Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4567] 
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.