Burns Brendon: Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill — In Committee 
Burns Brendon: Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7247] 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I am very pleased to speak on the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill in the Committee stage. I wish to make it clear that Labour supports this bill. The point we are trying to make in this debate is that the purpose of this bill was to toughen existing legislation that Labour introduced in its attempts to deal with the problems created by boy racers. 
The Minister of Police in her introductory remarks talked about the need for behavioural change—not the need to be vindictive but the need for behavioural change. I have to ask what behavioural change we will see from boy racers who are smart if somewhat ill-tempered people at times— 
Hon Members 
: Aw! 
BRENDON BURNS 
: —and nasty even; nasty! If we go through a process when they have swapped their registration with their mates where the first offence brings an “ooh-ooh” warning then another offence takes place and another wet-bus-ticket warning arrives and finally on the third offence there is a possibility that a judge may order the crushing of a car. What signal does that send to that boy racer? I do not think it sends a signal at all. When we are dealing with potentially 10 cars being crushed every year nationally and my city of Christchurch makes up 10 percent of the national population does that mean I ask the Minister that we will see one car crushed every year in Christchurch? What effect and what signal will that truly send when we have hundreds and hundreds of boy racers out on any given weekend around the avenues of Christchurch. Is one car being crushed a year supposed to create behavioural change? 
That is why I support the Supplementary Order Paper from my colleague Clayton Cosgrove. I really believe that as a Parliament we are looking for an attempt to toughen the existing legislation. It is acknowledged that the legislation that is in place currently allows confiscation of cars on the second offence but for some reason or other known only to judges that does not seem to be happening as we believe it should be. Our Supplementary Order Paper simply says that a notice goes out to whoever owns the car be it the mother or the mate of the offender saying that if the offender does it again the car is gone. There is no second offence warning; the car is gone. It is confiscated and the car is either sold or it is dismembered and sold for parts. 
The other point to remember about crushing as we acknowledged in the commentary accompanying the bill is given we have a problem with fines being paid by boy racers who will pay the cost of crushing? Who will pay the fines? I ask who will pay all of the costs involved. If the car is sent off for crushing which will end up turning it into a metal cube of no real residual value who will pay? That is why we are putting forward a Supplementary Order Paper in a genuine attempt to acknowledge that this bill has a number of good measures that pick up on the legislation introduced by the previous Labour Government to try to deal with the menace of boy racers. 
We say let us not talk tough; let us truly get tough. Let us say to boy racers that if they are caught for an offence that can see a car being confiscated they get one warning and on the second offence that car is gone. It is “gone-burger”; it is history. I think that if the Minister is genuine in saying that she wants to see behavioural change rather than taking some sort of vindictive approach or seeking a photo opportunity this amendment will effect much more behavioural change because there is no second chance. With regard to cars that are owned by mates or mums when that first notice comes through the letterbox and says that this guy has done it and the car is history if it happens again I think that will truly effect some behavioural change on the part of the people who own the cars. 
We are saying as an Opposition that we support the bill. We want it to go further and it deserves to go further. We do not want to see this matter back before Parliament again. That is what we want to see and we will support this legislation.