people are being killed was not as frequent as we have today. 
To my Green colleague across the aisle I say that when he is talking about human rights I will be amongst the Green Party members and others in this House who will stand up for the human and civil rights of any community. But the innocent people who are killed and the innocent people who are victims also have civil rights. Their families also have civil rights. Every sister brother mum or dad who has had somebody killed or injured as a result of this activity also has civil rights. Every person who has been done over or whose property has been done over or who has been assaulted also has civil rights. Where I part company with my Green colleague is that he never seems to speak about the civil rights of the victims and the responsibilities of the offenders. He never completes the circle of the argument. That is where I draw the line with him. 
Last night I opened an art exhibition by Senior Sergeant John Robinson. My colleague Ron Mark attended as well. Senior Sergeant Robinson is a highway patrol member in Rangiora who has spent many hours taking photographs of the white crosses we see on our roadways all around this country. There are 450 of them in his exhibition. I want to pay tribute to him and all the uniformed folk because as I said last night they are the people who literally sometimes have to go and pick up the pieces—in some respects grotesquely the body parts. They are the people who have to knock on the door of a mum or dad a wife or husband and say: “ I have some bad news.” I pay tribute to those officers. 
The clear objective of this bill is to lessen that work but it is only one part of the whole road safety issue. It will not be a panacea as I have said but as New South Wales police told me the thing that will strike fear into the heart of a hoon the irresponsible driver is when the tow truck rolls up the car is hooked on the back and rolled away. The big flash souped-up $20000 $30000 and in one case $80000 vehicle—the prized possession of the hoon—goes. I believe that will have an impact. All the advice we have from the Ministry of Transport police and the officials is that that will have an impact and the international evidence agrees with that. 
The clear message to these people is that if they are going to act irresponsibly on our roads where they endanger the lives of themselves and other people then they do not have the right to a motor vehicle. I will be the first person to put up my hand and advocate more burnout pads and resources for these people—if they act legitimately. Football players do not play football on State Highway 1; they join a club. If these drivers join a club and act lawfully I will put up my hand—as will other colleagues—and advocate facilities for them. But I am not having my community and other communities around New Zealand stood over by these people. We saw it on the news on Saturday night: traffic through the Lyttelton tunnel in Christchurch was brought to a standstill. I am not having communities stood over and placed under siege by these people. The clear message to the hoon is: “Stop the activity while you have got a car to stop with.” 
I conclude by again thanking our United Future colleagues and the National Party New Zealand First and other parties in the House that have supported this bill. I make a plea to my Green colleague that when he stands to speak he will remember the 450 crosses on the roads down my way and the young people who have been killed. He is the youth spokesperson for the Green Party so he should also stand and be an advocate for the mothers fathers brothers and sisters of the young people who have been killed. I commend the bill to the House. It is a good bill. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise firstly of course to express New Zealand First’s ongoing support for this bill. But first there are a couple of things that need to be done and I want to start with the credits. I congratulate the member for Waimakariri on bringing the bill to the House. It is disappointing that on an issue that was felt so passionately about by a Government member—an issue where quite clearly there was a need to act and act promptly—it had to be a member’s bill that brought the issue before the House. It is disappointing that this Government for whatever reason—I still do not understand why—did not act with the resources it had. The Government had to be pushed and prodded by one of its members a new member who had to resort to the lottery draw of a member’s bill in order to have the issue brought to the floor of the House. 
We must remind ourselves that this Government sat on that bill let it languish in the ballot for a year 18 months and then 2 years. It was not until there was a shooting in the Auckland district and the member Clayton Cosgrove got the lead item on television that the Government became embarrassed into realising that it had to do something. The question to the Prime Minister to the Deputy Prime Minster of the time Jim Anderton and to the Minister of Police George Hawkins still remains unanswered. Why did they not act on this issue the moment their colleague brought it to their caucus? Why did they wait until a young man was shot? Why did they wait until successive accidents took place and young people were killed? I can accept every word that the honourable member Clayton Cosgrove has said but it does not let those Government Ministers off the hook. They are culpable. They are responsible through their tardiness and their inability to come to grips with this issue the moment it was brought to their caucus. 
It is sad and tragic when a Government member brings an issue like this to the House and his or her bill has to go in the queue of the lottery draw before it can come before the House. It was a tragedy for the Government—and I have to say a sharp move by the shadow leader of the House—that the shadow leader of the House had to stand and seek leave for the bill to be introduced as a Government bill so that Government members were embarrassed and had to follow. 
My congratulations to the member for Waimakariri on bringing the bill to the House. My congratulations to Gerry Brownlee from Christchurch on forcing the issue here on the floor of the House and in doing so making the bill a Government bill. My congratulations also to the following people: Superintendent Dick Trimble John Sutton from the New Zealand Police Hugh Hannah and Ian James again from the New Zealand Police. I also congratulate the good assistance given to the select committee from the Australian side: Chief Superintendent Ron Sorenson Inspector Dave Evans Sergeant Craig Price and Ron Dyer all from the New South Wales Police. 
Those of us who were on the Law and Order Committee met those people. I notice from the select committee report that the names of the select committee members who saw the bill through its final stages and produced the report are mentioned. But there were a lot of other people involved because the bill took so long. It went over two terms of governance—into the second term—and had been referred to the previous Law and Order Committee. 
I have to put this on the record. I was appalled at the cheap political stunt that was pulled by the Minister over this bill when it came time for the Australian trip. An offer was made for someone on the select committee to go to New South Wales to have the opportunity to talk with the New South Wales police who enforce the Act upon which this bill is based. What happened? No one from the Government side of the select committee—and this is more evidence of those members’ total lack of support for Clayton Cosgrove—could go or wanted to go. So I was asked whether I wanted to go. I stuck up my hand and said: “Yes I’ll go.” At the same time Ken Shirley said: Hang on. If there is one seat available I want to go.” That was a fair comment. But suddenly mysteriously in the blink of an eye over a weekend the chair of the select committee who said she did not want to go who told me on the phone that she did not want to go as she had other things to do suddenly was required to go. Oh yeah? And that was all about shutting out an Opposition member from taking the opportunity to go to Australia to talk to the New South Wales police. 
Guess what happened? The upshot was that I decided I would go to Australia at my own cost. I Ron Mark the New Zealand First member on the Law and Order Committee decided that it would be a valuable trip and that I would go at my own cost. I arranged to stay in the same hotel with the team that had gone over to visit the New South Wales police; so did Ken Shirley from ACT. But here was the ripper. This one rips the nightie. When we arrived there where was the Government member? Not a sight to be seen anywhere. She did not go. If that is the way in which this Government is going to behave then God help this country. This is the way that the Government behaves on an issue that affects young people’s lives and affects families and on which there is cross-party agreement in support of the Labour member who brought the bill to the House. 
Government members played cheap political games in order to shut Opposition MPs out from an opportunity to visit the New South Wales police. But I have to say that the trip was valuable. It was worth the personal dollars I spent. The trip was at my own expense; I was not refunded. The trip gave me an insight as to how good the New South Wales law is and how it is lacking. There is a view in New Zealand that New Zealand’s traffic laws are somehow inferior to Australia’s in that respect and we found out that the Australians were looking at our laws and saying they wished they had our powers of confiscation right now. They wished they were not held responsible and accountable for the safety and security of the vehicles that they impound. They want the same system that New Zealand has whereby people are contracted to take the vehicles and the onus does not fall on the police to be responsible for securing the vehicles or to be accountable for any damage or deterioration that might occur whilst vehicles are impounded. It was a very valuable trip. 
We also met the chairman of the Joint Standing Committee on Road Safety in New South Wales. We listened to numerous people from organisations such as the equivalent of the Automobile Association in New Zealand—the name has gone out of my head at the moment. Again it was a very valuable meeting. 
I reiterate that this bill has been rewritten quite substantially and it has taken some time to come to this point partly because of the political shenanigans that have been pulled and the Government’s total lack of support for Clayton Cosgrove and also in part because a very good team from the New Zealand Police and the Ministry of Transport has spent quite some considerable time making it workable and just. I congratulate the entire select committee—the Labour and National members who sat on it. I remember of course that some National members of that committee are not in Parliament any longer. I thank them all for their very good work. We will have more debate during the Committee stage on the finer details of the bill. 
I want to close on this note. I am one of those members who visited the opening of the Crossroads photographic display that Clayton Cosgrove spoke of and spoke at so well. No doubt other members went as well. I saw the fine work of the New Zealand Police particularly John Robinson and I had to walk out of the display. Those crosses reminded me of my nephew whose cross is at St Arnaud where he was killed in a motorbike accident. It was a Boxing Day death. There is one thing that we must always remember. When people are drawn into playing stupid political games and mucking around with select committee personnel over the politics of an issue they should stop and think why the member brought the bill to the House. He brought it to the House because it involves real people. He brought it to the House because it involves tragedy. He brought it to the House because he knows that the antics of young people who are out of control in this country need kerbing. I agree with him that the way to deal with those young people is to take their cars their prized possessions the things that they value more than anything else in the world. If I had my way I would crush those cars in a public crushing in Christchurch in Cathedral Square. Maybe we can work on a Supplementary Order Paper that will do that. If those young people saw their prized possession crushed after an illegal burnout at McLeans Island it might have a greater effect. 
 I congratulate the member for Waimakariri. I also congratulate the select committee and the members of the New Zealand Police and the Ministry of Transport on fine work well done. I look forward to the third reading because then I know we will definitely be on the way to enactment. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 United Future members support the bill wholeheartedly. I personally do not care how the bill got here—I just want to know that it will be passed speedily before there is another death. I want to acknowledge the work of Clayton Cosgrove in bringing the bill to the fore and the Law and Order Committee for doing such a fine job in giving some teeth to it. I am stunned to learn that the Greens and ACT have climbed into bed together and will be against this bill. Quite frankly I cannot wait to hear their version of things. 
Martin Gallagher 
: That can’t be true. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: It is true and I cannot understand it. Nandor Tanczos comments in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 that he does not think anyone would accuse him of being a petrol head. There is no room for petrol in his head not with these quite dopey ideas.  
Let me say once again that the debate surrounding the bill comes at a time of tragedy. At the first reading of this bill a shooting had recently taken place amongst a group drag racing in south Auckland and this time at the second reading a 24-year-old PeeravetSuwannarat died in Christchurch over the weekend after losing control in a high-speed inner city drag race in wet and dangerous conditions. Three other occupants were seriously injured and remain so in Christchurch Hospital. There have been many other incidents in the interim. It was United Future that instigated this bill being advanced under urgency this week and put it up on the Order Paper following on from the initiative of Clayton Cosgrove. 
Street and illegal drag racing is a national problem. It is a people problem. It does not discriminate amongst parties and I am glad to see that Labour National New Zealand First and United Future have put aside this political party nonsense to put this bill together and are keen to have it passed speedily. Local bylaws have had limited success in controlling unauthorised street and drag racing. Bylaws have displaced the problem to other suburbs other streets and other residents and communities. As a Christchurch MP I am very familiar with the problem. I have had contact in my electorate with both public and the police who are concerned about this issue. Both are frustrated by the inability to adequately address the problem within current law. 
The problem is beyond the realm of reckless driving. These drivers are for the most part sober. It is not incapacity that warrants immobilisation of their vehicles; it is the reckless disregard for the public. Infringement notices have been nothing more than badges of honour worn by the people who perpetrate these crimes. Often it is impossible to identify the driver in order to issue these infringement notices and impoundment notices at night in large crowds—something this bill does address. As deputy chair of the Law and Order Committee and working with my colleagues across the House I applaud the significant changes that have strengthened the bill. I believe it is good legislation which should be pushed through. 
Changes to the principal Act include the creation of offences aimed at unauthorised street races. Police are able to impound vehicles at the roadside when they are involved in unauthorised street and drag racing and related stunts. There is an extension of the length of impoundment to 28 days which includes the right of appeal. There is a strong deterrence here. Most of these cars are a huge investment and the pride and joy of these thugs on wheels and having the vehicle removed from them will be a strong deterrent. 
The appeal rights are important. We have to recognise that the police are making subjective decisions on occasion and that the car may not always be owned by the operator at the time of impoundment. There is protection for those vehicles that are stolen. We support the amendments that have outlined contributing factors in unauthorised street and drag racing. For example it is now an offence which can be enforced to intentionally pour place or allow to spill petrol oil diesel fuel or other substances that are likely to cause a vehicle to lose traction without reasonable excuse. 
These people can and will incur fines of up to $3000 and infringement notices of $600. 
It is important to note that United Future is aware that the Attorney-General has reported that impoundment for 28 days is not a proportionate response and is a breach of human rights. Again I echo the comments made a little earlier by Clayton Cosgrove in asking whose rights we are talking about. It ought to be the rights of communities the rights of the public and the rights of those people who are most at risk that are put to the fore not the rights of these thugs on wheels. In response we continue to support this period of impoundment based on the deterrent effect that it will have—and it will—recognising that fines alone will have little effect and that there is a right of appeal. It is also possible for police not to follow through with prosecution if they find reason against doing so. We strongly believe that having a vehicle automatically out of service once green-stickered is a window of opportunity. This forces impounded cars to undergo warrant of fitness checks and to comply with noise standards though not to the extent that we would have liked to see—but we understand that we will be addressing this in other legislation later. 
This provision specifically addresses the submissions concerned with cars being placed back on the road at the end of the seizure period without addressing residents’ concerns about modified exhaust systems and so on. It also follows for other modifications to be equally checked—seating for example. In other words to be reclaimed these cars will have to undergo warrant of fitness checks all over again at additional cost to the offenders. 
Of particular importance in this bill and reflected in the submissions was the need to recognise authorised street racing so that it would not be captured. This bill has made the necessary distinctions. It is of paramount importance to distinguish motor enthusiasts car shows and motor club events from unauthorised events. Obviously United Future is very supportive of organised motor events. Our president Inky Tulloch is the Australasian supertruck racing champion and our own MP Paul Adams was New Zealand’s first professional rally driver. It was hard to get him to look at this bill to be honest. 
But United Future is disappointed that the bill did not coordinate efforts with the Land Transport Safety Authority to have simultaneously developed policy on the road-user rule and the vehicle equipment rule to introduce with this bill. It is unsatisfactory that noise which many submissions complained of is not effectively addressed in this bill particularly with regard to boom boxes etc. But we will be following this up in the consultation process with rules regarding the latter. 
Originally at the bill’s first reading we were concerned that confiscation alone would not contribute to an increased feeling of public safety but we have changed our views and we are confident with the strengthening of this legislation. United Future supports the second reading of this bill. We believe that the new powers for the police will help to control unauthorised street and drag racing through infringement notices court fines and the ability to impound at the roadside. We intend to continue working with the Land Transport Safety Authority to ensure policy is developed to standardise noise levels to address residents’ concerns more directly. Again we say thanks to Clayton Cosgrove and the Labour Party for bringing this bill forward and thank you to National and New Zealand First. I now hope that everybody can have a very good laugh at the new relationship between ACT and the Greens. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ) 
: 
 The ACT party did support this legislation going to select committee. We believe that that is an important part of the democratic process. It allows the public to have their input. But we do not support this legislation now. We see the bill as a stalking horse for increasing the powers of the police. That is what it is doing. There is no doubt that these so-called boy racers so-called hoons in motor vehicles so-called thugs in cars—whatever these people like to label them in this sort of discriminatory way: bogans petrol heads—do cause problems in some parts of the country. But we already have legislation to deal with them if they break the law. Nothing under the laws on reckless driving or dangerous driving prohibits the police from arresting these people and convicting them. 
Marc Alexander 
: So why did the police ask for more powers? 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: Because this Government gives the police only $6 a day as opposed to giving the Department of Social Welfare $72 a day. So members should ask themselves why the police cannot cope with these problems when there are problems. 
But let us get back to this legislation. Yes nuisance noise offensive—a lot of people out there upset us and disturb our peaceful lives. But do we pass laws to ban them when they have not even broken the law? This is what we are doing here. How do we define a boy racer? How do we define a bogan? Is it someone who wears a mudflap hairstyle a mulletee in black jeans? One member said he wanted to ban boom boxes. Are we going to ban people wearing stonewashed black denims? I can remember a few years ago when we were all getting up in arms about window tinting. 
 If we turn to page 3 of the commentary we see that the bill does define who these boy racers are. It states that they come from middle-class or affluent families. Well we cannot have that can we! That is fine—the Labour Party can pass laws to ban people if they come from affluent families; that is all right then! 
We have a problem in this country that occurs in various sectors of the community and the whole country throws up its hands in horror and says: “Let’s pass a law under urgency to ban it.” It is an unseemly rush to increase the powers of the police. It is not even clear in this legislation what we are seeking to ban. This Government would happily pass laws making us criminals if we discriminate against thin pretty female young heterosexual secretaries. It is happy to be the thought police when it comes to our private lives but it now wants to pass a law that discriminates against those whom we might not like and whom we might find offensive. 
I did a very quick search this morning and there is evidence that people who break these laws are being dealt with. In South Canterbury in March just this last month a 19-year-old Timaru youth was sentenced to 9 months in prison when Judge David Holderness said he wanted to send a stern warning to boy racers. The youth was charged with dangerous driving causing injury. There is legislation to deal with this. The judge said the community was becoming increasingly concerned with the dangerous conduct of young speeding drivers in city and country areas. 
Just in case Government members thought they were not being discriminatory enough it is not just boy racers it is girl racers as well. In a recent Christchurch court case a 19-year-old girl was jailed for 15 months for being a street racer and breaking the law. So I get back to my point that there is already legislation. We do not have the right to speed up and down the country break the law and drive at excessive speeds. The bill acknowledges that the current laws can deal with that. The bill deals with something called “difficulty for the police in identifying the offenders” and that is one of the reasons the Government wants this bill passed. 
Nothing in this legislation makes identification of the offender any easier. What will happen is that if the car is seized for 28 days—which the New Zealand Law Society and the Automobile Association have said is far too excessive in terms of the crime we are talking about here—all the police have to have are reasonable grounds to believe that the person first is the offender and second is breaking the law. The police are there to enforce the law. Under this legislation the police become the law. That to me is a glimpse of a police State and I think it is a very very dangerous road to start going down. 
A third party should be involved in the right of appeal. That does not happen so we will have the police acting as the enforcer of the law the judge and in a way the executioner of the law in terms of seizing the car. The person is guilty until proven innocent. 
What about after the 28 days when a person is proven innocent and the car is returned to that person? It is a serious breach of the property rights of people going about their legal business if they have their car taken off them. Often it is a tool of their trade. Even under the bankruptcy laws people are allowed to keep their tools of trade. As somebody pointed out these are expensive pieces of property and this seems to be a justified way of as someone said hitting people where it hurts. 
Let us take the analogy of the Resource Management Act. Under the Resource Management Act one might have reasonable grounds to believe that someone is doing something with his or her farm that breaches the Resource Management Act. Should we then seize that farm off that person and hold it for 28 days until he or she proves that the Resource Management Act is not being breached? [ 
Interruption 
] I think the member is saying that I should not say that too loudly in case the Government gets ideas and passes a law stating that. The bill that the State can seize the property on reasonable grounds. 
Clayton Cosgrove talked very passionately about people in his electorate who had died as a result of people breaking the law. He talked about people being shot. I congratulate him on being moved by that but there is already legislation in place. Is he telling me that if I go out and do a drive-by shooting I will not be breaking the law? Is he telling me that if I go out and drive dangerously and kill someone I am not breaking the law? Is he telling me that if I go on to Lambton Quay and pour petrol diesel or oil on the road I will not be arrested? Hello! I think I would get arrested. 
Is he telling me that if I go out there and do a doughnut on Lambton Quay I will not be arrested? Of course I would be arrested. Of course I would be breaking the law. I would be driving in a dangerous or reckless manner and there is already legislation to deal with that. Nothing in this legislation defines things like “sustained wheel spin” or as I said “reasonable grounds”. The danger is that we will get ease of discrimination. Who will be prosecuted? Will it be the hoon in his WRX revving his engine and goading the police? Obviously he would be targeted. But I doubt whether a member of the Wadestown set on the way to the opera or the symphony orchestra in his or her Saab 9000 who is a bit late and who races off at the lights and does sustained wheel spins without traction or whatever the legislation states would be arrested. It is absolutely essential for there to be a third party in the right of appeal. 
I believe that this legislation will increase contempt for the police amongst youth. I am not surprised that at the moment we have youth who— 
Marc Alexander 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is just a question as to whether Deborah Coddington has been reading the same bill that everybody else seems to have. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That is a point of debate. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: New Zealand youth are contemptuous of the law now because we have a useless youth justice system whereby youth are not held accountable. They have endless family group conferences. Out of 40000 young offenders 2000 are taken through the court. This Government is not interested in fighting real crime and keeping citizens safe. If it were it would increase the Police vote and give them more than the $6 a day of our taxes that it spends on police. It would increase front-line policing so that it is able to enforce the current legislation against people who do break the law and it would not go around arresting people who just look like they are about to do so. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (NZ Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 Rarely have I been so stunned in this Parliament. I had assumed that the ACT party was some kind of law and order party. This afternoon we saw the ACT party go back to one of its roots which Deborah Coddington well knows—that is the Libertarian Party. I believe that the Libertarian Party is well known to that member. Where is Stephen Franks? Was he at the caucus on Waiheke Island? Rodney Hide had obviously popped out of the room when this issue was discussed. The previous speaker talked about picking on people in black jeans. 
 This bill is all about preventing mum and dad wearing black to their kid’s funeral. This bill is about stopping tragedy before it happens. It was my privilege and pleasure to talk extensively with the New South Wales traffic police in Parramatta. Far from gobbling up and absorbing extra police resources—as suggested perhaps by the previous speaker—this bill is about releasing police resources for other areas of crime. It gives a clear message to people not to use the roads of our country as some kind of speeding track and put other lives at risk. As the chair of the Law and Order Committee I look forward to the Committee stage of this bill. We will get this bill through under urgency. I thank all the other parties except ACT and the Greens for their cooperation. Let us get on with this bill and save a few lives in the process. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 The Greens opposed this bill at the first reading and we continue to oppose it. That is not because we support car racing but because it is bad legislation it is unnecessary and it is dangerous. I have been appalled at some of the previous speeches that have failed to address the issues the genuine concerns raised about this bill but have relied on personal insult and on emotional manipulation to try to make the point. 
The select committee says that it has substantially rewritten this bill—Ron Mark made reference to that as well. I would say that it has not so much rewritten it as tidied the drafting. Unfortunately it has retained the poor policy intention of the bill. Ron Mark said that the select committee attempted to make the bill just. It absolutely failed. He then went on to talk about targeting young people and crushing their cars—does he mean all young people? This bill overturns a basic principle of justice that one is innocent until proven guilty. The select committee recognised that the advice it received from the Attorney-General was that this bill breaches the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Basically the select committee said that it did not care that this bill breached our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act based on international conventions developed to protect the human rights of people around the world. It did not care. It did not think that that was important. 
The select committee did not care that it breached the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and that is in the report. The select committee said that a right of appeal was sufficient protection against the misuse of these draconian powers to confiscate vehicles. How was that a protection against the misuse of those powers? It is seriously inadequate. There is no remedy for the loss suffered by a person who might have his or her vehicle improperly impounded or confiscated. There is no penalty—there is no deterrent to the police whatsoever to make sure that they do not improperly use that power. 
What is more when people go to appeal against the impounding of their vehicle improperly what authority do they appeal to? The appeal goes to the police themselves. We are expecting that the police will police themselves and we think that that is adequate protection against the misuse of these powers! [ 
Interruption 
] John Carter may think that. Sometimes I wonder what planet some members of Parliament live on. 
Then people can appeal to the District Court if they are not satisfied by the outcome of appealing to the police. By that time the car will probably have already been returned to them and it would be a moot point. 
The select committee should be ashamed of this report and this House should be ashamed of itself in seeking to pass this bill under urgency. I know that some members of the Government and members of the Opposition are ashamed. I know that some of them do recognise that this is deeply flawed legislation. They are not allowed to say so in their votes in this House but they know that and they will talk about that privately. This bill is deeply flawed. 
The select committee said that the police powers were inadequate—it took the word of the police for that—but it presented no credible evidence that that was the case. As Deborah Coddington has pointed out all of the behaviours designed to be covered by this bill are already covered by the offences of careless and reckless driving and those offences already carry serious penalties including a potential prison sentence. Under that legislation there is already a power to confiscate vehicles for people found guilty of those offences. The point is that the power exists after someone has been found guilty. The difference in this bill is that the police now have the powers to impound a vehicle before someone has been found guilty of an offence. 
Ron Mark 
: Yes! 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: Ron Mark applauds that. Ron Mark thinks the principle of being innocent until proven guilty does not matter. It is not important to Ron Mark. He thinks that is fine. There are cases where the police already have such powers to impound for certain breaches of the law but those are of a different nature. Those are quantifiable breaches of the law. They are things like driving while disqualified or suspended. There is no subjective test. That is an objective breach of the law. The police can incapacitate a vehicle for driving that occurs while over the breath-alcohol limit. Again that is a quantifiable breach of the law. For people who breach the laws relating to careless or reckless driving or commit offences covered by this bill there is a subjective test of guilt—someone has to judge whether someone is guilty of taking part in a legal race or one of those kinds of things. That should be up to a judge or a court to decide. It should not be up to the police. This bill makes of the police the judge jury and executioner. 
As I have said under the Transport Act all of those kinds of offences can already result in a vehicle confiscation after guilt has been properly found by a judge. That is appropriate. If those powers were used those powers would provide an adequate deterrent which is what this bill was intended to provide. The problem is the powers are not being used by the police now. The police say that it is difficult to identify offenders. This bill will do nothing to address that. It will do nothing to make it easier to identify offenders. This is about making the Government feel good—and about making Clayton Cosgrove feel good. 
Clayton Cosgrove said this is not about politics. This is all about politics. This is about responding to a media-driven hype. The media told us we had a massive problem with boy racers and the police were caught with their pants down. When they looked at it the police were doing nothing to address the problem. What did the police say? They said: “Oh we need more powers. That is the problem.” [ 
Interruption 
] Marc Alexander said “Why did the police say that?”. When did the police ever say they do not need more powers? That is the police response to everything—that they need more powers. The problem is that the police have not been using the powers available to them. 
Tony Ryall made the point—and he was absolutely correct—that if there is not resourcing for the police to deal with these kinds of offences nothing will happen. Whether or not we pass this bill if the police are not resourced to deal with the issue the issue will not be dealt with. 
Ron Mark 
: The police don’t have enough resources to deal with violent crimes. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: Conversely if the police put the resources into investigating the offences they would deal with the problem. Ron Mark raises a question. I tell Ron Mark that the point is that if the police are not investigating crimes of violence the answer is not to change the law the answer is to resource them adequately to address the problem. That is exactly the point being made. It is not the law that is at fault it is whether the police are putting the resources into addressing the problem. If the police would use the powers available to them we would not have to pass this unnecessary legislation. Clayton Cosgrove says that this bill is about saving lives and he talks about over 400 people who have died. Those people did not die in drag racing. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Not boy racers. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: Exactly. Those people did not die in drag racing. It is part of the emotional manipulation. We all feel bad about people who die in road accidents. There is not a person in this House who does not. But passing this draconian and unnecessary legislation is not the answer. 
 I received an email today as I am sure probably all members of this House did that put forward the figures of people who have died as a result of racing wheel spins intimidating driving etc.—responsible for 0.4 percent of injuries and 0.7 percent of fatalities on New Zealand roads. The person who sent the email told us that those figures are less than those that attribute death or injuries solely to the poor condition of New Zealand roads. 
If Clayton Cosgrove is serious about addressing people dying on the roads why does he not do something about better funding for maintenance of roads? Even better why does he not do something about the overwhelming car culture that exists in our country? If we had an adequate public transport system and we got people out of cars and into trains buses and other means of alternative transport we would then start to address deaths on roads seriously. The majority of people who die on roads do not die from drag racing and those kinds of things. They die from our dependence on a fossil fuel - guzzling outmoded means of transportation. As Tony Ryall said this bill will do nothing to address the problems it is intended to address and this Government should be ashamed of trying to pass it under urgency. 
DAVID CUNLIFFE (NZ Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I rise to speak as the chair of Labour’s Auckland caucus committee to support this bill and to recognise the member who has brought it forward. This is the very model of how a member’s bill can work. I compliment the Government on giving it the priority to get through all its stages today. I am fascinated to see that curious combination of ACT and the Greens confused with some perverted sense of liberalism. 
Before the election when this bill was topical the Hon Ken Shirley said as follows: “The ACT party supports the introduction of this bill. We welcome tougher measures to deal with illegal street drag racing. Indeed this bill is in keeping with ACT’s campaign for zero tolerance in crime.” Or is that something they say before an election? Now “Deborah Mollycoddlingthem” has changed their view. Nandor Tanczos always stands up for the criminal and never the victim. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member should use the correct name of the member. 
DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I do apologise. Mr Tanczos has defended the criminal and not the victim. The argument here is in favour of the families who have lost family members and the people of Endeavour Street Taunton Avenue Halsey Drive and The Avenue Lynfield who cannot sleep whose babies are woken in the middle of the night because of hoon cars running up and down their street. I have news for those “better than thou” ACT folks. My west Auckland constituents want to get beyond the reputation of black jeans and mullets. They want neighbourhoods where they can sleep at night. They are sick to death of hoons on their streets. Seventy-five of them met in Blockhouse Bay to call for this bill to be expedited and that has been done. 
BRIAN CONNELL (NZ National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I have to say that I am scratching my head after having listened to members of the Green Party and the ACT party speak in total accord. It must be something of a red-letter day. I am taken back a little bit and yes Mr Prebble should hang his head. 
I am pleased to say that I was a member of the Law and Order Committee which helped to draft this legislation. We took a unified approach to it. It is only fair and reasonable that I acknowledge the contribution made by Clayton Cosgrove in bringing this bill to the House in the first instance. The bill is a good initiative and deals with an issue that is causing great consternation across the country. It is a good example of an issue that has been elevated to a governance issue and for once we have been able to leave the politics behind. The bill has been substantially rewritten and I think it is the better for that. 
I also need to acknowledge my colleague Mr Brownlee. It was through his efforts that the bill got the full force of the officials by being put on the Order Paper and it would be inappropriate if we did not recognise that. 
I also note that this legislation is based in significant part on the New South Wales legislation. Although I acknowledge that that is its genesis it would have been inappropriate just to pick up that model and try to impose it on this country. The work done by the select committee in that regard has been first class. 
The bill is known around the countryside as the boy racer legislation and Deborah Coddington did make the point that that is a little bit of a misnomer because 25 percent of supposed boy racers are actually female. I will say that this activity is not just about illegal racing. It is about curtailing activities that have a dangerous and social impact on law-abiding citizens. Boy racers congregate in large numbers to bait police destroy property cause traffic congestion harass members of the public and destroy people’s quality of life by road congestion and excessive noise. I have to say to the ACT party that I thought it was the party for zero tolerance. Maybe it is appropriate that its members get their heads together and have a little chat about it because it is probably not too late for them to reconsider and take another call particularly in the Committee stage. 
I note that the legislation amends the Land Transport Act and some submitters who came to the select committee thought that was not necessary. I put on record that they were in the minority by a very large measure. Some of the submitters who did not think that was necessary thought that the current Act contained prohibitions against dangerous driving and reckless operation of a motor vehicle. However that Act is ineffective because it was not drafted with empowerment powers for street racing offences. Current penalties are not adequate deterrents and there are practical enforcement difficulties. By example I use identification of the driver. One might be able to take a licensed driver off the road and give him or her a penalty but that does not go to the root cause of the problem and that is the car. Unless the vehicle can be taken off the road we are not sending any sort of message to those louts whatsoever. 
In the end the select committee decided to use the word “Unauthorised” in the bill’s title. We wanted to send a very clear message to submitters that we were determined to deal with the boy racer problem because it is an issue that is concerning the public of New Zealand in very large measure. This is a classic example where the rights of the community should be put before the rights of the individual. 
Having said that I do want to take a little bit of a swipe at the Government. I am sorry but I have to be true to form. The bill was reported back to the House in November 2002. The Government made big play of the fact that it would rush this bill through the House in urgency. When I sought leave of the House for this legislation to be put up the Order Paper I got a resounding no. Dr Cullen in particular was the person who objected the loudest. What he was saying to me this House and to the people of this country was that he had an arrogant disregard for the tens of thousands of New Zealanders who are concerned about the activities of boy racers because they are destroying their quality of life. I have been petitioned in droves by constituents in Rakaia asking me to ask the Government to do something about this with urgency and I have had to say to them— 
Hon Annette King 
: You got urgency. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: We have urgency now! I have had to say to them that yes the legislation has been amended by the select committee that it is in a form that I know members of the House will support and that all we now need to do is to get it back before the House and get it passed. To be fair to Clayton Cosgrove I think he in essence actually said that behind closed doors. Maybe we should give Dr Cullen some credit. Maybe that is why the legislation is now being heard under urgency. If that is the case I am glad that Dr Cullen has woken up and smelt the coffee. I suppose we should really be thankful for small mercies. It is just a pity that this legislation did not come soon enough to save the life of a boy racer in Christchurch City last weekend. It is a pity that someone had to die. 
Let us be clear about the activities that these people engage in. They have no real intention whatsoever to be law-abiding citizens. They congregate in large numbers to bait the police and members of the public. Their idea of fun is getting together in large numbers blocking off a road and posting scouts at both ends of the road. When the police come along to do their job the boy racers are tipped off by telephone and disappear. If the police could stay at both ends of the road apprehend people as they were coming by and impound their cars they would be able to enforce this law. The boy racers damage roads and damage buildings with graffiti— 
Ron Mark 
: We need a tank! 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Yes we need tanks. Graffiti is one of the by-products of this type of activity. The spectators are generally unruly; they are the people who drink and engage in lots of violent activities. I am looking across at the Greens and I would not be surprised if they were lining up as well. Boom boxes are another issue that cause people to live under great distress. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: What? 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Mr Prebble is wondering what boom boxes are. They are the instruments that these louts use to make a lot of noise. These instruments keep young children mums and dads awake at night so they cannot enjoy a good quality of life. They have got to such a point of frustration that they are saying they will take the law into their own hands. Is it not a sad day for this country when we are encouraging law-abiding citizens to take the law into their own hands just so they can protect their property and their families from these louts? The civil libertarians and maybe the ACT party which I am still scratching my head over are saying that we are taking a sledgehammer to crush a nut. If that is the case then I say “Tough!” because that is what we need to do. I am sick and tired of these louts having their rights put ahead of those of the majority of law-abiding citizens in this country. 
Councils have bent over backwards to try to accommodate these people. Councils have provided off-road racing facilities but only about 20 percent of these people are interested in them. Unless they have an audience unless they can disturb people and unless they can bait the police they are not interested in using those facilities. 
I conclude by saying that I strongly support this legislation and look forward to discussing it in more detail during the Committee stage. 
MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I support this bill which was introduced to the House by my colleague Clayton Cosgrove and wish him well with it. I have only one thing to say to the House about this bill. One knows one is right on a matter when one has the libertarian Deborah Coddington hopping into the exact same political bed as Nandor Tanczos. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 A few weeks ago I attended a meeting in Katikati on law and order issues and Ken Shirley was there. The meeting was interrupted by some road racers for want of a better term. Ken Shirley made it quite clear to that meeting—and I should add that the police were present and they made their view known—that the ACT party is 100 percent behind the police. Ken Shirley was absolutely categorical. A member of the community present at that meeting would have had no doubt that ACT would support this sort of legislation. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: No. 
PETER BROWN 
: That is what I understood. We can expect the wishy-washy response from the Greens but I am personally disappointed in ACT’s stance on this bill. I cast members’ minds back to a Saturday—I am certain it was a Saturday—just prior to the last election. The Greens encouraged people to go to the parks all over New Zealand and smoke cannabis. They forgot that the majority of those people would have to drive home. I was at a public meeting with Rod Donald and he was bragging about it. He stopped short when I asked him how those people were going to get home after smoking cannabis in the parks probably all day. 
I read this bill with some interest and I notice that neither the ACT party nor the Greens had any representation on the Law and Order Committee at all not even in a non-voting capacity. There are fine noises outside the House and fine noises inside the House from time to time but when it comes to the detail ACT could not front up with one member at the select committee to query what was going on. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Just as it is out of order to refer to a member being absent from the House it is out of order to refer to a member being absent from a select committee and especially in this case as the House had not put the ACT party on the select committee. It is very unfair. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member is absolutely correct. 
PETER BROWN 
: I am no way implying that ACT did not take its rightful seat. I am saying that ACT was not on that committee and did not even ask to be put on the committee in a non-voting—[ 
Interruption 
] I tell Mr Prebble that it goes before the Business Committee and we are all aware of when people ask to be on a committee in a non-voting capacity. 
Driving on our roads should be regarded as a privilege not an absolute right. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: That is nonsense. 
PETER BROWN 
: Mr Prebble says that is nonsense. He believes that every Tom Dick and Harry should be able to drive on the roads never mind what condition they are in what attitude they have or what condition their cars are in. I am saying to this House that we have to have stringent transport laws and to ensure that people honour and respect the road code if we want to save lives on the roads. 
We heard the same wishy-washy arguments from many people in this House when we tried to introduce the photographic driver’s licence. We were told we were impinging on people’s rights and goodness knows what. But at the time of the introduction of the photographic driver’s licence legislation approximately 50 people a year were dying as a result of being in a collision with a non-qualified or disqualified driver. The police came to the select committee and made it quite clear that if they had a better licensing system where they could identify the drivers they could keep to a considerable degree non-qualified and disqualified drivers off the road. If my memory serves me correctly that 10 percent has now gone down to something like 6 percent. That represents something in the vicinity of 20 people per year alive today who would not have been alive had we not changed that licensing system. If one takes 5 or 6 years one finds that the number is getting into the hundreds. Frankly my party pushed for that legislation and we are proud that it went through. 
Equally so we are pleased to support the honourable member Clayton Cosgrove’s initiative. We compliment him on taking the initiative. But before his ego gets too big I want to say I have just read this bill and I cannot find much left of the honourable member’s first bill. Even the title has been changed. I think the first bill had eight pages and eight pages have been struck out and replaced by a further eight pages. But if it were not for his initiative—and I do recognise that he had the initial desire to push this issue—we would not be here debating this bill now. So I do compliment him on presenting this bill and I compliment my parliamentary colleagues on this side of the House for supporting it. 
Drivers who want to get involved in street drag racing should know that the practice is anti-social with all the noise and the carry-on. They should expect that sooner or later society and as a result Parliament will want to do something about it. It is not acceptable. I have had several people contact my office and I know that my leader has had even more particularly in respect of the events over Christmas—the drag racing type of carry-on that occurs in Mount Maunganui on fine summer evenings. It is a dangerous practice and it should be stopped. Roads generally are dangerous places. This sort of carry-on makes them very dangerous places. 
 Some mechanics tell me that cars used in drag racing become less than safe in themselves and should not be used on the public roads. Therefore it is debatable whether people who get involved in that sort of activity—even if special tracks were set up—should ever be allowed to use a car in drag racing then drive it on a public road. We have some real concerns about that and people with greater mechanical expertise than myself have made that view very clear to me. 
New Zealand First introduced legislation that gave the police powers in 1998 to impound vehicles and suspend drivers’ licences. Society has benefited from that sort of legislation. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: How many cars have been impounded? 
PETER BROWN 
: Several hundred cars have been impounded most of them deservedly. A few might have a question mark over them as to whether they should have been impounded but the Act has provisions for people to appeal and I notice that the same sorts of rights to appeal are in the bill that we are debating today. 
We support this bill. New Zealand First supports tough fair laws that “encourage” proper and safe driving and a responsible attitude towards driving on our roads. We cannot stress strongly enough that people get only one chance on the roads when things go wrong and if they are in the wrong place at the wrong time and a drag racer comes by they are likely to pay the penalty with their lives. That is not acceptable to us at all. We believe that if we are to err we should err on the side of caution. In other words if we think somebody is going to be up to this sort of drag racing carry-on we should give the police adequate powers to deal with it. The police have asked for more powers to deal with it and New Zealand First is a firm supporter of the police having the powers that they need. I have spoken to many police. I have a policewoman in my family and I do not envy the task that those folk have when they go out on a dark Friday or weekend night and have to deal with youngsters who are sometimes the worse for wear from alcohol or drugs and think they own the world and can get away with anything and everything. New Zealand First supports this bill. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 100 
Noes 17 
Bill read a second time. 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8. 
ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9. 
Name changed to Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill. 
Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill 
Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
In Committee 
Clause 1 Title 
BRIAN CONNELL (NZ National—Rakaia) 
: 
 The National Party supports this title. We see very little that we can disagree with. In fact we would like to talk more about what we do agree with. I say to members that the word “Unauthorised” was carefully chosen and carefully considered because this bill is about protecting law-abiding road users. People who are engaged in authorised activities have nothing to worry about. In particular I am thinking about car enthusiasts and people engaged in authorised rallies. It is those people who engage in unauthorised activities who should be concerned. I say to members of the Committee and to members of the public listening that if they are not engaged in illegal activities then they have nothing to worry about. If they are not breaking the law while in charge of a motor vehicle they have nothing to be concerned about. 
This legislation is not—and the title reflects this—about catching drink-drivers. We have law for that. It is not about catching unlicensed drivers. We have law for that. It is about stopping people who are hell-bent on breaking the law in a reckless manner and putting lives at risk in a manner that will destroy the quality of life of people who generally should be able to have a quality of life that is undisturbed. For example people who move on to lifestyle blocks should not be subjected to these types of louts racing up and down the streets or the roads and causing considerable distress. We support the title. “Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing” is exactly what we are targeting. With that I commend it very firmly to the Committee. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 Once again New Zealand First notes that the bill as presented to the House in its first draft was entitled the Land Transport (Street and Illegal Drag Racing) Amendment Bill. It was interesting to read the second select committee report and to note that the second select committee which had taken on the responsibility of dealing with the bill came back to the House with the recommendation that the title be changed. I glanced through the rationale for the change of title to the Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill. Within that there is a further explanation not only as to why the Law and Order Committee came to that decision but also as to the part we will be debating next which is the purpose. It is after all the purpose that must be reflected in the title of the bill. 
It is quite clear to most people out there who like me own property in a part of the country where street racers gather that those races are unauthorised I own property out at McLeans Island behind the Christchurch airport and I have never ever known of an authorised drag race or burnout event there yet. The only burnouts that we have seen out there have been illegal and unauthorised and they have always resulted in damage to property and the roads. I note that that is quite clearly what this bill is designed to put an end to. 
It is interesting to read through the select committee’s report. I particularly note the discussion about clause 4 and new clause 5 on page 6 of the commentary. There was a lot of discussion about making sure that the bill did not capture legal or authorised events be they motorkhanas or legal street racing like the type of street racing we used to have here in Wellington—sadly and disappointingly Wellington does not host the V8 racing any more. Fund-raising events and sporting events that are run by legitimate car clubs and racing clubs are not intended to be caught up in this bill. The new title makes it very very clear that those people are not the people who are being targeted and the necessary amendments in the bill from that point again reinforce that provision and ensure that those legitimate legal racing events are not in any way entrapped by this legislation. 
The title could well have been changed by many people who have been subjected to the antics of hoons and street racers over the past 10 or 15 years. Some of those people have recommended to me that the bill should be called the “Boy Racers (Car Crushing) Amendment Bill”. Those people came to me with those recommendations because they have had an absolute gutsful of the antics they have had to put up with at McLeans Island. There might well have been those who had this bill not appeared would have taken the law into their own hands in which case we might have had a bill entitled the “Anti-Vigilante (Because We’re Out to Deal to the Problem on Our Own) Bill”. Those views were very very well expressed to me on numerous occasions by people who have had a gutsful of the antics of these young people. 
At the end of the day I think that common sense logic and good advice from the advisers to the select committee have produced a workable bill with a meaningful realistic targeted title and there it should stay. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ) 
: 
 There has been a lot of maligning of the ACT party and its stand on this legislation. I notice that a number of members are conveniently avoiding the issue we are addressing here. The title Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill should be the “Land Transport (Increasing the Powers of the Police) Amendment Bill because that essentially is what this legislation does. At least Mr Ron Mark is honest and acknowledges that that is what it does—and good on him for acknowledging it and for standing up for what he believes in. I wish that other members of the Committee would be so honest because they will not address that issue. 
If people want to have a street or drag race they have to get authorisation. They have to get permission from the authorities because they will be doing things that in ordinary circumstances would be breaking the law. Measures therefore have to be taken to make a street or drag race an authorised event. Because people would be breaking the law in terms of speed dangerous driving and reckless driving such events have to be authorised. 
The key words in this title are “unauthorised” and its opposite “authorised”. This is why I object to this legislation. If a street race or a drag race is unauthorised it is therefore already—before we even pass this bill—against the law because it would involve excessive speed and breaking the speed limit. I see that Clayton Cosgrove is shaking his head. Does he not have any respect for the speed limit or for traffic regulations that already prohibit excessive noise? Those regulations already prohibit nuisance in terms of people who drive motor vehicles. We are not actually totally in bed as some members so crudely put it with the Green Party. Members of that party would probably have train drag racing bus-dragging or whatever—as long as it does not involve motor vehicles; if it is in trains or buses it is OK. 
I come back to the title which is what I really object to about this legislation. If the title honestly reflected what this legislation is to do it would state that it increases the powers of the police. Anybody in a democratic society should be extremely careful when they do anything to increase the powers of the police. 
Brian Connell 
: Zero tolerance. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: We are the party of zero tolerance—for those who have broken the law not for those who look as though they are about to break it or as that member said for those who are hell-bent on breaking it. We do not increase the powers of the police for people who are thinking about breaking the law or for those who look as though they might break it. That is excessively dangerous and I caution this Committee to think very carefully about it. 
Sure the bill will go through—I accept that. But that does not mean I am not prepared to make myself unpopular by sticking up for those who are acting with authority—for those who are not breaking the law. That is why I say that the title of this bill is a misnomer. It should be the “Land Transport (Increasing the Powers of the Police) Amendment Bill” and I challenge all those other members in the Committee who support this bill apart from Ron Mark who is the only honest one in here— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No that is out of order. The member will withdraw and apologise. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: I withdraw and apologise. I challenge all those other members when they debate this title to think about that word “unauthorised” as it relates to street and drag racing and about what the opposite is. If a race is authorised it is already authorised; if it is unauthorised it is already outside the law and we have legislation to deal with that. We should not be increasing the powers of the police. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 The ACT member struggles with the title. Maybe she might reflect on a couple of points before she comes to speak on further aspects of the bill. As I recall when the bill was introduced Ken Shirley said: “The ACT party supports the introduction of this bill. We welcome tougher measures to deal with illegal street drag racing. Indeed this bill is in keeping with ACT’s campaign for zero tolerance on crime. Members of the House have probably seen our billboard campaign around the country—colourful striking billboards calling for zero tolerance in crime. That is ACT’s message to the country and to Parliament. It will certainly be at the forefront in the election campaign.” I ask the member to reflect on those comments which were made prior to her becoming a member of the House. Maybe she will then reflect on that further as we go through the legislation. One would assume from comparing the speech she has just given with what Ken Shirley said that that is the reason the ACT party is at 6 percent in the polls and hovering. 
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: 
 The name of this bill should be the “Let us Treat Our Disaffected Youth Differently Than We Treat Other New Zealanders Bill”. Do we Greens not care about street racing etc.? Of course we do. I have been out there. I have seen the playing fields that I had responsibility for as a councillor chewed up by hoons in cars. I have attended meetings with disaffected citizens who have been kept awake until all hours. I have sat out there on the streets and heard the noisy vehicles. If we need a law to deal with that then I think we already have it. However if we cannot enforce the laws that we already have what makes us think we will be successful in enforcing this one? 
I have attended residents’ meetings. I have heard the talk and I know what those residents are saying. They focus on this group of young people and say that those young people are the ones who are causing them problems. I say that if the police need more powers then by all means let us give them those powers but not the power to make the decision that those people deserve a penalty and the police will impose it right now. Let us give the police the power to arrest—which they already have—and to put those people in front of the courts. The courts should then have the task of deciding on the penalty. If we think the penalty should be confiscation of the vehicle then we should apply that to all such similar events. 
This bill targets one narrow group of people in the community—the young. That group is no more responsible for deaths on the roads than anybody else. Those young people are not the only dangerous drivers in this country nor are they the only hoons but this bill very specifically targets young people. 
Hon Member 
: There’s no age limit on boy racers. 
MIKE WARD 
: Yes they are the ones. The message we are sending out to our young people is that they are the only ones who drive dangerously so we should have the ability to impound their vehicles. We have a different law for drunken driving; we say that yes all drunken drivers can have their vehicles impounded. We also say that if a person’s vehicle does not have a warrant of fitness and should not be on the road then we can take it off the road. But in this case we are being fairly specific in the target of this legislation. 
I say that the laws are in place now to address this issue. If vehicles are too noisy they can be stopped. I tell the Committee right now that the noise inspection officers simply go out and give a warning and if the warning is not heeded they can then take the boom box from a party and tell the people there that they must do without it and to go back and see the noise inspection officers on Monday. Maybe that is a reasonable way of doing it. [ 
Interruption 
] I have sat out in the streets and I have actually seen the same cars go past. 
I come back to the title which could be the “Let us Treat the Disrespected Youth Differently Than we Treat Other New Zealanders Bill”. Young people are the ones who have the noisy cars and go around annoying citizens with them. I grant members that that happens. I have seen those noisy cars go down the street one after the other over and over again and down the same streets 5 or 10 minutes apart. I hear them and the police must hear them but they do nothing. The laws are there and the police do not impose the current laws. What makes us think the police are any more likely to enforce any new laws that we put in place? It is the courts’ job to decide on the penalty and it is the courts’ job to impose it. 
Green members are not unmindful of the concerns of citizens; they just do not believe that we need another law when the existing law is not being upheld. They do not believe we need a law that places in the hands of the police the responsibility for imposing those penalties without the courts having their say on that. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 100 
Noes 17 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8. 
ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9. 
Part 1 
BRIAN CONNELL (NZ National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I thank the Committee for the opportunity to make another contribution to this debate. I note that the commencement date will be 28 days after the royal assent. That will allow sufficient time following the third reading for the police to print the required notices of empowerment and for other necessary administrative preparation to be completed. In essence this is really just a logical common-sense administration clause. Therefore I support it. 
It probably does not really matter if this legislation takes another month to come into force anyway. I made the point earlier that this bill has been around now since it was reported back in November 2002. I have to take issue with the Government again over its delay on this legislation. The Government said it would push it through under urgency and if this is an example of the Government’s urgency then it is no wonder that this country of ours is burdened down with red tape and bureaucracy. This legislation is an example of how this Government acts in a very ponderous manner. 
Dr Cullen needs to take some of the blame for the delay. I have already made the point that if he had agreed to have this bill bumped up the Order Paper it could have been dealt with. If he had agreed to that we would not be sitting here in urgency dealing with this matter and peoples’ loved ones out there might not have been lost. The bill was only moved up the Order Paper after I and my National colleagues told the people who had come to us in their droves—and I repeat in their droves—asking why the Government was not moving on this legislation that they should telephone or write to Dr Cullen because he was the person who was holding this legislation up and that if he said yes then it would be dealt with. I know that some of those people wrote to Dr Cullen or phoned him and that has made the difference. Dr Cullen has got off his high horse and at long last he is listening to the people. He is getting back in touch with the grass roots of this country is listening to the people who are desperately concerned about boy racers and their activities and is now prepared to do something about that. On that basis we commend him. 
I noticed the purpose clause as I glanced through the bill. It states: “The purpose of this Act is to amend the Land Transport Act 1998 to combat the problem of illegal street and drag racing and the practice of performing wheel spins and other dangerous stunts on public roads.” Some members of this Committee seem to be driving a perception that there is a law in place to cater for those types of activities. But there is not. If the police could act now there would not be tens of thousands of New Zealanders out there at the moment asking for legislation to take care of this problem. The police who are listening to this debate must be absolutely cringing. The party that the police probably thought they could rely on—the ACT party the party that was most strongly going to support the police with its zero-tolerance stand on crime—is the very party that is letting them down. The police must be cringing and like me they are probably scratching their heads at that. 
There is a perception that the issue is just about unlicensed activities—drink-driving or speed. People can do doughnuts—that is the terminology—burnouts put oil the road and kill people by going from zero to 50 kilometres an hour without breaking the law. When police apprehend people their defence is that that is not dangerous driving. The lawyers who came to the Law and Order Committee and said that we were using a sledgehammer to break a nut are the very people who stand up and say those activities do not break the law and are skilful rather than dangerous driving. The people who do those things thumb their noses at the police and off they go. When the police do apprehend someone and give him or her a ticket that person goes into the police station and is out again in 5 minutes. Those people then hold their tickets up like badges of honour. They get in their cars and continue with their activities or a mate drives the car and they continue with their activities. The only way to deal with this problem is to take the cars off the road. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 Therein is the point that counters the speeches made earlier on and in particular the speech of the member of the Green Party. He said that this legislation was not necessary. He said that the police have all the powers that they need yet during the time that I was on the Law and Order Committee we heard consistently—as did colleagues who took over on that committee for this term and who continued to hear the submissions to work their way through them and to produce the report—that the law as it currently stands is not adequate. I will say that again: the law as it currently stands is not adequate. 
I say to the good member of the Green Party that the people involved in this activity are not all young men. A lot of men in their 30s and 40s have hot cars and like to be out there displaying their driving prowess. They are not all men or boys either. I say to the hoon over there on the Government side of the Chamber Paul Adams that he is a United Future party member and a road racer himself. The people involved get a buzz out of it. In a court of law how does one prove that a car that is actually stationary—not speeding—on the road is being driven dangerously? The things that are moving are the back or front wheels; the car is stationary because it has no traction. What would we charge such people with? Would it be with exceeding the 50 kilometres an hour speed limit? They are not doing that! Would we charge them with driving in a manner that might have been dangerous? They would argue that the car was not moving that they had full control over its front wheels that they were doing a burnout in a static spot and that they were in full control of the vehicle. They would also say there was no danger to anybody because they were doing that in a country burnout spot that they had chosen behind the Christchurch airport where there were no members of the public present other than the other street racers who were standing around watching drinking booze smoking dope and having a great time. 
They could argue in a court of law that they were not driving in a manner that might have been dangerous and that the activity was not dangerous driving. The point is this: the law as it currently stands is not adequate for us to get the sorts of convictions that are required. 
Let us go one step further. We already have laws approved by this Parliament—I know Labour voted against them—that gave the police the power to confiscate the vehicles of unlicensed drivers. If it is OK for this House to give the police the power to confiscate the vehicles of people who are not licensed to be driving them why is it not OK for the police to confiscate the vehicle of a hoon who is doing a burnout in a city suburb and keeping the neighbours awake? 
This law has been redrafted and presented to us to give the police specific powers to deal with an issue that is vaguely interpretable. The bill has zeroed in on the offence of operating a vehicle in a position of sustained loss of traction. The purpose of the bill has been very clearly defined and its terminology has been refined to make sure that it captures only those people who are in the act of doing that illegally or in an unauthorised manner. The bill does not deal with or aim to capture rally drivers. It does not aim to capture the Christchurch City Council if it hosts a burnout competition on a street specially closed off for the event. 
And here is the point: if people want to enjoy that activity with their specially tuned-up hotted-up cars then they should be able to go along and participate in any authorised legal event that is hosted by a club. But they do not want to do that because their very reason for being there on any particular night is to enjoy the illicit atmosphere that they indulge in. That is their culture—to be out there “sticking it up the nose” of authority of society or of whomever they got away with doing that to. What do we propose in response to that? Should we use the current law and give those people more fines which they chuck in their glove boxes and laugh about? No. This law change allows the police to go that one step further and having caught the individual red-handed in the act to execute straight away the law that allows them to impound the vehicle. That is what the country actually wants. 
The purpose of this bill as defined very clearly by the piece that is left—by that I mean there has been a lot taken out of Part 1; there is only a very very small part of it left—is to amend the principal Act in order to address the problem of unauthorised street racing drag racing wheel spinning and other stunts involving motor vehicles on roads. The other point that was very well dealt with is the issue of whether it is illegal for someone to tip diesel on a road. Can the police today charge someone who goes out and tips diesel on a road? After this bill is passed they certainly will be able to do so. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I debate clause 3 the purpose clause as a lawyer and as one who came to the House from the background of a practice where I had not dealt with criminal behaviour for a long time. I look at the clause therefore from that background to see whether the law can be clearly understood and whether the purpose is translated into the subsequent provisions. I am aware of course that in this part by part debate I cannot address the subsequent provisions but when I see vague words like “combat the problem of unauthorised street racing drag racing wheel spinning and other stunts involving motor vehicles on roads;” I see essentially political rhetoric not law. I see essentially a series of slogans that are the sort of oratory or standard of English that people who work in these— 
Brian Connell 
: Like zero tolerance. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Zero tolerance has not been written into law. I tell Mr Connell that when that is translated into law it will be translated into provisions that are readily capable of application. What is really meant by this clause is the giving of additional powers to the police which may be applied in relation to illegal acts but which also may be applied against people the police do not like or who give them lip. They may just be applied— 
Ron Mark 
: Do you support the police or not? 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Mr Mark asks whether we support the police. Of course we support policing. Of course we support using the powers of enforcement of proper law but we do not support powers that entice the police into simply classifying a whole class of people as the enemy and then harassing them. 
Brian Connell 
: You don’t trust them. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: I do not trust anyone who is given excessive power not to abuse it. That is why we live in a liberal democracy and we do not simply say: “Let us give wise rulers all the powers they ask for.” We demand that the people who are given the coercive power of the State—the people who can seize property the people who can fine the people who can send a person to prison—work within a framework of rules that say they will confine those powers to those who are genuinely criminal offenders. What we have here is the opportunity to say that wheel spinning—which may be antisocial but so is blowing smoke in someone’s face driving a diesel vehicle that is burning too much oil or driving too slowly or too fast on the road; we have specific offences for those things—now becomes a reason for car confiscation. Wheel spinning may have absolutely nothing to do with danger at the time it may have nothing to do with hazard even to the people in the car and it may be perfectly safe yet wheel spinning is now seen as a problem. 
Hon Member 
: It is. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Wheel spinning is a problem to the people who spin their wheels. It is a problem of burning up rubber. There are all sorts of automatic sanctions. This law could have given enhanced powers of enforcement to the courts. It could for example have given powers that allow bailiffs and others to enforce fines. It could have allowed community work to mean something. It could have turned the stunts that involve young people and that are criminal into offences that could be taken through the courts. Only 2000 of the 40000-odd apprehensions of young people a year even get to the courts. No wonder there is an insolent attitude from so-called boy racers. No wonder the “stuff you” focus that has so enraged—and rightly enraged—New Zealanders is a feature of this conduct. It is just a symptom of an attitude that has been not just allowed but encouraged by this Government’s approach to youth justice. 
This Parliament should do more than just run slogans. The purpose provision in this bill is just a set of slogans that allow Mr Cosgrove and the members of the Committee who want to make capital out of looking tough to avoid dealing with the real issues in youth justice—to avoid going back and asking why there are 6000 family group conferences many of them multiple that have nothing whatsoever to do with families. 
EDWIN PERRY (NZ First) 
: 
 Firstly I acknowledge my fellow MPs Peter Brown and Ron Mark for their comments. As we all know New Zealand First supports this bill. Before coming into Parliament and obviously when reading about the problems with boy racers I sat back in my house in the Wairarapa and thought: “Why the hang is nobody doing anything about this?”. I would like to thank Clayton Cosgrove for putting this bill together and taking it to the Law and Order Committee to receive submissions. I as a new member also thank Martin Gallagher for the way he conducted the select committee and I thank other members of the committee fellow MPs and advisers. New Zealand First supports the commencement clause—that the Act comes into force on the 28th day after the date on which it will receive the royal assent. 
I would like to move straight to the purpose of the bill which is clause 3 in Part 1. Comments have been made with regard to certain activities described in the purpose clause. I am an ex-supporter or promoter of rally driving and I acknowledge Mr Paul Adams in respect of his ability to drive fast cars under an authorised regime. Listening to some of the comments from some of our fellow MPs and from our fellow MP from ACT I hear that wheel spinning is not seen to be a dangerous activity. But I can reaffirm to all members that wheel spinning with bald tyres once the tread parts from the main part of the tyre can be dangerous and tyre parts can hit people. So I would bring that member back to the point that wheel spinning is dangerous. 
 The use of lubricants was also mentioned as a dangerous activity in respect of the different types used such as petrol diesel brake fluid and dishwashing liquid. A number of lubricants are being used illegally. A number of people are participating in this activity: in Auckland at times over 300 vehicles have been participating in drag racing. 
In regard to unauthorised activity the challenge to most of these drivers is not having an authorised pad but carrying out the activity in an unauthorised area to challenge the police to try to catch them in the particular stunts that they are involved in. In some cases these vehicles with their specialised seating and specialised braking are worth in excess of $30000. The fact that some of these vehicles do not have the proper equipment to allow them to stop after wheel spinning is a real problem. New Zealand First supports the bill and supports the non-authorisation of drag racing. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ) 
: 
 We were questioned about the fact that the ACT party is opposed to this legislation. Let me reiterate that I am not at all opposed to the enforcement of legislation that already exists and that is what zero tolerance means. It means the enforcement of things that are already against the law. If people want to talk about support for the police why do they not talk about support for the police in terms of getting tough on bail conditions? What about support for the police in terms of getting tough on parole? 
We are hearing a lot of talk about the purpose of the bill being to outlaw things like as Stephen Franks said the perceived problem of wheel spinning and other stunts involving motor vehicles on the road. What on earth does that mean? “Other stunts involving motor vehicles on the road” is such a wide definition. It could mean absolutely anything. It could mean just driving along in a convertible with the top down singing and having a great time. That could be a stunt. It could be dressing up as a Father Christmas and putting one’s head out the car’s sunroof. That could be called a stunt. That is what I mean. This legislation is so loosely worded that it covers all sorts of people whom we classify as people whom we do not necessarily like whom we might not invite for dinner. We might not enjoy having people like boy racers or hoons or thugs on wheels to dinner but we should not herd them all into a category and then pass laws to ban their activities. 
With regard to getting tough on crime that already exists the National Party member talked about people being taken to court and being let off their fines. I agree with him that that is appalling; it is dreadful. Just a week ago a person in the Hawke’s Bay had $19000 worth of traffic fines wiped by the judge because he was unemployed and unable to pay the fines. Instead he was given 350 hours community service. That works out at $50 an hour. I would not mind a job like that. If we want to get tough on crime if we want to support the police we should be outraged at situations like that but the ACT party was the only party that commented on it. 
That is not the first time this has happened. Just recently a youth had $18000 worth of traffic fines wiped. What happened? He racked up another $6000 worth of traffic fines. As Stephen Franks said it is no wonder these people have an attitude of contempt of “up you” towards the police and towards society. They have been whacked on the back of the hand with a wet bus ticket and allowed to get away with it. Enforcing the law is all about upholding legislation—making sure people are accountable for their crimes and are held accountable. 
There is a difference between the powers to enforce legislation and having the resources to enforce legislation. A lot of people are confusing the two issues. Of course the police do not have the resources to enforce the legislation that we already have on our statute book. That is demonstrably shown every day. There is a severe shortage of front-line police in Auckland and all we need is four homicides in one area like south Auckland and the police cannot deal with other important urgent things that they need to send the target squad out to. 
If we are talking about increasing the powers of the police we should be talking about increasing the resources to the police and spending more of our taxpayers’ money on that. The State’s true and proper role is to uphold law uphold contract protect people’s property and protect their rights. It is not there to seize their property just because a police officer has reasonable grounds to believe that somebody has broken the law. Someone asked why it is not OK to do a burnout in a city suburb. Of course it is not OK to do a burnout in a city suburb. No one in this party is advocating that it is OK to do that. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I did not intend to take a call on this part but after listening to two ACT speeches I feel I have to add a degree of common sense to the whole debate. Mr Stephen Franks is a guy to whom I listen intently on legal matters. I respect the way he approaches the law and makes it easily understood for many of us who are not trained lawyers. But perhaps he is not aware that some years ago I think in 1996 or 1997 Parliament in its wisdom agreed to write law in everyday English that the ordinary person could largely understand. I think this purpose clause fits very well into that sort of language. Everybody who reads it will understand what it is getting at. It is simply the purpose for introducing this amendment bill and the amendment goes into the technicalities of the law. In my opinion it is exceedingly well written. People understand exactly what it means—even the words “other stunts involving motor vehicles on roads”. It disappoints me that Deborah Coddington somehow thinks that that refers to somebody driving a sports car with the hood down. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: She’s out of touch. 
PETER BROWN 
: She is clearly out of touch. I do not know whether ACT members know exactly what goes on. I do not claim to be an expert. I have a sports car with a hood and occasionally I drive it with the hood down but I do not want to get caught by the police. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: You would look pretty good in one of those. 
PETER BROWN 
: I do look pretty good especially with my cheese cutter on and grey hair waving at the sides. It looks absolutely first class. The people who get involved in these activities very often have radios. They listen to where the police believe they are and then when the police arrive they park their cars as I understand it in a very sane manner and say: “Well what are we up for? What are we doing wrong?”. Large numbers of the police are involved in chasing these folk around trying to pin something on them. This bill when it passes and becomes an Act will give the police sufficient powers to deal with the issue more speedily and more promptly. 
 There are—and I think Deborah Coddington raised this point—other things that we believe the police should be doing rather than chasing those sorts of people. But the way she spoke was that it was an option: either this or that. I have to say to Deborah Coddington that the police want to police everything. If a person gets a traffic fine and gets off that traffic fine that is not acceptable to New Zealand First. I do not think that it is acceptable to the average police person who is actually pulling those people up and issuing the fines. 
Stephen Franks 
: It’s acceptable to the Government though. 
PETER BROWN 
: It might well be acceptable to the Government but that is no reason for saying that we should oppose this bill. I was in Katikati listening to Ken Shirley when some of the so-called boy racers came in and I have to say that they were not boys. The Greens say that the boy racers are all young people but some of them were well-established adults who should know a darn sight better and they came in with an aggro-type attitude challenging the meeting. I heard nothing from Mr Shirley that gave me any indication that the ACT members would be opposing this bill—nothing at all. 
Martin Gallagher 
: When was the Katikati meeting? 
PETER BROWN 
: It was only a few weeks ago well after this bill came back to the House. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Did the deputy leader get rolled then in the ACT party? 
PETER BROWN 
: I do not know what has happened to the deputy leader but I would be interested to hear his comments with reference to the Katikati meeting. I would sincerely be very keen to hear Ken Shirley’s comments on this bill in the Chamber today. I listened intently to him and he was certainly playing to that Katikati audience on how strong the ACT members are on law and order. 
Martin Gallagher 
: And he had this bill? 
PETER BROWN 
: I would not like to say that Mr Shirley referred specifically to this bill at that time but he certainly gave the impression that those boy racers their activities and what they stood for were unacceptable to ACT. Some of the boy racers spoke to the audience. Some of them spoke very well but some of them were very arrogant and used language that is unbecoming to this House. The good folk of Katikati put up some practical solutions on how they should address the problem but nobody in that meeting which was well attended gave any indication that there was anybody there who would not support this sort of legislation. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (NZ Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 I cannot as an old boy racer sit here any longer listening to this debate. United Future definitely does support this bill. It is a good bill. I have read the wording and I think it is very good for the exact situation that it covers. I do get concerned however when I hear of all the young hoons mentioned because to be honest they are not all young hoons. Everybody who runs a performance car or a lowered car or a fast car is not a hoon. But unfortunately there would be as in most places a 10 percent element that gives others an underserved bad reputation. I for one was very disappointed when they took the toll plaza down on our Auckland roads not because I would not have to pay tolls but because I could no longer have a drag race out of the toll plaza which of course I only did to 100 kilometres an hour. 
Peter Brown 
: The truth’s coming out now. 
PAUL ADAMS 
: The truth is coming out. The element that this bill deals with is a very dangerous element and it is a great concern to a large percentage of the New Zealand public. I share that concern. Some people have good intentions and they even have many good skills on how to build and prepare a motorcar but sadly they do not use those in the correct places. Right throughout this country there are small car clubs and large car clubs that cater for all types of events. If people want to spin their cars around on the grass I would encourage them to join a car club and learn car control skills at the correct venue. But likewise as we grow older we realise that some of the things we did in our younger years were not wise. As parliamentarians we have a job to protect the citizens of this country and that is why I commend this legislation. I think it is very good. It is legislation that is necessary to cover the actual problem we are dealing with. 
A lot is spoken about wheelspin. A lot of the cars that we are dealing with are four-wheel drive and therefore have extremely good traction. To spin the wheels they are set up in position with liquids on the ground. They then become very dangerous. They can easily come off the slippery surface get traction on a dry piece of road and just fire off into the crowd or a lamp post or anything else at the drop of a hat. Unfortunately many of the young people who are doing this can drive in the conditions they are in but as soon as that condition changes they have got a ball of fire that they have no idea whatsoever how to handle. 
United Future members agree with this legislation and we support it. I would speak to the young people of the nation who are perhaps listening to the passage of this bill and tell them that we are not against them. We want to encourage them to go to the venues where they can use and even fine-tune their skills and have a lot of fun. But the public roads of New Zealand are not the place for this to happen and therefore United Future stands strongly behind this legislation. It is necessary legislation and it disappoints me when I hear parties standing up and not supporting this type of legislation when they know that this activity is going on and know that it is lethal and needs to be stopped. Sadly the only way we will stop them is to take their vehicles from them. There is no other way. So if they choose to continue to behave this way on public roads we will remove their ability to do so. We support this legislation. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The question is— 
Ron Mark 
: Point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just say to the member that under Standing Order 139 and Speaker’s ruling 54/2 I have decided to put the question. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I called for a point of order before you actually started to speak. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I will hear the member’s point of order. 
Ron Mark 
: I want to point out to you Mr Chairperson prior to your deliberating on the motion that has just been moved that we are taking this bill part by part. We are not taking it clause by clause. This bill has been in gestation for about 2 years. Two select committees have looked at it. A lot of members here have commented that they would like to take a call. New material has been introduced by various speakers and it requires opportunity for members to counter those points. There are eight pages of deletions from this part of the bill. The committee has reduced Part 1 down from eight pages to half a page. I put it to you Mr Chairperson that before you decide to curtail the debate at this point there is much more that could be discussed. I understand that if the debate is repetitive and if no one else is seeking a call then you might well accept the closure motion. But right now I am getting a horrible feeling that there is an accelerated process here which is about to curtail members’ right to speak to this bill and to speak in particular to the eight pages that have been cut out of it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for his contribution and say to him that Part 2 adequately covers the opportunity to widely debate this issue. I have accepted the closure motion. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 60 
Noes 57 
Motion agreed to. 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2 Substantive amendments to Land Transport Act 1998 and consequential amendments 
BRIAN CONNELL (NZ National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I have listened to this debate very carefully and I thought when I came to the House this afternoon there would be a very strong collective will to pass this legislation through the House. I am appalled—I have to use that word—at some of the comments I am hearing from parties I never thought I would hear them from. I have to say that it is nothing less than appalling that we have bleeding heart lounge bar liberals who would rather stand behind boy racers who destroy families and people’s quality of life. 
I use the example of West Melton in my electorate. Mr Mark referred to it before but I have been petitioned by people in that area in their droves. They are not just concerned about people engaged in racing on the roads; they are desperately concerned about the noise and the damage to their property and they are asking why they cannot have something done about it. They are also saying that if Parliament does nothing they will take the law into their own hands and do something about it. That is an appalling set of circumstances an appalling set of events where people who are otherwise law-abiding citizens have been driven to a point of desperation and are saying: “If you don’t we will.” They say they know they will be breaking the law but that we leave them with no choice. 
I for one am prepared to do something about that and I am desperately concerned that the ACT members are not. I will be interested to see Ken Shirley get on his feet to see whether the views of some of the ACT members who have spoken are representative of what the deputy leader of ACT actually says to us. 
Impoundment is the provision that I want to go to; it is the heart of the debate. My view is that unless we are prepared to take the vehicles off the road this legislation will not have any teeth. Here is another appalling circumstance that I encountered in my home town of Christchurch. A boy racer with a known record of engaging in illegal street racing activities was coming down a main thoroughfare in Christchurch at 170-180 kilometres an hour and he ran into a young Chinese girl who was out here visiting. Not only was she killed as one would expect when someone is hit by a car at that speed but her body was unrecognisable. 
Ron Mark 
: Ripped apart. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: She was ripped apart as Mr Mark says. Can members imagine the phone call that the people in Christchurch who were fostering that child at the time had to make to her parents in China? From the way it was reported in the Christchurch  
Press 
 they had to tell the parents they thought their daughter was dead. They had to say they could not be absolutely certain because the police could not recognise the body. 
That did not have to happen. If this law had been enacted some time ago that person’s car would have been off the road. It is an appalling indictment on this House that we could not have done that and could not have done it more quickly and it is an appalling indictment on the ACT party. I am not surprised at the Greens but it is an indictment on the ACT party members that they are now prepared to stand up and say that they would rather support people who engage in that type of activity and that they are not concerned about the victims. I never thought I would hear it coming from that party. 
Despite the general view boy racers are mainly from middle-income New Zealand families. They have vehicles that are valued conservatively from $15000 up to $60000—in fact I think someone even mentioned an example of a car worth $80000. The only way to hurt these people is to take their pride and joy and their pride and joy is the vehicle. They are not 15 16 or 17-year-olds and they are not just male. Twenty-five percent are female and they are aged in their mid-20s to their 30s. They know better. They know they are baiting the police. They know they are disturbing members of the public. They know they are damaging property. They know that what they are doing is inciting trouble and it is incumbent on members of this House to stand up and say we will deal to them. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 To carry on from that although this bill will not stop sad and tragic accidents such as the one Brian Connell has described it will act as a deterrent. I am absolutely gobsmacked that some of my colleagues from the ACT party are not supporting this bill because so often during the elections when I was out there on the hustings I could look to the ACT candidate or spokesperson there to be a staunch person behind the zero tolerance approach. 
Martin Gallagher 
: Remember the Hamilton meetings. 
RON MARK 
: I did not go up to Hamilton for the meetings. The point I want to make is that not only will this bill this part and these clauses give the police the tools to enforce these laws and to prosecute people who behave in this manner but I am adamant that the law itself will act as a deterrent. 
There are numerous facets to law enforcement. Law enforcement is what we have to do when we are dealing with those who do not want to follow society’s standards and norms. We also deal with punitive measures with rehabilitation and with information in terms of informing the public of what is good what is right what is wrong and what is illegal. But there is an element in every piece of legislation such as this that is there to deter young people and in this case elderly gentlemen who own soft-top cars and who might for a moment decide to go and burn out their tyres somewhere. It is there to deter. If this bill does one thing I will be happy; if it deters these people from performing these acts on our highways on our back streets and in our suburbs then even if not one person is prosecuted under this law from here on it will have done its job and I will be very happy. I will be very pleased about that. If the deterrent that is posed in this legislation is such that all these people join car clubs and attend Sunday afternoon burnouts at the Ruapuna racetrack I will be happy. This bill will have done its job. 
But for those who just cannot learn those people whom we continually read about who boast on nationwide television—when they get that wonderful platform thanks to  
Holmes 
—that they have racked up $20000 worth of fines and it is a big joke this law will now give the police the weapon they need to hit them where it hurts by taking their prized possession away from them. Some of us would rather crush it. The member who introduced the bill had a good suggestion—that the car be sold. That would go some way towards resourcing the police. Unfortunately we know that would not happen. Unfortunately we know that the money would go into the consolidated account and probably be wasted on some beneficiary scheme somewhere. 
The points that members have made are valid. Youth crime is out of control. But that is not a reason not to pass this bill. Police are under-resourced. They have a shortage of manpower of personnel they have a shortage of finance and they have a shortage of legislation. Well this legislation is one more step that will address at least one of those shortages. Yes I do not agree with the placing of priorities. I heard comments the other day about the highway patrol being out there picking up the pieces. Well excuse me but I know of more front-line bobbies—who are not in the highway patrol—attending road accidents and picking up the pieces than highway patrol people. That is a concern to me because it tells me that the priorities might well be focused on revenue gathering as opposed to enforcing traffic laws and dealing with the traffic-engineering problems that the old Ministry of Transport cops used to deal with. But that is another issue. 
This bill aims to deal with a problem that has been with us for 15 or 20 years. I go back to the days when I hotted up my Mark III Zephyr put big wheels on it lowered it bored out the pistons to 3 litres put in oversized valves and got that thing doing 120 miles an hour; I guess I have to accept that the problem has been around a very long time. But there are bigger dangers now and the consequences today have got to the stage where the public has said: “Enough! We have zero tolerance for this now.” That is what this bill is here to deal with and that is why we support it. 
I accept all the arguments that have been put up about youth crime and the flaky Children Young Persons and Their Families Act which I would take a chainsaw to tomorrow. I accept all the arguments about young people who attend family group conference after family group conference but let us face it: many of those people have been breaking the law in this manner on our roads. They have not been deterred. This bill and the provisions laid out in Part 2 will deter them. I will come back to the part that deals with petrol and oil. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I always listen to Ron Mark carefully because I believe he is quite sincere. I think he is correct when he says that people are fed up and saying that enough is enough in this area and that something needs to be done. However that has never been enough of a reason for producing bad law that does not do what it says it does. 
Let me quickly draw Mr Mark’s attention to the statement about what this bill does. It says that it is designed to combat the problem of unauthorised street racing wheel spinning and other stunts. In fact it could have simply stated “to outlaw” but it does not. It states: “aimed at combating”. That should have been the signal that the drafter did not think it was going to do very much. 
When we look at Part 2 we see that the actions that are to be penalised are simply those that are not authorised by law. If we look at subsection (4) of the operative section in clause 5 it states that in each case the operation of a vehicle is authorised if the speed is “within the applicable speed limit or speed limits” and the vehicle operator does not break some other law. So in other words it will be perfectly permissible to continue wheelspinning away from the lights as long as one does not do it at over 50 kilometres an hour. People can wheelspin all the way to 50 kilometres an hour or all the way to 100 kilometres an hour on the open road and they can do a doughnut if it does not endanger others if it is not careless driving and if it does not break one of the other existing laws. 
I say that that is sensible. I say that those are proper constraints on this new law. They make this new law tolerable. But what they do say is that most of the rhetoric in this Chamber this afternoon is just that. This bill is just camouflage. This does not allow that public aversion to be reflected. What we in ACT say is that if we really want to change behaviour we have to start right at the basis and ask why our law is treated with contempt generally. 
The second element that ACT is concerned about is an issue of high principle. Punishment is for the courts. In our system of British justice that we inherited punishment is for the courts. It is for the State to enforce by bringing people before the courts to get punished. The reason we are opposed to this law is that it is an extension of a very bad principle that turns police officers into commissars. The big difference between States like the Soviet Union which had a very low crime problem because the State was all powerful and States that inherit the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition is that in the latter it is judges who impose punishments. The fact that punishment is now so completely useless—because this Government will not bother to uphold the orders of the judges—is the thing that the Law and Order Committee should have been looking at. The select committee should have been asking itself why young people can scoff at the courts. As my colleague Deborah Coddington says $19000 in traffic fines gets written off—or $9000—and the guy is in the courts 2 weeks later giving the finger to the law. That is what should have been looked at. 
This power to confiscate in the hands of the police is a punishment power. This is the Government that would not even put punishment into the Sentencing Act. It would not even allow the Parole Board to take into account punishment as one of the factors for keeping someone in prison. This Government is just writing slogans and they are intended to mean nothing. There is nothing in this law that outlaws wheelspinning street racing drag racing or any of those other stunts as long as the person stays within the existing law. In other words this law was intended to do nothing. ACT stands for quality in law. We do not think there is anything to be achieved by this bill. Who remembers “Take the bikes off the bikies.”? Mr Cosgrove’s great guru—his early idol—made one of his slogans “Take the bikes off the bikies.” Has it happened? Have the bikies lost their bikes? No because it was law that was badly conceived in principle and quite correctly sensible police do not set out to antagonise the public by using powers that might tempt them into overuse. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (NZ Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 It is a rare occasion when I stand and support National Party colleagues but I have to say I agree with them. It is interesting and astounding that the ACT party which says it is the party of zero tolerance is opposing this bill. Its deputy leader—at Katikati I think Mr Brown said and before the election of course—said that ACT supported the bill. Mr Shirley said: “ACT supports the introduction of the bill. We welcome tougher measures to deal with illegal street racing. Indeed this bill is in keeping with ACT’s campaign for zero tolerance on crime.” That is what he said on 14 May and we had an election a month or so later. For the life of me I cannot work out who ACT is trying to appeal to now. Even its rich mates whom it does support have written to me and other members of this House saying that they have had an utter gutsful of this problem. 
Mr Franks talks about the police being commissars. What an utter insult to the men and women who protect that member and his fat-cat mates! What an insult to the law-abiding Kiwis around this country! I say to Mr Franks that one cannot be tough on crime and campaign for zero tolerance then drop a bucket on the boys in blue. He cannot have it both ways. I am looking forward to the next election when I can ram the words of Mr Franks and Ms Coddington back down where they came from—down their throats. 
Ms Coddington spoke about how discriminatory this bill was. She spoke about some victims. The only victims she did not speak about—no one in that party has spoken about them—are the people who have been killed by this activity. Mr Mark made the point that what this bill is trying to do in essence and what I believe it will do—it will not be a panacea as I have said—is provide an ambulance at the top of the cliff. It will provide a deterrent so that we will not have another death like the one we had on Saturday of a young Thai fellow and possibly his mates in the car. This bill will deter that behaviour. 
Yet of course these people from ACT parade around the country saying they are tough on crime. Every party in this Parliament apart from the Greens—who do not believe that common sense is trendy—and apart from ACT supports this bill. The police around the country man and woman side by side support the bill. The overwhelming majority—the vast majority—of Kiwis around the country support the bill. Even some of the ACT fat cats support the bill. Yet Mr Franks and Ms Coddington get up and oppose it. Work that one out! I do not know. I say to Ms Coddington that maybe she wants to have a register of boy racers! Maybe Alister Taylor could publish the register. Maybe this time after he has published it and people have paid for it he might actually deliver the register to them. 
I say to the ACT people that they should take an example from most of the members in this Chamber—United Future New Zealand First the National Party and others—who have treated this bill with a high degree of seriousness. On the weekend we saw a vast number of examples of lawlessness—of bottles being thrown through police car windows of tragically another death and of utter lawlessness. I think this bill goes a long way to knock those problems on the head. Ms Coddington says that the bill will not work. Well look at New South Wales; it has worked in New South Wales. Queensland which has this problem is begging for the New South Wales legislation as are the Australian Capital Territory and other states. 
I will be the first person as I said in another speech to stand up for law-abiding people. I think that 80 percent of the boy racer types are law abiding. With this deterrent they will join clubs and act lawfully. But there is a hard core of people who even if we gave them the facilities—the 10 percent who are nutters—would get their jollies from having the police chase them around like some sort of  
Dukes of Hazzard 
 movie. They know that the current deterrent that the police have is an infringement notice and it is not working. 
I will say one other thing to Ms Coddington. She and others talk about a lack of police resources. Well here is an eye-opener for her. I went to New South Wales and talked to the police there and asked: “Look what if we threw another 1000 police at the boy racer problem?”. The police said that with the current laws we have it would not work and that all that we would get is another 5000 or 6000 infringement notices. They said that what we needed was a real deterrent. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I make one final point to Ms Coddington and the ACT mob who talk about the police lacking resources. The New South Wales police told me that if we have a decent deterrent we can pull police out of this duty and they can fight real crime. The problem at the moment is even if we threw 1000 extra police at the problem we would get only 5000 more infringement notices which would do nothing. If we have a better deterrent we can release the boys and girls in blue from this duty and they can go out and protect our homes and our livelihoods. 
Debate interrupted. 
Amended Answers to Oral Questions 
Question No. 1 to Minister 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I want to correct a misunderstanding or mistake that may have been made in answer to question No. 1. I may have implied that Fernridge Institute of Training Ltd was not registered by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority. However it was the course that was not approved at the time the permits were issued. A 1-year course was subsequently approved in December last year. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for her explanation. 
Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed. 
Part 2 Substantive amendments to Land Transport Act 1998 and consequential amendments ( 
continued 
)  
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 In speaking to the bill I just want to cover some aspects quite quickly. Firstly this issue does concern local authorities greatly. Therefore it was no surprise to me to find that 25 local authorities had made submissions to the select committee. Secondly I also know from discussions that took place at that time that a number of those local authorities were not happy with what they thought was light-handed treatment with regard to the possible consequences of street racing. 
The Hon Dover Samuels and John Carter like myself will have received over recent months a great deal of correspondence from the Kaitaia district relating to these very matters. At the end the inability for various reasons of the local police station to act in the minds of people correctly resulted almost in their taking their own actions with regard to matters of this nature and similar. Therefore I find it very surprising to come to the House and hear a determined call by the ACT party—which has some adherents in our district for some reason particularly in the Kerikeri district—to adopt a completely laissez-faire hands-off no-action approach. In fact its zero tolerance is zero tolerance in relation to any ability to carry out what seems to me to be very sensible consequences as outlined in the select committee. 
There is nothing in clause 4 or clause 5 that should cause anyone any concern. There is no great attack there upon anyone’s liberty. In fact with regard to the earlier debate about the purpose clause the substituted clauses pick up exactly what was intended. In clause 5 subsection (2) of section 22A which is about preventing persons from engaging in unauthorised street or drag racing states: “A person must not without reasonable excuse intentionally pour . . .”—it covers that aspect —“any other substance likely to cause a vehicle to undergo loss of traction.” Again subsection (3) states: “A person must not without reasonable excuse operate a motor vehicle on a road in a manner that causes the vehicle to undergo sustained loss of traction unless the operation of the vehicle in that manner is authorised by law.” 
Some of the issues that were raised earlier and are implicit here are ones that should not cause any sound right-thinking person any problem with regard to the retention of one’s personal liberty or one’s person. So I speak on behalf of New Zealand First to give further support to Part 2. Again I express my surprise living and working in the Northland district as I do where the ACT party has some support and had support at the last election to find that ACT opposes this bill. I believe that its supporters particularly those in Kerikeri would be quite shocked at ACT’s extreme liberal no-care attitude in respect of an issue that in our district has caused great concern and needs an appropriate remedy such as this bill intends. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (NZ Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I wish people in the Chamber would debate the parts and stop making pathetic political points. I would like the Minister of Transport to stand and answer a question I have. It relates to Part 2 where section 96(1A) in clause 8(2) states: “An enforcement officer may seize and impound or seize and authorise the impoundment of a motor vehicle for 28 days if the officer believes on reasonable grounds that a person—(a) operated the vehicle in a race or in an unnecessary exhibition of speed or acceleration on a road in contravention of section 22A(1);” then goes on to talk about loss of traction. I would like the Minister to answer whether this provision relates just to those people whom this bill identifies and defines as boy racers or whether it will be applied to anybody who is exceeding the speed limit. Obviously if one is exceeding the speed limit one is exhibiting speed or acceleration that is not authorised. 
This is going to catch everybody. There may be people in this Chamber who have never broken the speed limit but I will be honest and say that I have and I have had speeding fines and I have paid them. I have accepted responsibility for those because I accept the upholding of the law. I have given in gracefully—not without a bit of grumbling I must admit—and I have paid them. I challenge anyone to say they have not broken the law in terms of breaking the speed limit whether or not they have been caught. 
What does concern me—and I would like the Minister to stand and answer this—is whether this legislation will apply only to those people whom people in this Chamber dislike because they think they are bogans or hoons or thugs on wheels or whatever; or will also apply to people like my mother who is 82 who received a speeding fine the other day too and paid it. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Was she in a race? 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: She could be called a “Go-Granny-Go” but she could not be called a boy racer. Seriously though this is an important issue that needs to be addressed. If the police have the ability instead of issuing people with a speed camera fine which is the normal course of events at the moment to go further and take their vehicles off them and impound them for 28 days then have them prove that they were not breaking the law before they can get their property back that brings me back to this issue of compensation for property rights. If these boy racers do have their vehicles impounded for 28 days just because an officer believes on reasonable grounds that they were breaking the law—it has not been proven in court; it has not been shown that they were breaking the law that they committed an offence—if they have their property taken off them then they go through the system of proving that they were not breaking the law and they get their property back; who will compensate them for that breach of their property rights? Will we see increased claims against the State? That is the second question I would like the Minister to answer. Will this open the way for more action against the police and therefore against the State? 
If it does I think it is not too late for those who say they support this bill to pass an amendment. I must say that I think that National Party members would be surprised—those old codgers who are still alive who remember that the National Party was founded on the principles of individual liberty and respect for the law—[ 
Interruption 
] When was the National Party founded? The member cannot answer. I wonder what those people think now when they see that the National Party is supporting the Labour Party in terms of a person being guilty until proven innocent. 
I ask the Minister if he could take a call and answer those two questions: one whether this legislation allows the police to do away with prosecuting with issuing traffic fines and instead to use their discretion to take a vehicle— 
GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I would like to pick up on some of the points raised by Deborah Coddington because I think that she has identified a very serious point in the bill that the select committee seems to have failed to pick up. She talked about the clause that allows a vehicle to be seized and impounded for 28 days in certain circumstances. Clause 8(2)(1A) states that an enforcement officer may seize and impound a vehicle if the officer believes on reasonable grounds that a person operated the vehicle in a race or in an unnecessary exhibition of speed or acceleration on a road in contravention of section 22A(1). It does not just state a race but also an unnecessary exhibition of speed or acceleration and that is a very broad understanding of what we are talking about here. 
Section 22A(1) which clause 8 refers to simply states that a person must not operate a motor vehicle in a race or in an unnecessary exhibition of speed or acceleration on a road unless the operation of the vehicle in that manner is authorised by law. If a person is speeding clearly that is not authorised by law. If a person takes off from a traffic light a bit quickly and breaks the speed limit then he or she has broken that clause. According to the bill that person’s vehicle can then be impounded for 28 days. 
There is a limitation on this in section 96(9) of the principal Act inserted by clause 8 which states: “Nothing in subsection 1A applies to a person operating a motor vehicle in a manner that is authorised by law within the meaning of section 22A(4).” I know that the select committee was concerned to make sure that people engaged in legitimate motor races were not picked up by this bill and I think that is very good. However all it does is say that if a person is involved in a race or exhibition of speed authorised by law then that subsection does not apply. It still does not pick up on the point identified by Deborah Coddington which the select committee with all its consideration obviously did not pick up at all—that is that a person taking off from a traffic light a bit quickly and who breaks the speed limit can have his or her vehicle impounded by the police for 28 days. 
Members are saying: “Don’t be pathetic; the police will not do that.” Of course they will not do that to a member of Parliament or a lawyer in a BMW but when we listen to the rhetoric of members in this House talking about hoons and thugs and we think about the way in which this bill is deliberately designed to scapegoat a certain section of the population then undoubtedly those powers may well be used against certain sections of the population—not the ones who are the friends of members of Parliament in general but some sections of the population; the same ones who are targeted by the police in many of their operations. 
Once again let us remind the Committee that this is what was identified in terms of advice to the select committee. The advice to the select committee was that this bill breaches the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Some members in this House seem to think that the Greens are very quaint. We think that if we have a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act we should adhere to it. There is a quaint notion in relation to human rights—that we can take or leave some people when we choose to. 
The reality is that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is legislation based on international human rights conventions designed to protect the human rights and civil rights of people on this planet. This Parliament should think very very carefully before making an exception in this case when there is not a proven case that warrants that kind of activity. If we make an exception in this case what are we prepared to make an exception for the next time? That is what this Parliament has to come to grips with. 
We pass legislation knowing that we are contravening the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act at our peril. [ 
Interruption 
] I tell Lianne Dalziel that the difference with the breath-testing laws is that they relate to an offence for which there is no subjective test. If a person’s breath-alcohol reading is over the limit that is clear and if a person is driving while disqualified or suspended that is clear also. There is no question of subjectivity. If a person is guilty of one of the offences under this bill it is a subjective test and it should not be for a police officer to decide whether someone is breaking the law and then punish that person before his or her guilt has been established. 
The other point which I raised in the second reading debate is about who does a person who feels that he or she has been unfairly targeted by the police appeal to. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: The courts. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: To the police. I ask Clayton Cosgrove whether he has read the bill. That person would apply to the police. The bill states that that person should apply to the police. 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No and before I call the next member I say to members on the cross benches that it is a longstanding convention in the House that they do not interject across the cross benches because it muffles the microphone. 
BRIAN CONNELL (NZ National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Being a new member here I do not understand what you mean by the cross benches. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The cross benches are at the back of the Chamber. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Those ones that go across. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I thank the Minister for his help. I have a question for him so he should stay in the chair. People are tending to read this legislation or history backwards. District councils and city councils have bent over backwards to try to accommodate boy racers by providing off-street facilities. What has become very clear is that these hoons have very little interest in driving their cars in a dangerous way unless they have an audience. In fact the police in New South Wales report that the threat of impoundment has resulted in a reasonable uptake of alternative venues provided by clubs and local authorities. I think there is a message here for members of this House—if a deterrent is put in place if councils provide off-street facilities they may not be doing that in vain. 
I have a question for the Minister and it is not a question to try to trap him. As I was mulling over this legislation during dinner it occurred to me that I did not know what would happen if the impounded vehicle is leased subject to a hire purchase agreement or financed through a bank. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: It doesn’t matter. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Maybe the Minister could take a call and tell me why it doesn’t matter because I do not know the answer. Just how will that situation be dealt with? 
The second issue I would like to raise is that the police respond to public concern. That is where they put their resources. If they are overstretched at the moment it is because this issue has high public interest. If one thinks it is an issue just for urban areas it is not. This is an endemic problem that stretches from the deep South Island to the North Island. I have an email that I would like to quote from: “Vehicle noise pollution is becoming a very insidious problem nationwide. What on earth would a scrubby-arsed 1.3 litre car need a 150 to 200 millilitre tailpipe on a car other than to make lots of noise and be more of a damned nuisance?”. That is an issue of public concern and something that needs to be addressed. 
As I cast through the commentary on the bill from the select committee I note that it states: “We note the New Zealand Law Society and the National Council of Women submitted that if the police were resourced adequately and if they treated the issue as a priority the existing law would be sufficient to deal with the issue. However the police note that street racer activity tends to peak during the hours of darkness at the weekends when other more serious crime is also peaking.” The issue then is whether the police are resourced adequately. On reflection notwithstanding the commentary on the bill which I accept I was a party to I am not certain that they are. It might be something that we need to address in this Chamber to make sure that the police do have the resources to deal with an issue that has as I said become endemic. 
I said that councils have bent over backwards to try to assist these people to pursue a legitimate interest in drag racing and of course some have taken up that opportunity. Councils report that around 20 percent have taken up that opportunity. The bulk of the facilities though are left unused and particularly when this activity is peaking there is no one on these drag strips. They prefer to go to town harass people block off roads and cause huge problems. They destroy people’s quality of life. As I said before people have petitioned me in their droves to take action to do something about this problem. 
The commentary also notes that penalties imposed for these offences do not seem to act as a deterrent. People tend to get their fine deal with it at the police station and come out and wave it around as a badge of honour. Current law does not easily identify offenders. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 60 
Noes 54 
Motion agreed to. 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The question now is that Part 2 stand part. A party vote is called for. Just before we have the party vote can I remind members that we need silence during the taking of the vote. If members look at Speaker’s ruling 56/4 and Speaker’s ruling 8/2 in the Supplement to  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 they will see that silence is required. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think probably one of the things that brings issues of disorder to a head is when members feel somewhat aggrieved that the debate has been truncated. We are in the Committee stage and have already forgone the opportunity to debate this bill clause by clause. There is considerable dissent within the Committee amongst the parties. New material is being raised consistently. Nothing in the debate has been repetitive. For the record and for good order maintenance and discipline could you tell the Committee precisely how long we have spent on the Committee stage of Part 2 at this point in time. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member and refer him to Standing Order 139. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 97 
Noes 17 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8. 
ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9. 
Schedule 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I wish to bring members’ attention briefly to some amendments in my name which are in the immortal words of the Hon Stan Rodger minor technical amendments. They simply improve the schedule of the bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Before I call the next member I would like to inform the Committee that the debate on the schedule is very narrow. It is confined to the consequential amendments set out in the schedule. Members should not range over the contents of the bill except to the extent that these amendments are consequential to those provisions. The consideration of the schedule is not an opportunity for a summing-up debate on the bill. That happens in the debate on the third reading. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I have taken your advice and read Standing Order 139 which states that if the Speaker accepts a closure motion the question is put on the closure and decided without amendment or debate. Can I ask you Mr Chairperson to consider that many of the rulings given by Chairs and Speakers in the House are based on convention. One of the simple principles that determines how Committee stages are run is that the debate be allowed to continue in a timely manner and in a manner that allows the debate to be adequately aired. 
In the past Speakers and Chairs have deliberately not allowed the debate to be seen to be rammed through. They have exhausted the time available to ensure that all members have been given adequate opportunity to debate the clauses and the parts in a meaningful way. Can I once again ask you to consider that in future deliberations. We have had a very short Committee stage debate on Part 2. I would hate to think and maybe this is something that could be reflected on by yourself and Mr Speaker that we have now set a precedent by which future Governments that appoint Chairs and Speakers might seek to truncate Oppositions’ ability to debate bills. 
In the time that I have been a Government whip and an Opposition whip we have gone out of our way to ensure that the conventions are adhered to because their implications are great. I now see a debate that has been truncated and I suggest that the implications of that in terms of convention are quite serious indeed. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 As a member of now 4 years’ standing I want to endorse that concern because I need guidance on this. We have now had a warning from you in the Chair as to the relevance of debates on the schedule in terms that imply that in some way we were discursive repetitive or off the point. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The Chair is not creating any precedent whatsoever. This is the normal course and has been for quite a considerable time. I take the opportunity now to recognise that both members have made a contribution. I have heard what they had to say and I will take it into consideration. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I understand what you have explained to us. But the dilemma I have now is that with the feeling of dissatisfaction that I have and it has now been supported by the member from the ACT party— 
Sue Kedgley 
: And the Greens. 
RON MARK 
: And the Greens now have also expressed the same concern. I know that behind the scenes there are discussions and arrangements between the Government whips and the various Opposition whips and unofficial and informal agreements are entered into in the Business Committee but I have not been part of any such discussions. 
What I see right now is a situation that will lead to great dissatisfaction. If we are now to stick to the relevance of the schedule there is no opportunity for the new material that has been introduced to be addressed on either the Government or the divided Opposition side of this debate. It leaves one in the position in order to seek satisfaction of possibly recalling the Speaker because we in New Zealand First feel that our right to debate this issue fully and formally to a sensible conclusion has been rushed. To receive an arrogant response which basically stated “Read 139 and sit down” to my expression of concern is totally unacceptable if this is truly a House of Representatives and a democratic environment. I ask you to consider that and give me a sensible explanation before I am forced to consider my final option which is to recall the Speaker. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I will deal briefly first of all with one of the points raised by Mr Mark towards the end of his comments. The whole issue of urgency and any agreement about questions in the coming week was discussed by the Business Committee today. It was not informal or in any way unrecorded. The whip of that party was a party to those decisions and they will be recorded in due course. 
However having corrected Mr Mark on that issue it has nothing to do with the issue under discussion which in my view is the third occasion that the member has attempted to relitigate a ruling by the Chair. That is clearly a gross breach of the Standing Orders. He referred in a previous comment to the degree of contention surrounding this issue. The vote including the way his party voted on the previous motion shows that there is very little contention around this issue and I think his point verges on the extremely frivolous. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I do not require any further assistance on this matter. The acceptance of the closure is entirely a matter for the Chairperson to judge in each case. Members must not seek to relitigate the ruling on the closure any further. I say to members that they are getting close to being grossly disorderly. I refer them to Standing Order 86. 
DAIL JONES (Junior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am not referring to your ruling at all. I am raising a fresh point of order based on the inaccurate statements made by the senior Government whip about what happened at the Business Committee. I was present at the Business Committee. As far as I was aware the main things that were discussed at that meeting were first readings. Rushing this bill through the Committee stage was not discussed. I do not intend to take any further time other than to correct that incorrect statement. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member. I caution members that there is no need for the House to become disorderly. I think that everyone has had a fair go at making his or her point. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I seek clarification of your comments about the breadth of the debate on the schedule. I say that because it appeared to me that it could have been prompted only by a view about the debate on the earlier parts of the bill. ACT was the main subject of attack in that debate. We were not given an opportunity to address the substance. We address substance only and in the schedule there are matters on which we will be in a difficult position if the Chair is minded to take them as relitigation of earlier points because the form of notice in the schedule raises earlier points. 
The message I got is that we are not to be in a position to defend the statements that we made and that require elaboration because they simply became the subject of a political counter-charge. There was no attempt made by other parties to debate the issue. There was simply a torrent of abuse against ACT and its notional supporters. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member. It was an observation that I had made about the nature of the schedule. The consequential amendments will allow members to voice those issues so that does open it up a little bit. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 The schedule contains the machinery with which the police will impound vehicles. The form that the police officer will hand to the driver of the car will state among other things: “…you operated that vehicle in a race or in an unnecessary exhibition of speed or acceleration on a road in contravention of section 22A(1)…”. The person getting that notice will not have a clue what section 22A states. He or she will not have the faintest idea that it gives them some defence. The person getting that notice will think the police officer is saying “I seize your vehicle because I think that you accelerated unnecessarily fast.” How often is there any room for a debate about that? From the Green perspective anyone not on a bicycle is probably going unnecessarily fast or accelerating unnecessarily; any one who is driving an 8-cylinder car instead of a 4-cylinder car is probably using unnecessary force and power. 
What this does is put the police in the same position that they have been put in by being told to go out and get quotas of tickets all over the country. Instead of building their relationship with a vital section of the public—namely the most spirited young offenders; the sort of young people who are going somewhere whose hobby when they are young is to drive and work on powerful cars and who work hard—those young people will be getting a message from the police that says: “We want your car because you accelerated unnecessarily.” What we have here is legislation that is pure camouflage. In fact if those young people go to a lawyer they will find that the police cannot arrest them for that. 
There is a tear-jerking set of pleas about people going home and getting notices of deaths or injuries. Will the next thing that Labour attacks be people who go climbing or skydiving or people who smoke? It has already attacked the smokers. There are many many activities that are strictly unnecessary and it is quite within people’s individual rights to choose to do them. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Running commentaries are out of order. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: The justification for giving a notice under Part 2 should have been very straightforward: “You are endangering other people who have not consented to run that risk.” 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Please do not bring the Chair into the debate. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: The notice should have stated and I quote: “You are breaking the law driver.” The notice uses the form “you”; I have no option but to use that terminology. It should have stated: “You have broken the law. You have put others at risk.” But it should not be directed to people who have simply chosen to risk themselves because that is a right that every New Zealander with any spirit should be trying to protect. 
This is pitiful law. This is slogan law. It puts the police into a position in which the result can only be that another group is against them. This law is absolutely typical of the meaningless law that Labour promotes instead of dealing with law and order. This schedule should be amending the penalties for giving the fingers to a court order. This bill says that Labour regards the Attorney-General as a wally. This schedule allows seizure that the Labour Attorney-General has correctly said is utterly inappropriate and unjustified. What it does could easily have been done by enhancing the powers to enforce ordinary court orders to make sure that the police are tackling the people they are too scared of. How many really menacing folk will have their cars seized under this legislation? It will be the same as the people with menacing dogs; this Government will pass a law against dogs that really hits only the inoffensive—the people who volunteer to submit to the law. The really gross offenders—the people whom this Government sucks up to and curries favour with—will thumb their noses at this law in the same way that those people do who just do not bother to pay their fines under this Government. There are $457 million of fines owing. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 As the member of Parliament for Nelson I want to put on the record my support for the schedule. I invite the member who has just spoken to reflect on the practical situation in three areas of my own electorate in Branford Park—[ 
Interruption 
] Get a life mate! I just ask the members opposite to be a little more mature and allow a member to participate in the debate without being interjected on with smart alec comments. 
I invite the member who has just spoken to come to Branford Park and say that the police are able to confiscate a vehicle only when there is endangerment of life. I have a group of 300 people who live in that particular valley who time after time including this last weekend have put up with boy racers destroying their quality of life. I ask the member who spoke before me whether we have to wait until lives are in danger for those people to have peace of mind. If the people in the Matai Valley in Nelson wound up the noise of a stereo causing noise harm then the law of the land says that the police can remove the cause of that noise. 
Stephen Franks 
: This doesn’t touch it. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I tell the member that the noise is coming from the tyres squealing. I happen to know the practical effect of this. Mr Franks is incorrect. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I bring the member back to the schedule. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The schedule deals with the issue of the notice that is to be given to those motorists. 
Hon Member 
: Read the bill. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I have read it. I invite ACT members to come to Branford Park with the police who are dealing with the real practical situation. [ 
Interruption 
] I listened to the member with some dignity; why does he not just sit up and listen for a bit to a local member of Parliament who actually listens to his constituents and knows what goes on? 
Right now the police have tried their very best to deal with these problems. I have confidence that our police with the powers in this bill will be able to hit boy racers where it hurts—by serving this notice on them and taking their cars from them—because residents deserve to live in peace. I do not want them to have to wait the 4 6 or 8 weeks for the matter to go to a court hearing. Whether people live in Branford Park Victoria Heights or Waimea Road this Parliament has to err on the side of the law being in their favour. That is why I say that the provisions in the schedule are quite sensible. 
The second thing I want to say is that the Law and Order Committee did a good job. It made these measures align with the Summary Proceedings Act; that is provided for in the schedule. To me it is perfectly sensible to have the same set of provisions apply to boy racers as apply to drink-drivers and as apply to those who have their licences confiscated and repeatedly drive. It is perfectly sensible to put the boy racers on exactly the same basis. We should hit them where it hurts and take their cars off them. The notice that is provided for in the schedule is pretty sensible. I think they will get the message and that it will make the difference. I think it will need to be combined with some other local initiatives in each of our communities. It is not a magic bullet. It is not all of the answer but it is a large part of it. 
I challenge the ACT party. I appreciate its academic legal argument but those members should be practical. In the practical real-life situation out there in real world New Zealand these are the sorts of provisions we need for the police to be able to get on and do their job. 
The last thing I have to say is that I have great confidence in our boys in blue. [ 
Interruption 
] I have great confidence in him too; he is going to be a great Prime Minister. Unlike that party over there and unlike that member over there this party consistently backs the police. Those members are fair-weather friends. We back the police consistently because we have confidence in them. I know that they will use these provisions sensibly so that the communities in my electorate that have been terrorised by irresponsible boy racers will see them dealt to. 
Darren Hughes 
: Enjoy your retirement. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Long after that member has begun his! It is pity that members opposite do not want to address the schedule and the issue we are debating. They want to play political games. The reason I will be here long after that member has gone is that I focus on the job and on looking after my constituents not on playing silly political games. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I welcome the chairman’s comments about the wideness of this debate and his recognition that the schedule contains elements that should allow us to expand the debate into Part 2 in particular. I want to make one point. One of the things I like about this bill is that it restores to the men and women in blue who work on the front lines— 
Darren Hughes 
: Come on! 
RON MARK 
: It is a bit sad when young members come to the House and display their contempt and arrogance. Hopefully in time they will grow up. I hope the young man learns. Particularly when Opposition parties are trying to support the Government a little bit of magnanimity in victory is always a quality that is admired. Arrogance contempt and puerile behaviour are not. [ 
Interruption 
] There he goes; grow up young man! 
One of the things I like about this bill is that it returns to the men and women who police our streets one thing that has been lost over recent years—that is the ability to use a little discretion. Although some parties look at some of the wording in the schedule and in the purpose clause in Part 1 in particular and say that it is too broad and too vague I look at it in a positive sense and say that this bill gives some discretion to the police. I remember the day when policemen and policewomen had the ability to look at a situation and decide that it was high jinks or nonsense and that a kick in the butt and a twist of the ear would likely set a young fellow on a straight path. I thank the member on the other side for his nod; it is encouraging. Such treatment would set a young fellow on the straight and narrow again without blemishing his record. But we have got into template law and I have to say that our friends in the legal fraternity make their money out of defining each and every little aspect of law. That is how they make their money. It actually hamstrings the boys in blue. 
The Greens can say that it is a breach of human rights and I am pleased I am hearing that from them because it is consistent with what they always say. I will never agree with them but they are consistent. But what I like in this bill is the discretion that is open to an officer. If it is a flaw if members want to say that it opens the law up to vagueness and ambiguity well I would rather put my confidence in the men and women in blue to make the right judgment. 
I do acknowledge that the bill provides for the ability to appeal and to appeal further again if people feel they have been unjustly treated by the police. That is a good thing and I congratulate the Government and the Law and Order Committee on putting it in the bill. But I say do not chuck the whole bill out based on the belief that it is too vague. I welcome the ability for officers to look at a situation where a car has spun its wheels and gone away from the lights and say: “Well that’s just a person of a particular ethnicity who can’t drive and has actually dropped the clutch.” or: “That’s a hoon who is spinning his tyres to get away in a race.” That is the sort of discretion the police need on the streets to get common sense into law enforcement. I am pleased that it is there. 
The only thing I am not comfortable with I will put on the record now. I will support this bill going through the House but I will watch it. If in time I am not happy then I will come back to the House with amendments either via another bill or by amending the legislation when we are in Government. [ 
Interruption 
] I do not believe we should be confiscating for 28 days the cars of people who have offended three times. We should not impound the cars; we should confiscate them—end of story. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: If they do it twice in 4 years the car is confiscated. 
RON MARK 
: I understand it now. That is the sort of assurance I wanted. At the end of the day there are those people who continue to push the outside edge of the envelope and they never learn. That assurance has to be in there. I did not see it in the bill so if the member wants to take a 5-minute call and explain it to us all that would be very satisfying. The confiscation for 28 days and the $3000 fine are good things and the form seems to be fine and in that respect we will continue our support for the bill. But we will be watching over time. I will be listening to the cops. 
One of the things I do like about the form is that it is very brief. When I talk to police I hear too much about the endless forms they have to fill out keeping them off the beat for hours on end. The paper war is a distinct worry in the police force and it is good to see that we are down to something more manageable. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I would like to address my comments to the schedule and in particular to Part 2. I would like to begin by thanking Dr Smith for his contribution. He is always consistent when we are discussing these kinds of issues. He flagrantly and consistently has no regard for the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. He showed that with his attitude to the Local Government Act and he is showing it with his attitude to this bill. At least he is consistent and we should recognise that. 
Dr Smith invited us to go to Branford Park to check out the hooning that is happening there. Once again at the risk of boring the Committee I remind the Committee that there is adequate legislation available right now for policing this kind of behaviour. It is called the Transport Act and it includes charging people with reckless or careless driving. Dr Smith said that he could not wait for the courts to make a finding that a vehicle should be confiscated there and then. But what he was talking about is summary justice. If we cannot allow ourselves to wait for the proper procedures of law to take place for a person to be found guilty of an offence before being punished for that offence then we are sadly lacking as a Parliament. 
This bill puts all people at risk not just hoons or whatever name we want to use to scapegoat these people. If we look at Part 2 of the schedule at the form that will be given to people when the police are seizing and impounding their vehicles we see that it reiterates what we saw in Part 2 of the bill—that is if an officer believes on reasonable grounds that a person has operated a vehicle “in an unnecessary exhibition of speed or acceleration” he or she can and will confiscate the vehicle. The words “unnecessary exhibition of speed or acceleration” are very telling. We have been told repeatedly that this bill is about safety and protecting people but when we look at the reasons that are given for confiscating a vehicle we see that there is nothing about safety there. There is nothing about protecting the public. It is about an “unnecessary exhibition of speed or acceleration”. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Which is unsafe! 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: It does not state “unsafe”. That member should read the bill. It states “unnecessary exhibition of speed or acceleration”. It does not state “dangerous speed” or “dangerous acceleration”. It simply states that if people break the law and they accelerate unnecessarily the police can confiscate their vehicles. As I have already said it is not only certain members of the public who are in danger of being caught by this; the bill potentially puts everyone in danger. 
Ron Mark talked about the need for the police to have discretion. New Zealand First is a party that talks about one law for all but what he was talked about was the ability to have one law for some and one law for others. That is not acceptable. 
I would like to reiterate the comments made by my colleague Stephen Franks. He made some very good points. Once again he made the point clearly that this bill is not about safety or protecting the public; it is about creating powers for the police that can be used in draconian and unnecessary ways. Also let me reiterate that if the police are concerned about these kinds of behaviours they should use the powers available to them under the Transport Act. Those powers allow someone to be charged they carry jail sentences as their maximum penalties and they allow the courts to confiscate vehicles—not just impound them. But this Committee is saying that it cannot be bothered with judicial process with evidence or with the need to prove a case. It would rather give the police the ability to impound a vehicle without their having to prove their case to anyone because all they need is reasonable grounds to believe that someone has broken the law. That is entirely inadequate. 
Who do people appeal to? They appeal to the police. They appeal to the body that confiscated their vehicles in the first place. How can we expect an impartial consideration of the fairness of that impounding? 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (NZ Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I again address the schedule of this bill. I ask the Minister in the chair to show us where in this piece of legislation it deals with repeat offenders. I cannot see it anywhere. 
I add to that that Dr Nick Smith should go back to the 300 people in his electorate he talked about who say they welcome this bill and tell them to be very very afraid. If people speed they will no longer run the risk of just being fined; they will run the risk of having their cars taken off them. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Nonsense! 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: It is absolutely not nonsense. If the Minister looks at the schedule she will see that the notice advises the driver: “I am seizing and impounding ... the motor vehicle ... for 28 days because I believe on reasonable grounds ... you operated that vehicle in ... an unnecessary exhibition of speed or acceleration”. The only condition on that is that it was speed that was outside the parameters of the law. There is nothing in this bill that directs it to boy racers. Lianne Dalziel said that was nonsense. She may well remember when a Labour Minister said “Take the bikes off the bikies!”. There is nothing in this piece of legislation that protects people from not being simply fined for breaking the speed limit but having their vehicles taken off them and impounded. When I asked the Minister of Transport to take a call to explain where in this legislation it protects those people he did not take the call and he did not explain. I presume from that that there is nothing to protect those people. The National Party in its haste to pass this legislation is prepared to let this schedule go through that extends the powers of the police to such— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Be tough on law and order! 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: I am tough on law and order. I am tough on people who break the law. I do not agree with extending the powers of the police to people who they “believe” might be breaking the law. That is the crucial difference. It is an essential piece of liberal democracy that people are innocent until proven guilty and this legislation makes people guilty until they can prove themselves innocent. Under this schedule—in the notice under the heading “ADVICE TO DRIVERS”—the police just have to say in effect: “I’m impounding your vehicle because I believe I have reasonable grounds to believe that you have used unnecessary acceleration or speed.” 
While we are on the subject of unnecessary acceleration and speed I note that Clayton Cosgrove can show very great acceleration in speed when he is running away from television cameras. 
Hon Member 
: Why was he running away from the television cameras? 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: He was worried about his secretary. The Attorney-General has alerted this Parliament to the fact that this schedule is in breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Either the Government’s own Attorney-General is wrong or her colleagues are wrong. Both cannot be right. Some of us in drafting laws take the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act into account. We may not agree with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act but we do not flout the law just because we think it is wrong. But this Government is absolutely flouting the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act with this schedule. I say to all those people who are so happy to give the police more powers that the ACT party and the Green Party were the only parties that moved to reduce the powers of the police in the Local Government Act; all the other parties were happy to increase the powers of the police. I say to those members that they will have to explain to their constituents when they go to them and say: “Because of this schedule—the notice giving advice to drivers—I’ve had my car taken off me for 28 days. I can’t get it back and I haven’t even been convicted of anything.” 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 Mr Chairman— 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairman. My colleague Ron Mark won the call but I make this request with the good nature of the Committee. An interaction occurred between Mr Mark and Mr Cosgrove about a vehicle being confiscated in the event of there being more than one offence under a 28-day notice. A substantive very reasoned point has been raised by Mr Mark; I think it is reasonable that Mr Swain the Minister in the chair Mr Cosgrove or one of the other Government members provide some explanation rather than us just simply rolling on. I ask a Government member to take a call and provide some explanation. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No. It is up to the Minister or the member to reply if they so wish. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I thank the Hon Dr Nick Smith for that comment. I did take the opportunity to confer with the Minister and with Mr Cosgrove. When one goes back to the original bill as drafted one sees that it was very prescriptive in terms of offences and the sentences that might have been available to be used by the judiciary. 
What does get a little confusing is that when one reads through Part 1 of the schedule one sees that it specifies the amendments to the Sentencing Act. That legislation is a timely jogger because it serves to remind us how far we have progressed with some of the land transport safety law and gave me cause to go back a little further and remind myself of what happened in 1998. Many of the Acts we are now using to supplement and complement this legislation are ones we have passed previously and that is what I was reminded of. So I say to the Committee is it not curious how far we have come? 
I congratulate the Labour Party—I really do. The heart and soul of the effectiveness of this bill lies in the ability within the schedule of the police to be able to impound vehicles. That is the deterrent. That is the punitive measure. The next step for those recidivist offenders who just cannot get their heads around it and learn from the first time is to confiscate the vehicles sell them and recover that money into the coffers. It might help ACT party members to know that those outstanding fines they have talked about all through the evening might in some way be addressed through the sale of those confiscated vehicles which belonged to the recidivist offenders who could not get it into their thick skulls that burning out at McLeans Island is totally unacceptable and will not be tolerated any more. But we would never have got to this point without the Labour Party—or at least without elements of it—accepting that this bill is necessary. At this point in time it is timely to remind the Committee of how far that party has come because on 5 November 1998 the Labour Party voted against the impoundment of vehicles. That was legislation put up by New Zealand First. 
Clayton Cosgrove does not know how far he has moved his party. Senior Cabinet Ministers who have passed over him for positions of higher authority higher salary and all the perks and privileges voted against the very principles he advanced to this Parliament. That says a lot for the member. It also says a heck of a lot about his senior colleagues who gave countless speeches—they are in the  
Hansard 
 volumes I have here—and on 5 November voted against the Land Transport Bill which gave provision for the impounding of— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Tell me why—read it out. 
RON MARK 
: The Minister who is so highly paid can stand take a 5-minute call and tell us all the reason. I will just point out that the Ayes were 72 and the Noes were 48. Labour voted 37 against the bill the Alliance voted 10 against the bill and some other chap by the name of Kirton voted against the bill. It was the passing of that bill that finally gave the police the powers to impound vehicles and now we are going to the next logical sensible step in respect of hoons boy racers clowns and idiots on the road who would burn up their tyres and create public nuisance and public disturbance. 
Once again I thank Mr Swain the Minister and Clayton Cosgrove for pointing out that the Sentencing Act contains that area but maybe the Minister would like to stand and take a call merely to clarify for us all and again help the Committee to understand why Labour voted against the impounding of vehicles in 1998. Lianne Dalziel is obviously very upset by the whole thing despite the fact that she voted against that bill. It would probably help us all to become a little more enlightened once again. I know what the  
Hansard 
 record says but if there is a new modern-day reason Labour members should feel free to tell us what it is. 
STEVE CHADWICK (NZ Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put 
Ayes 60 
Ayes 54 
Motion agreed to. 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Hon Paul Swain to the schedule be agreed to: 
to insert after the expression “36A(1)(a)” in the paragraph relating to the Summary Proceedings Act in Part 1 the expression “and (2)”; 
to add after the expression “22A(1)” in the paragraph relating to the Summary Proceedings Act in Part 1 the words “ and by that act or omission causing an injury to or the death of another person”; 
to insert after the expression “36A(1)(c)” in the paragraph relating to the Summary Proceedings Act in Part 1 the expression “and (2)”; 
to add after the expression “22A(3)” in the paragraph relating to the Summary Proceedings Act in Part 1 the words “ and by that act or omission causing an injury to or the death of another person”; 
to insert before Part 2 relating to the Land Transport (Offences and Penalties) Regulations 1999 the following item: 
insert in Part 1 of the form after the words “ADVICE TO DRIVER” the words “OR OPERATOR”; 
to insert after paragraph (b) in Part 2 relating to the Land Transport (Offences and Penalties) Regulations 1999 the following item: 
insert in Part 1 of the form after the words “THE VEHICLE DRIVEN” the words “OR OPERATED”;  
to insert before Part 3 relating to the Land Transport (Ordering a Vehicle off the Road) Notice 1999 the following item: 
insert in clause 12 in Part 2 of the form on page 17 after the words “against the person who drove the vehicle” the words “or operated the vehicle”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 97 
Noes 17 
Amendments agreed to. 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8. 
Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
that the schedule as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 97 
Noes 17 
Schedule as amended agreed to. 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8. 
ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I might be too late but I have been looking at the legislation in respect of— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No—I am reporting now. 
RON MARK 
: Regarding the legislation dealing with impounding vehicles I noticed that the Greens and ACT voted for it last time. I wonder whether they are confused. Maybe they might like to recast their votes. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is not a point of order. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Third Reading 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I move  
That the Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. Sometimes Parliament comes together in a united way and does the right thing and it has done that today. Sometimes Parliament acts to address a public concern and does the right thing and it has done that today. Sometimes there is a practical solution to a social problem and today we have found that solution. I think it is good that the House has shown incredible common sense by enabling this legislation to move forward. 
The bill needed some leadership and it had that from Clayton Cosgrove the MP for Waimakariri. We do need somebody who is able to take up an issue bring it to the House and steer it through. He has done that and we should all be thankful. A bill like this needs community support and that has been demonstrated up and down New Zealand. Of course it also needs Parliament’s support and it got that by and large from most parties. The great exception during the evening was the grand coalition between the ACT party and the Green Party—the coalition made in hell. The “New Liberal Party” is what I think it could be called. There was probably too much psychedelic puha drifting across the cross benches and it has got in the way of some clear thought from the ACT party. As far as the Green Party is concerned I note that it parades itself around as having philosophy and principle—and the Greens do have those qualities. There is no question about it. But sometimes the Greens are going to have to work out that there are competing rights to consider when one comes to this House. It is not always about the rights of the criminal. The victims and the people who go about their normal daily business in New Zealand have rights too. Sooner or later the Greens will have to wake up and find out that sometimes we have to do the common-sense thing. Sometimes we have to support victims of crime as well. If not the Greens will continue to stay on the fringe and be recognised as a bit of a “loony tunes” around the edges and they will never get beyond the 5 or 6 percent polling that they currently have. 
I come now to the ACT party members. What an extraordinary performance from them! In May last year before the last election Ken Shirley supported the introduction of this bill. Not only did he support it but he fulsomely said that ACT supported the introduction of this bill. He said that ACT welcomes tougher measures to deal with illegal street drag racing and that indeed this bill is in keeping with ACT’s campaign—wait for it—for zero tolerance of crime. Now less than 12 months later Mr Franks and Ms Coddington have come to the House and said that they are opposed to the bill. Ken Shirley who I always thought was a more sensible common-sense down-to-earth kind of person has been rolled by a couple of liberal lawyer types who want to talk about legal niceties. They want to talk about outrage presumably because lawyers are not going to get such a good deal out of this bill and they want to go on about the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It is all in the waffle in the ether and it is part and parcel of this new-look liberal ACT Party. What it shows is that the ACT party is in absolute meltdown. It cannot sort out how many people it is voting for and it cannot work out where its electorate offices should be based. ACT is a party in meltdown and its performance tonight will be shown. There is going to be some great interest when we start mailing out the speeches made by Mr Franks and Ms Coddington to ACT supporters. 
Stephen Franks 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I understand that this is the debate on the third reading of the “boy racer” bill. I have not heard any reference to it or about any provisions in it for some time. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for raising that point. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I was simply pointing out that ACT supported this bill when it was introduced to Parliament and talked about zero tolerance. Those members from the ACT party who spoke to oppose the bill walked away from it and from zero tolerance. There is no question about that. That is why they will not be around this place for much longer and I say “good riddance” to them. This bill is a very very good bill. I congratulate the House. I also want to congratulate the United Future party because it was the party that pushed for progress on the bill and I want to give it some credit for that. I particularly want to congratulate the MP for Waimakariri Clayton Cosgrove who went into an area where no one had ever been before did the hard yards did the work and came up with legislation that Parliament has supported. I urge its continued support through the House. 
BRIAN CONNELL (NZ National—Rakaia) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to be able to speak on the third reading of the bill. I say for the record that I am proud to be a member of a select committee that was prepared to stand up and do the right thing—to deal with a problem that is endemic across this country and is causing distress to tens of thousands of New Zealanders. 
I find it ironic that the ACT party which says it is the party of zero tolerance would not support this legislation. That party has let its supporters down. [ 
Interruption 
] Labour members cannot escape this either. In November 1998 Mr Swain and some of his colleagues voted against impounding vehicles and now he is standing up and grandstanding. Politics is about integrity. I am confused however about the Greens and ACT coalition. I have respected ACT in the past and I still do but with this small exception—because ACT is generally a party of integrity. I am not surprised about the Greens one little bit. 
I want to acknowledge the part that Clayton Cosgrove played in dealing with this issue because he put politics aside and dealt with a governance issue. He raised the debate to a level where New Zealanders and their concerns came first and I respect him for that. However I think it only fair to point out that the legislation was dramatically redrafted in the select committee and the members of the select committee should also take a pat on the back. 
I also acknowledge the part that my colleague Gerry Brownlee played in getting this bill on the Order Paper. If it were not for his ability in the House to take the issue head on I doubt that it would have got this level of support. 
The legislation is well considered. It was modelled on the New South Wales legislation and it works. I am glad that we have taken the time to learn from it. I am not saying for a moment that we can pick up legislation from someone else’s country and impose it on ours as a model but at least we took the key components of that legislation. Now there is something with which we can say to the people of New Zealand who are concerned about boy racers and loutish activities: “Here is something for our police to grab hold of so that they can enforce the law.” Our police have been telling us for some time that if we want the issue dealt with we should give them the legislation that will allow them to do something about it. 
I am not concerned about the civil libertarians who stand up and say that we are using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I say to them: “Tough!” The people of New Zealand have had a gutsful. They have petitioned me and other members of this Parliament in their droves saying: “Please help us. Please deal with this problem so that we can sleep in our beds at night and are not disturbed by this loutish behaviour.” The people of New Zealand want to be able to sleep in their beds without being concerned that their property is being damaged. As law-abiding citizens they do not want to be concerned that out of utter frustration they will have to take the law into our own hands. It is a problem that stretches the length and breadth of this country and I am proud to say that I was prepared to stand up with colleagues in this House and deal with the issue. I am just dumfounded by the actions of ACT. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: So is the nation. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: In my view on this issue they have every right to be. I have made the statement before and I am going to make it again: the Government needs to accept that it has dragged its feet on this issue. In particular Dr Cullen displayed arrogant disregard for tens of thousands of New Zealanders who were desperately concerned about their standard of living and about this loutish behaviour. They asked through me whether the Government could bump this bill up the Order Paper. Dr Cullen’s response was to say no which tells me and those people that he was absolutely out of touch with what is happening across New Zealand in respect of this issue. It is something that we needed to deal with. Thankfully my colleagues and I directed people who approached us back to Dr Cullen by phone or email and to be fair to Dr Cullen—I give him the benefit of the doubt—he has responded in a positive way and that is why we are now debating this bill under urgency. The issue though is that people have since died and that probably did not need to happen. 
Boy racers are not just 18-year-old thugs. Generally they are aged from 25 to 30. Their life savings—and their student loans as someone has added—are invested in the vehicles they have throbbing under their bums and the only way to deal with this loutish behaviour is to hurt them by taking away their vehicles. If that sounds tough then I say: “Too bad!” This is a problem that the people of New Zealand are just not in a mood to tolerate any longer and we are prepared to stand up and help them. The life savings of these boy racers are invested in their vehicles and the evidence from what has happened in New South Wales and other jurisdictions across the globe is that if we want to add a real deterrent that will make these people take notice then we need to impound their vehicles. Taking away licences and giving fines does not take the cars off the road. The loutish behaviour continues and no one is better off. 
A huge number of submitters came to the select committee and in overwhelming numbers they said: “Please help us.” District councils city councils and members of the public said: “Please help us.” Nick Smith has already spoken of some. I could mention people in Ashburton and West Milton in particular and people in other centres around Auckland. The Manukau City Council was frustrated to the point of distraction. It has bent over backwards trying to do innumerable things to give these people an outlet to express their passion for their vehicles but it all came to nowt. Do members know why? Those boy racers were not concerned about driving vehicles; they were concerned about upsetting members of the public being more than a nuisance and engaging in criminal activity to a point where they were driving people to distraction. People going about their lawful business were stopped on roads at 2 or 3 o’clock in the morning and could not get through. The congestion caused by hundreds of people gathering was more than just a public nuisance—it was horrific. People feel threatened. People have died. How much more do we need to take before the issue is dealt with? That is why my colleagues in the National Party are quite clear about what our duty is around this issue. We have listened to the people of New Zealand and we are prepared to take action. Accordingly the National Party strongly endorses this legislation. 
I would like to finish by saying that I acknowledge the way that members of the select committee worked together to deal with an issue that is of critical importance to people right across the country. I also want to say that generally I respect the way that the House has dealt with this issue this afternoon and evening. Despite hiding behind technicalities it gives me hope that we are prepared to stand up and do the right thing. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 New Zealand politics is seemingly no longer a line from left to right but a circle. Who would have imagined the Greens and ACT together! That ACT wakes up with the Greens in its bed should have alerted it to just how wrong it was. Could anyone imagine Deborah Coddington and Nandor Tanczos in agreement about anything let alone a position against the rights of the law-abiding against the demands of the police and against ACT’s supposed law and order priority? Ranting by the Green-ACT double act about people being innocent until proven guilty flies in the face of preventive policing. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act has been dredged up time and time again but whose rights are we talking about? It has been mentioned once or twice in the House that the rights of the public who have every legal right to be on the road and the rights of the boy racers themselves—whose health we are trying to protect and whose deaths we are trying to prevent—are part and parcel of this issue. They take precedence over the property rights—and nothing more than property rights—that the ACT party in particular is trying to uphold. 
If people look like they are about to commit a crime that should be enough for us to jump in and prevent it. Is the “ACT-Green Party” suggesting that we wait for the body to drop before we do something about it? The Greens have suggested that the law is not the issue; it is the resourcing of the police. It might come as a surprise to the Greens but no matter how well-resourced the police are it is the laws that dictate the rules of the game. I suggest that members spend a night in a squad car and see the kinds of things that the police have to deal with night after night. Those who place the rights of these thugs on wheels above the rights of the community the law-abiding and responsible drivers—like ACT and the Greens seem to do—are not the ones who will be there to pick up the pieces. That will be left to our hospitals our police and the families who lose their loved ones. When we put property rights first—car property rights—before the rights of people as ACT seems to have done we have lost our way. 
The demand for this bill comes not only from the police who are sick and tired of being undermined by inadequate laws but also from communities that are fed up with living with excessive noise abusive behaviour and smoke from burn-outs—to say nothing of the injuries and death that accompany illegal drag racing. It is endemic. That is why there has been a call for action. The ACT party which has stood as the party of influence and zero tolerance for crime is now joining its new-found “buddies” the Greens in opposing a bill that has the capacity to prevent the crimes associated with these thugs on wheels. It will have a deterrent effect and allow communities to reclaim their roads and save lives. 
We will support this bill and we will support it speedily. We again thank Clayton Cosgrove and both National and New Zealand First for their efforts. We thank the select committee which put teeth into the bill and ensured that the initial idea from Clayton Cosgrove was brought to fruition. Let us hope that this bill saves lives. That is its importance and its significance and that is the reason we want to see it passed now. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 It has been a very interesting evening. I guess that is the great thing about having a bill come in and the House being able to go through each stage immediately and wrap it all up in an evening because we actually see the whole thing played out over a matter of hours. There is a great deal more satisfaction seeing that than having things dragged out over weeks at different sittings. This whole bill has been great. 
What is the need for this bill? Why is it here? It is here because frankly New Zealanders across the country have said “Enough!” It does not matter whether we are talking about the problem up in Auckland in Tauranga in Hawke’s Bay in Nelson in Christchurch or in Gore—and by crikey we do not have to think too hard about Gore and the loss of life we have seen down there—the problem of boy racers hoons and street racers has been with us far too long. There is no more tolerance for it—end of story. People want it resolved and Mr Cosgrove has brought the matter to the House. 
In the third reading I need to give the Minister and his Cabinet a bit of a flick around the ears because it is sad and an indictment on the Labour Party and the Labour Government that it took Gerry Brownlee forcing the issue by a motion to the floor to have Clayton Cosgrove’s member’s bill brought forward to No. 1 on the Government Order Paper. Otherwise we would still be sitting here talking about the bill and wondering when it was going to be passed. Regardless of all the rhetoric about saving lives and the number of people killed maimed and injured this Government sat on its hands for over 2 years happy to see the bill languishing in the lottery draw with the member being a good party member very frustrated and wondering why he was not getting the backing from his tough-talking Ministers on law and order. That should not be forgotten but it is history and the bill is here today. Why is it here? It is here because people like myself who own property in the McLeans Island area in the same area as Brian Connell’s constituents have had a gutsful of the antics of boy racers and their illegal activities on the road. 
I want to talk about the issue of pouring diesel on to a road. There is a corner out the back of McLeans Island at the intersection of McLeans Island Road Buchanans Road and a gravel road called Miner’s Groyne. That corner is a sweeping corner and with these people running illegal burnouts at that corner it was only a matter of time before the diesel that had soaked into the road and mixed with a downpour of rain was going to cause an accident—and it did. Days after the burnout activities a lady going through that corner lost control of her car and went into the fence. Did I see the Greens out there championing her right to be allowed to drive down that road safely? Did I see the Greens out there saying that that lady had the right to drive on New Zealand’s roads in wet conditions without having to worry about some bunch of hoons who had tipped diesel on that road and removed the traction she depended on to manoeuvre safely round that corner? No I did not see that. What I see once again is the same old rantings and ravings about the individual rights of a minority bunch of lawbreakers over the collective rights and responsibilities of law-abiding New Zealanders. 
Excuse me but clearly I have something wrong here because I do not agree with that argument. I believe that the collective responsibility of us as a community of New Zealanders rides right above individual human rights. I do not give a rat’s bottom about that sort of argument. I do not care about it I do not want to hear about it I do not want to know about it and I do not want to have any part of people who would stand up and champion the human rights of a bunch of lawbreakers over the collective rights of a law-abiding community. I think everyone who lives on Buchanans Road and McLeans Island Road and who frequents Miner’s Groyne has the right to go about his or her business. 
Many years ago—we are talking 1992—my son and his mate were out at our property for an overnight camp. One of those young lads has since done two tours of East Timor so they have grown up a bit. But they were very young then and we were a bit worried about them so I gave them a cellphone and told them that if anything happened that they were not too happy about and they wanted to come home they were to give me a call. They gave me a call that night all right because there were something like 100 cars full of young people at that intersection no further than 400 metres away from where they were camped ripping the place apart acting like a bunch of dopeheads boozing up spinning their wheels blocking the road and generally being rowdy disorderly New Zealanders. 
Stephen Franks 
: Having fun. 
RON MARK 
: Having fun says ACT. They were burning up their tyres on the road disrupting the traffic flow stopping law-abiding New Zealanders from driving down the road and terrorising two young boys who were just out on a quiet overnight camp. They were having fun says Stephen Franks. 
Stephen Franks 
: Did you ring the police? 
RON MARK 
: No I went out and picked them up and took them home. The point is that we have a bill here now that defines that they were breaking the law. They were operating their vehicles in a manner that sustained loss of traction; they were performing stunts and clownish acts and when this bill is passed that will be illegal. Now they will be prosecuted and I am happy with that. 
I raised the issue earlier of the inconsistency of some people’s debating positions and I have to bring the House to  
Hansard 
 Volume 572 at page 12941—the Land Transport Bill dated 5 November 1998. How ridiculous! In this bill we debated in this very Chamber such things as the police being empowered to impound a motor vehicle for 28 days if the driver is apprehended driving whilst disqualified. 
Brian Connell 
: How long? 
RON MARK 
: For 28 days. Impounding a vehicle at the roadside for 28 days but what have I heard? Let us go to the back end of this debate at page 12960. 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: Who voted for it? 
RON MARK 
: New Zealand National; ACT New Zealand; New Zealand First; United New Zealand one vote—something went wrong there because there are more of them around so we must fix that up sooner or later; Independents—there were a whole bunch of them including the Greens. No? We have New Zealand National ACT New Zealand New Zealand First—oh no the Alliance which had the Greens in it in those days voted against it and Labour voted against it. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I have to assist the member. Jeanette Fitzsimons and Rod Donald voted for it. 
RON MARK 
: Oh look there they are; they are listed as “Others”. Rod Donald and Jeanette Fitzsimons voted for the impounding of vehicles at the roadside for 28 days. Is life not a wonderful thing? Here we now have the Labour Government a party that voted against that measure proposing that we expand that law to catch hoons and riff-raff who want to boy-race and the Greens who voted for it are now voting against it and ACT who voted for it is now voting against it. I have to say to Jeanette Fitzsimons that her name is right here on page 12960. Did she change her name? Is it still Fitzsimons? It is. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: There is a big difference between the two bills. 
RON MARK 
: It clearly states the confiscation of a motor vehicle for 28 days. That member should not come to me crying crocodile tears about human rights violations and the inconsistency of this bill with the Human Rights Act when she the co-leader of the Greens voted for the very same sort of legislation in 1998. There is a word for that that I cannot use in this House but people out in the street would say it has something to do with bovine excreta. 
I offer congratulations to the MP for Waimakariri. It has been a long hard battle but he got the bill through to the House. The bill will be passed and in time enacted. Congratulations also to the chairman of the Law and Order Committee Martin Gallagher. He did a good job and it is noticed across the House that he is able to work with people. Can he educate some of his young members about working with people? Could he help impart a little maturity to some of them? I say to the ACT party that we are looking forward to its explanation in the next speech of how one can jump from the right side of the bed to the left side and end up in bed with Jeanette Fitzsimons and the Green Party. I am looking forward to hearing that. 
Debate interrupted. 
Voting 
Correction 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Before I take the next speaker I want to refer to a matter here. It is a correction to the vote and I have to report to the House that in the Committee stage of this bill on the question of the closure for Part 1 quite some time ago the result was announced as Ayes 60 Noes 47. It should have been Ayes 60 Noes 57. 
Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Debate resumed. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (NZ Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 As the chair of the Law and Order Committee I will not take long to if one likes finish the job. I pay tribute to Marc Alexander and Georgina Beyer as the deputies and to all the other members of the select committee. Brian Connell has made a very good contribution to this debate as have other members. I think we worked well together. Nandor Tanczos made some implications about our sincerity. I do not for one moment question his sincerity. I believe that he has been consistent on this bill and I respect that. The committee was very sincere in wanting to get a solution to what is a very very serious community problem. However what I do question—I am stunned and shocked and still cannot quite believe it—is the absolute double back-flip somersault forward-flip of the zero-tolerance ACT party which now opposes giving the police more power. I say that yes we do want to give the police more power. We want to give the police more power to make our roads and our communities safer. 
Finally I acknowledge former mayor Russ Rimmington from my community for his leadership. It was good to see that he was recently given a Queen’s honour. He led this issue in Hamilton. I also acknowledge the motel owners and the other members of the community who came to me. I also pay tribute to Clayton Cosgrove who did great work on this bill. Sir Barry Curtis gave an impressive submission to the select committee. I only wish that Stephen Franks and the other ACT members had been there to hear that submission. Give the police more powers? You bet if it is going to make the community safer! 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The next call from ACT will be shared by two speakers. A 5-minute bell ends the contribution. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I am proud to stand and oppose this extremely bad legislation which is nefarious in what is actually breaking the law in this bill. I am also proud to represent a party that does have strong principles on law and order and zero tolerance of crime. That means zero tolerance of criminals; it does not mean total disregard for the courts which is what this legislation is doing. 
Every time we have a debate under urgency we see an incremental breach of individual rights. We saw it with the Local Government Act 2002 in which the police were given greater powers under that Act than they have under the Misuse of Drugs Act. It was only Stephen Franks who managed to insert some curbing of the powers of local authorities and the police by reference to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in that Act. 
Ken Shirley said over tea that he was happy to be mentioned in dispatches but he wanted to point out that yes he did support the introduction of this bill as no doubt many members opposite have often supported the introduction of a bill and its going to a select committee so that the public can have their input. That does not mean to say that one supports it all the way through. It has never been an indication that one would support a bill all the way through. 
He said in relation to his quotes that we need to get tough on those motorists who pose a danger who drive recklessly and who are unsafe drivers that he has absolutely no problem with that. But that is not what this bill is doing. This bill does not deal with people who cause death. We already have legislation for people who cause death and injury on the roads and I have no problem with impounding the vehicles of those people which is what Mr Ron Mark rather mischievously referred to. 
There is a total difference between someone who has had his or her licence revoked or cancelled and someone whom the police believe is breaking the law. They have not been convicted. We are not concerned with the rights of criminals. We are not talking about just criminals here we are talking about people who have not been convicted and that is the big problem that we have with this legislation. There is a difference between impounding the vehicles of disqualified drivers and impounding the vehicles of those who look like they might be about to break the law. 
Dr Cullen once said to me—people go on about the left and the right—that on issues of individual liberty often the left and the right converge. I know that there are individuals in both parties who are uncomfortable with certain aspects of this legislation because they know as I do that this is a stalking horse for increasing the powers of the State. I have no problem as I said with dealing with those people who break the law. But this legislation first does not deal with repeat offenders as has already been highlighted by Mr Mark and second does not distinguish between those people who are breaking the law and those who are not breaking the law. They are all dealt with under the same legislation. 
I bring it back to the words in the title—we should always be very careful when we say that those who are innocent have nothing to fear from legislation. That phrase was much used in certain parts of Europe in the 1930s. Doughnuts on the road—reckless and dangerous driving—are against the law. Excessive speed is against the law. Unauthorised racing on the road is already against the law. These are the people we should be coming down heavily on with the legislation that we already have in place. We should be giving more resources to the police and more numbers to the police so that they can deal with that. We should uphold the courts. We should not disqualify people’s fines and let them off the collection of $18000 in fines when they have breached the law just because they are unemployed and cannot pay it. That is what zero tolerance for crime is about. It is about making youth accountable for what they do when they break the law not putting them through endless family group conferences where 2000 out of 40000 get rapped over the back of the hand with a wet bus ticket. I say again to all those people who support this law what will they say to their constituents when they say instead of getting a $500 speeding fine which was bad enough “I had my car taken off me for 28 days. At the end of the 28 days I proved that I wasn’t actually breaking the law. Now who is going to compensate me for that confiscation of my property?” 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I believe that my colleague Deborah Coddington put it exactly as it is. ACT supported the impounding of vehicles of disqualified drivers because as an objective fact a driver is either disqualified or not. There is no excuse for driving a vehicle if one is disqualified. It is perfectly appropriate and consistent with policing for convicted criminals to have their vehicles taken. What we now have is a law that pretends to say and encourages the police to think that they can impound a car for someone who is accelerating unnecessarily. Can someone please tell us again? Accelerating unnecessarily! Anyone in a V8 is doing that. People could have a four-cylinder car. The United Future party says that this is preventive policing. That was a phrase that the Gestapo quite liked: “We are arresting you and giving you a little bit of torture because you were thinking about being bad.” 
What this does may seem trivial to those who want to throw things like rights of victims rights of the public and references to deaths but when there are deaths we have very longstanding law about liability for deaths. We have law about careless driving. We have law about speeding. We have law about all the elements that are concerning people. What we do not have is any commitment on the Government side to enforce existing law. What we have is a great rush to pass new law every time there is a bit of criticism because that is much easier than putting on a few policemen to enforce existing law. It is much easier than collecting fines. It is much easier than getting rid of a youth justice system that tells young people that they can be insolent with impunity. 
We know what this does. This is a sham. This is slogan law. It does one new thing. It says that putting oil on the roads is now an automatic offence. All the rest only work if there are other offences already being committed. It is an absolute sham to say that this deals with wheelspinning. It does not. People can wheelspin all they like up to 50 kilometres an hour. It does not deal with drag racing. People can drag race all they like up to 50 kilometres an hour—unless of course they are involved in dangerous or careless driving in which case they are already culpable. It does not deal with burnouts as long as people stay within 50 kilometres an hour if they are in an urban area or 100 kilometres an hour if they are outside the town. It does nothing about boom boxes I tell Dr Smith. It does nothing about trashing of parks. It does nothing about private property. It does nothing generally about enforcing the existing law. 
So ACT knows that this does not get us a single vote. ACT does not come to this legislation in the populist way that parties that are willing to be utterly insincere about the law do. We oppose this because we stand for law that works and this does not. We stand for law that means what it says. In fact it is very hard to know whether any member in this House even has a clue what it says because none of them even bothered to refer to it during the debates at any stage. I do not think that any member supporting this law referred to any of the words or attempted to deal with the legitimate questions or arguments of ACT. 
We oppose it because we stand for punishment for crime not for upsetting a policeman or for giving a policeman room to attack a person because he or she has an unnecessarily powerful car and can unnecessarily accelerate. We stand against this law because we are tough on crime not on breaches of etiquette not on the clothes people wear or the size of their mufflers—as Mr Martin Gallagher suggested or was it Mr Connell they sounded the same? We are tough on personal responsibility and accordingly we oppose law that is simply a slogan. We are tough on lawbreakers and driving while disqualified is lawbreaking. We think zero tolerance should mean exactly what it says that there should be a consequence for every crime not bulk discounts not wiping off of fines not community work that has no work and does not do anything for the family not family law conferences that do not involve any families and do not mean a thing. We are tough on this because we think that the police should be upheld and supported in enforcing existing law. 
When Parliament rushes through in one evening the stages of a bill that are supposed to be separated by Standing Orders by enough days for a little bit of prudent reflection possibly even a bit of embarrassment when members hear their own speeches then we believe that that law can be supported. In this case it is a scandal. 
STEVE CHADWICK (NZ Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I rise to support this bill. I have listened to the speeches in the House. I have to say that when people have got passionate and strayed off the patch here they have all talked about young people. That is one thing that has made me quite sad in that young people are being stigmatised by this bill. I think what councils have to do—and we have to take great caution—is consider the needs of young people with the enaction of this bill which I do support. I think councils need to look to their youth policy and give young people a place to go where they can have fun. 
I support this bill because I am an electorate MP and I have had many people come to me really concerned about what is happening on the streets down at the lakefront on high-density roads and it is for that reason that I support this bill. I would never stigmatise our police either who were looking for an excuse to take people who know what they are doing on the roads away from them. I am proud to support this bill. It has not been rushed through. It has taken 3 years since it was first introduced. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I would like to begin my speech with an apology to Martin Gallagher. Apparently I questioned his sincerity and I certainly did not intend to do that. I would just like to give him my apologies. I do question his judgment on this issue but not his sincerity. 
I make the point that has been made before: that this bill is being rushed through the House under urgency—urgency agreed to by the United Future party. That shows a real lack of regard for the basic democratic process. The House does need urgency from time to time. It needs extended hours now and then so that we can deal with some of the backlog of legislation that builds up. The Greens have been known to give the Government urgency now and then as well but only for one reading at a time of a bill. To ram poorly thought-out legislation through all the remaining stages—the second reading the Committee stage and the third reading—under urgency is a travesty of the parliamentary process. As Stephen Franks has said that does not allow Parliament to properly scrutinise and consider a bill and does not allow us time to reflect. Perhaps that is why Ron Mark likes ramming legislation through under urgency so much. 
This bill is poorly thought-out and is unnecessary. Of course the bill will pass this evening but the inability of its supporters to argue their case in a rational fashion and their reliance on personal abuse put-downs straw arguments and generalisations has proved to me beyond all doubt that the bill is ill-conceived. Maybe the supporters of the bill just do not quite understand what it states. It certainly seems to have been easier for the supporters of the bill to put up a straw argument to say the opponents of the bill are saying something and then to demolish that argument than it has been for them to grapple with the issues that have been raised. 
I have not yet heard a supporter of the bill deal with the issues—the real problems—that have been raised both by members of the Green Party and members of ACT. The supporters of the bill have been reduced to saying that if people do not like road deaths they must support this bill. That is a pathetic argument. No attempt has been made to address the issues and no answer on those issues has been forthcoming from the supporters of this bill except derision and ridicule. It is interesting that there has been more comment about which parties are opposing the bill than there has been about the arguments they have put forward. For the benefit of those who have not quite grasped the issues I will reiterate some of those concerns. I challenge the supporters of the bill to stand up and refute these arguments. 
The first concern is that the bill is unnecessary. As Deborah Coddington has said very clearly all the offences covered by this bill are already offences under the Land Transport Act. The police already have the power to charge people for all those behaviours. Far from the police only issuing an infringement notice as has been put forward so often by members of this House the courts have the ability to both jail people and confiscate their vehicles when they have been found guilty of an offence. The difference between that power and the provisions of this bill is that under the current Act they have to be found guilty of an offence. Some members of this House want to do away with judicial process; they are not worried about having to prove guilt. But some of us do find that a serious issue. The Law and Order Committee stated that the only limitation the police have on the use of their current powers is the inability to identify offenders. This bill will not address that. If it is difficult to identify an offender at present it will be just as difficult under this legislation. 
The second concern is that the bill is an unwarranted breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Ron Mark clearly has not listened to the debate on that. Again he has put up specious arguments. He said that the Greens were inconsistent in supporting the impoundment of vehicles driven by disqualified drivers but as has been pointed out a disqualified driver is guilty of a quantifiable and clear breach of the law. Under this bill we are talking about someone having his or her vehicle impounded simply because an officer believes that the person has committed an offence. 
Brian Connell 
: We trust the police implicitly. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: Mr Connell says he trusts the police to get that right so why do we not just do away with all our courts? Why bother with the courts at all? Let us just say we believe that someone has committed a theft so we will lock that person up without needing to prove his or her guilt. That is the implication of the member’s arguments and it shows just how specious and flawed that position is. 
Brian Connell 
: No defence in the corporate fraud. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: I would like to ask Mr Connell what he and his National colleagues would say if we removed the necessity to prove guilt or intent in cases of fraud or breach of trust. In cases of corporate fraud what did the member say then? Would he have the same disregard for the same basic principles of justice and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act? No he is shaking his head. We are seeing a double standard in this case. 
The third point is that the bill is dangerous because the provisions are so broad as to be ridiculous. Again it has been mentioned numerous times that a police officer can impound a vehicle because that officer believes on reasonable grounds that a person operated it in an unnecessary exhibition of speed or acceleration. As has been pointed out by the ACT party what is an unnecessary exhibition of speed? 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Clayton Cosgrove running away from the television cameras. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: I think he would probably consider that very necessary. The bill has the potential to be used to target people who should not be subject to the quite serious consequences of having their vehicles impounded. In a country where public transport is so pathetic and where many people are reliant on their personal transportation to work and earn an income that is a very severe penalty for someone who is just suspected by a police officer of having committed an offence. That is one of the most problematic issues—OK an officer believes that a person has committed an offence. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: They see them with their eyes. They use video cameras and take pictures; wakey wakey. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: Clearly Mr Cosgrove does not care what the bill states. He has not read the bill. He is not concerned about what it states; he is just concerned about what he thinks will happen. The bill states that if an officer believes on reasonable grounds that an offence has been committed he or she can confiscate the vehicle. It does not state that the officer has to see the offence being committed or to videotape it. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: It sounds like Nazi Germany. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: Exactly. One of the most problematic aspects of the bill is that a person who has been unjustly deprived of his or her vehicle has to apply to the police. If someone thinks a vehicle has been taken unjustly he or she has to apply to the police. So the people who took the vehicle off that person in the first place are to be the people who will adjudicate as to whether that person’s vehicle has been unjustly impounded. One has to question what chance those people will have. To my mind it is just inconceivable that Parliament is seriously considering passing this kind of legislation. In the unlikely event that the police do find that a vehicle has been unjustly impounded by one of their members and they return the vehicle who will pay the towage and storage costs? The bill is silent on that. We have to assume that the aggrieved party—an innocent person who has had a vehicle taken off him or her for no good reason and had that vehicle towed or impounded—has to pay for the privilege— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: $160. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: Obviously Mr Prebble has had more recent experience of that than I have. However that sounds like something out of the movie  
Brazil 
. We are to charge people for the privilege of having their cars impounded by the police all because when the media created the hype about boy racers the police were caught with their pants down because they had done absolutely nothing about boy racers. Instead of the police saying that they would put more resources into that issue they said that they would need more powers. As I have already asked when did the police ever say that they had plenty of powers and we should take some away? That just does not happen. The police’s response to any criticism is that they need more powers. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: It’s a bit of a worry; you’re talking sense. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: I thank Mr Prebble. That is a rare compliment from him. I reiterate to the House that this bill is unnecessary unwarranted and dangerous. I finish my speech by expressing the forlorn hope that members of this House will have some sense and oppose this bill. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise in support of this bill. I join my colleagues who have spoken previously in congratulating Clayton Cosgrove on the effort he has put into this bill. I also congratulate my colleague Martin Gallagher who has done a lot of work along with Mr Cosgrove with local government leaders throughout the country. 
Like most members of the House and a large number of the members of the community I am very grateful to the ACT party for showing its true colours. We should all be grateful for the dazzling display of policy acrobatics that ACT has shown since the earlier statements of Mr Shirley’s that were quoted so accurately. I do not think that anyone who saw the television coverage in the last couple of days of extraordinarily stupid dangerous and inconsiderate behaviour—uncharacteristically of course in Christchurch—would have any doubt that this bill will provide a really useful deterrent enabling the getting rid of and modifying of totally unacceptable behaviour. I commend the bill to the House. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 National supports this bill as a matter of principle. 
Stephen Franks 
: Which principle is this? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I tell Mr Franks that it is a very simple principle. I shall tell members what it is. The principle is that the right of people to live in peace is more important than the right of people to hoon. If Mr Prebble wants to take a call he is free to do so. However I want to go systemically through each of the six points raised by Mr Tanczos and to comment on them. 
The first point raised by Mr Tanczos was that the bill is unnecessary. He is wrong. I have been out in my community with the police and the neighbours who put up with the nonsense of the hoons who are disrupting communities up and down New Zealand. People do doughnuts and wreck public parks and are out there disturbing the peace through the squealing of the wheels of their cars and the Greens and ACT say the law is adequate to deal with that at the moment. I say it is not; it is not working. Some members here in the Chamber want to believe that the police are hopeless and that Parliament has the law right. I do not believe that. I believe that we are providing legislation that is indeed necessary. 
The second point made by Mr Tanczos is that under this legislation one is proven guilty before one gets to court. Somehow there is the absolute pure view that we cannot do anything until such time as the courts rule. Members should hang on a minute and remember we have a law that states a person can be arrested if there is reasonable cause. That is a lesser test than that provided in this bill. Then we go to the issue that a person can be locked up before he or she is found guilty by a trial. The ACT party says we should not give people parole; it says they should be locked up even though they have not yet been found guilty in a court of law. Why is that? Mr Franks takes the extreme silly view: the sort of immature view that either it is all absolutely one position or—I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Mr Richard Prebble has been continuously interjecting and I think the Standing Orders prevent that. I was challenged by Mr Tanczos to go point by point through his speech. I allowed him to make his contribution without that sort of interjection. I ask to be given the same right that he had. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I take the point. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: The member said to the House that I should take another call. Of course the House knows that the ACT party has used its call. If the member directs personal remarks to me then of course I will reply. If the member would stop making such an inflammatory speech then of course—[ 
Interruption 
] The member is saying that people should be put in jail without court cases and he then expects members to sit in the Chamber quietly. Would any Parliament put up with that sort of rubbish? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Is not that contribution from Mr Prebble interesting? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I have to dispose of that point of order first. I will not take it any further. I thought that the volume of the speaker’s voice was so great that he was enjoying the debate—and I am sure he is. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I apologise to the member for interrupting his speech. I thought that now would be a good time to do so; I did not want to interrupt the member in mid-flow. I make the point that the pronunciation of my name is Tanczos. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I just want to make this point about Mr Prebble: he could not be bothered to get himself down to the Chamber to participate in any part of the Committee stage of this bill but he is happy to shout another member down. I say this House should be able to expect better than that. 
This Parliament has to be practical. Just as Parliament is practical when it comes to people who are charged with serious crimes and allows our police to lock them up until such time as they have a trial so we need to be practical in exactly the same way on this issue. That is why National supports those provisions of this bill. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Joe Stalin! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Oh Stalin! Well let us hang on a moment while I ask—and this is the key point—whether it a great loss for a hoon to have his or her car locked up. Is that somehow Stalinist? Is that not interesting? I refer Mr Prebble to 5 November 1998 when we had the legislation that provides for the confiscation of people’s cars because a police officer on the side of the road has found out that they do not have a driver’s licence. That has not been proved in a court of law. Where were ACT members on 5 November 1998? They were in the Ayes lobby then; they thought that was a good idea. So I do not know what sort of principle the ACT party has now found that states it can accuse us of Stalinism. Is that what ACT was up to in 1998? 
Then we come to the big issue that was raised by Mr Tanczos about the loss of cars. Somehow that is a great crime. But let us hang on a moment because this bill states that someone can go to court the very next day and challenge the decision of the police by saying that they took that person’s car unfairly. The very next day he or she can go to court and challenge the police on that matter and I say that that is a sensible practical provision. That deals with that great injustice that the ACT party and the Green Party have made so much of. 
Then we are told that this bill is all about the media. Well was it the media that got 150 people out in Branford Park just over 9 months ago? Was that just because of the media? Maitai Valley in the Nelson region has a population of 200 and over 100 people turned out there for a public meeting because they have had a gutsful of their neat community being disrupted by those sorts of hoons. That was not a media creation but happened because the problems that hoons have caused are a real issue for the people of that small community. 
This legislation is a matter of balance in terms of relative rights. I say that the loss of a hoon’s car for 28 days is not as big a loss as the peace and quiet that communities should rightfully be able to have. I said earlier in my speech that there were matters of principle and consistency. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: We are waiting! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I ask Mr Prebble again: how come he could not contribute in the Committee stage? 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I was here. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Why did the member not contribute? 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I did by interjection. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Oh that is the level of integrity that we have from the ACT party; Mr Prebble wants to pip-in pip-out but he cannot contribute to the debate. I ask which parties have been consistent? Do the Opposition parties just get up and oppose things for the sake of it? No National and New Zealand First voted for the legislation in 1998 that provided for the confiscation of cars. Where was the Labour Party including Martin Gallagher and Phil Goff? They were in the Noes lobby. We had speeches then from Labour MP after Labour MP running the sort of argument that we have heard from ACT about the purity of not taking cars off people. Why has Mr Gallagher changed his mind on that? Well those members throw their hands up in horror; they have no idea why they have changed their minds—no idea at all. I say again that at least the people of New Zealand can rely on consistency from the National Party which puts the argument of law and order ahead of other things. 
As part of the report back of this bill there was also the report back of a petition. I want to put on the record my thanks to Bob and Cathy Bowley from my own area who collected hundreds of submissions and who came to the Law and Order Committee hearing at their own expense to support this bill as part of getting a sensible change made in the law. 
The last point that has disturbed me relates to what some parties believe of our police. I have great confidence in the integrity of the men and women who serve in the New Zealand Police almost without exception—but they are human. I find the way the police conduct themselves to be one that every New Zealander can be proud of. I have seen those police officers—sympathetic to the views of my constituents who have their sleep disturbed night after night and who find their park ripped apart by hoons every weekend—struggle to try to deal with that. I have seen a huge amount of taxpayers’ resources disappear as the police try to contain that problem. The difference in this debate is between those who trust the police and those who do not. I trust the police. I believe that they will use the powers that this legislation provides responsibly to confiscate cars from hoons who do doughnuts squeal their wheels and ruin neighbourhoods and that they will ensure that the citizens who live in the neighbourhoods where that occurs have the right to live in peace. 
EDWIN PERRY (NZ First) 
: 
 Shall we get some common sense and some professionalism into the presentation? I want to refer to the bill again. [ 
Interruption 
] I will have some words for Mr Prebble later. The commentary on the bill states: “Growing concerns about street racing activities relate both to the destruction caused by the activity itself and associated crime. These events often involve large numbers of people both participants and spectators who occupy areas of road for the purpose of performing unauthorised high speed races and dangerous stunts such as ‘burnouts’ and ‘doughnuts’. … Local councils and residents report that the damage and disruption caused by street racers is significant including damage to roads signs and street lights as well as excessive noise and health issues particularly distress and lack of sleep. There are obvious safety concerns due to the nature of the activity the large number of spectators and the likelihood of loss of control on the road”. 
We heard tonight from our fellow MP Paul Adams about drivers picking up speed then releasing the clutch at high speed. Once the vehicle has travelled over the substance that has been poured on the road the driver can lose control of the vehicle which then makes its way over to the spectators on the side of the road. Also the vehicles with unmodified brakes and suspension are not up to road safety specifications and that causes problems as well. Vandalism graffiti drunkenness and litter are also problems. The current laws are not adequate as the Law and Order Committee has recognised. The commentary on the bill states: “The Police report that their existing powers do not appear to have been adequate in dealing with the problem of unauthorised street racing and associated activities.” As the commentary on the bill also notes research indicates that the so-called boy racers come from middle-class or affluent families and can afford to own expensive high-performance vehicles. As was mentioned this afternoon vehicles worth up to $80000 are currently being used in that activity. 
The commentary further states: “As a result a number of members of Parliament namely Ron Mark MP (NZ First) Hon Ken Shirley MP (ACT)”—that party is now voting against the bill—“and the current chair of the committee Martin Gallagher MP have liaised with authorities in various Australian states to obtain a better understanding of the comparative problems experienced in Australian jurisdictions and the success of legislative measures taken in those jurisdictions.” I say to Mr Prebble that I am mystified as to why a member of his party went on that trip to Australia and why ACT is now voting against the bill. 
Opposition Member 
: Probably to learn from it. 
EDWIN PERRY 
: The member may have but the  
Hansard 
 that was read out today by my fellow MP Mr Ron Mark states something different. The commentary states that the original initiative to address the problem of unauthorised street and drag racing in a bill came from Clayton Cosgrove and I congratulate Mr Cosgrove on bringing the bill to the House. I finish by saying that New Zealand First supports this bill. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: No one’s complaining. You speak for your whole time. 
EDWIN PERRY 
: I say to Mr Prebble that during the election campaign ACT presented its “zero tolerance” law and order policy outside Mount Eden Prison. Now ACT is going against it so I am sure that ACT supporters will be mystified at its stance on this particular bill. I am mystified by the Greens’ stance but we cannot expect anything else from them. What can we expect from someone who has problems wheel-spinning his skateboard and plies himself with a substance so he can be effective? 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (NZ Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I thank the House for the privilege of the final call. We have had a very interesting debate tonight and I thank those Opposition parties that have made throughout the whole process over 3 years a very constructive contribution to facilitate this bill. I also thank the United Future party which only lately came into the House; it actively promoted this bill last week to get it up the Order Paper. 
I turn to the ACT-Green coalition. I listened to the contributions of Ms Coddington Mr Franks and Nandor Tanczos. It was very interesting that none of them have had the time to go out—or if they did they never mentioned it—with the police on the streets to see what happens. Mr Franks who is a bush lawyer expounded all night on high-minded theories of what might be happening to our communities but he did not go out with his local police to see the carnage that occurs on the road—the carnage that occurs when a family member is killed. 
Stephen Franks 
: Why don’t you do something about it? 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I have done something about it—we are doing it now. Before Mr Tanczos of the Green Party made his first contribution to the debate I asked him to say something about the victims like the victim in Christchurch who was killed. I asked him to say something about the families who grieve when a family member is killed as a result of these hoons. There have been many such deaths throughout New Zealand. Mr Tanczos failed to do that. He bleated about human rights and about civil rights. I agree with human and civil rights but they go both ways. I repeat what I said in my opening speech: the innocent who have been injured or killed as a result of these hoons have civil rights. [ 
Interruption 
] Maybe we ought to get the breathalyser out for Mr Prebble. He should shut up and stop disrespecting those people who have died as a result of hoons. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That comment is grossly out of order. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I am still speaking on my point of order. That comment by the member is grossly out of order. I know he is withdrawing and apologising but the sort of speech he is making is ridiculous. I draw to his attention that under his argument we should ban beds. Most people die in beds. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I withdraw and apologise. I want to address a couple of points made by ACT party members. One is their calling the police commissars. I will not say any more than that insult; I think we dealt with it on both sides of the Chamber. Also Mrs Coddington tried to compare a death resulting from a legal activity such as rock climbing with a death resulting from the illegal activity of street drag racing. I do not think that adds up. 
I think we have done something in this bill—and many speakers on both sides of the Chamber have repeated this—that the community wants us as MPs to do. I am new in this place and I do not have the knowledge of other more senior members. But one thing I do know is that in our communities and in our electorates this issue is hot. People have said that they want this bill to go through and the parties have in large part reacted well. In a bipartisan way they have put the politics aside forgotten about who thought of the bill and refined the bill as the deputy leader of New Zealand First said— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I said “rewrote it.” 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Yes with some new ideas too. That is a good thing because it proves that the select committee process works. The shame tonight is that certain parties have not listened to their communities or to the overwhelming view of New Zealanders the experts the police and the Ministry of Transport. They have decided to make political capital out of this issue. 
My objective when I drafted the bill was to save lives and again I thank people like Senior Sergeant Geoff Kenna of Rangiora who found the New South Wales legislation; Hugh Hanna who worked tirelessly on the issue and gave great advice from the Ministry of Transport’s point of view; Ian James of the police and others; and George Hawkins and Paul Swain the respective Ministers. 
Parents and family members who have lost loved ones through this activity have telephoned me and they wanted something to be done. I was out with a television camera crew on Saturday night and one of the television people said to me that she was petrified because her daughter was 14 coming up 15 and coming up to getting her licence. She wanted this bill to go through so that it sent a clear message to her daughter that that sort of behaviour is unacceptable. She did not want her daughter to be part of the body count. 
I conclude by thanking the various parties for their assistance and contribution. Unlike some members most members of Parliament have taken this issue very very seriously and want to see it resolved. I agree. I do not think this bill will be a panacea or a total 100 percent solution but it will go some way to solving the problem. If it saves one life or one innocent person from being injured then that is good. If it changes behaviour then that is a good thing. If it stops one white cross from appearing on a lamppost somewhere around the country then that is a good thing. I thank this House for its indulgence and for the cooperation from most members—there have been a few exceptions. I thank the Ministers and the officials for their assistance. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Associate Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I will be very brief but I think it is a matter that needs to be corrected in the House. The impression that has been left by several speakers this evening is that Labour voted against— 
Dail Jones 
: That’s not a point of order! 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: It is a point of order. The Assistant Speaker will determine whether it is a point of order. The issue is about Labour’s vote in 1998 against the impoundment provisions. We made it very clear at the time that it was not about that. We supported the bill. The vote was about the issue of licence costs. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No that is not a point of order. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 97 
Noes 17 
Bill read a third time. 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8. 
ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9.