Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) : I move, That the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill be now read a first time. This legislation happens on an annual basis. It is, in fact, designed to bring together a number of matters that need to be dealt with by the House by way of confirming or validating provisions of other bills and regulations. At the conclusion of the first reading debate I will move that the bill be referred to the Regulations Review Committee, with an instruction that the bill be finally reported to the House by 23 November 2009.

This is a routine annual bill to confirm and validate items of subordinate legislation that, in accordance with the confirmation and validation provisions of the Acts under which the various instruments are made, lapse at stated times unless earlier validation is achieved by Act of Parliament. This is what we are setting out to do. This year, the bill provides for Parliament to confirm, or validate and confirm, 20 Orders in Council and one set of regulations made under 10 separate Acts. To avoid the subordinate legislation lapsing, this bill must be enacted by the end of 2009. The report-back date of 23 November will allow time for the select committee to receive explanations on the contents of the bill from the departments that administer the various orders and regulations, while still leaving time for the bill to be passed through its remaining stages before the end of the year.

Two of the 13 Orders in Council apply to movements of consumer price indexes and relate to the Social Security Act and to New Zealand superannuation and the war pensions of New Zealanders, effective from 1 April 2009. There are several Orders in Council made under the Customs and Excise Act 1996. Three of these Orders in Council involve rates of excise and excise-equivalent duties, with two applying movements in the CPI to duties on alcohol and tobacco products and one providing for an increase in the duty on motor spirits. Another three of the orders under the Customs and Excise Act continue prohibitions regarding the import and export of toothfish, and the importation of specified offensive weapons and motor vehicles with inaccurate odometer readings, or, in fact, no odometer at all.

The seventh Order in Council under the Customs and Excise Act continues export prohibitions of specified goods such as unprocessed pounamu, which is also known as greenstone, and all toheroa, and introduces controls on the electronic transfer outside of New Zealand of specified software and technologies and of goods and technologies that may be intended for end-users contrary to New Zealand’s interests. These Orders in Council are made under the Tariff Act 1988. One of these restructures the breakdown of the tariff relating to certain alcoholic beverages. The other two remove or reduce tariffs, and make changes to the new biofuels tariff structure as a result of the New Zealand - China Free Trade Agreement.

Seven of the Orders in Council deal with commodities levies. Six of these replace similar Orders in Council and impose levies relating to milk solids, non-proprietary and uncertified herbage seeds, passionfruit, satsuma mandarins, summer fruit, and wheat grain.

Hon Darren Hughes: What’s the difference?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Taste. These Orders in Council are voted on by the respective industry participants themselves. Each levy is payable to the industry organisations in order to finance activities of benefit to the industry. One of the Orders in Council made under the Wine Act 2003 also provides a commodity levy in relation to non-grape wines. One set of regulations covered by the bill is made under the Animal Products Act 1999. Amongst other things, it increases the export processing levy on lamb, bobby calves, goats, sheep, cattle, and horses, and before my learned friend asks the question, again it is a matter of taste. Only the aspects of the regulations imposing levies are confirmed by this bill.

Finally, one of the Orders in Council increases certain rates of road-user charges under the Road User Charges Act 1977. I commend the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill to the House.

Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) : The Labour Opposition will be giving its full support for the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill. As Mr Brownlee has said, this is a bill that is required once or so a year in order to give effect to regulations that would otherwise lapse. The general policy statement in the bill reads: “The bill confirms and validates certain subordinate legislation that, in accordance with confirmation and validation provisions in the Acts under which it is made, lapses at a stated time unless earlier confirmed or validated by Act of Parliament.”

This is a technical measure. It will be referred to the Regulations Review Committee, as is proper, to make sure that the respective clauses do indeed set out to do what the House requires. We will be supporting its passage through the House this afternoon. Thank you.

RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) : The Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill is the type of bill that is probably of most interest to lawyers. In essence, this bill is all about confirming or validating specific orders and regulations. It is often all about the issue of timing: without the passage of further legislation, the provisions of certain subordinate legislation would no longer be valid. Today’s bill is a mixed bunch, in more ways than one. There are orders to amend the commodity levies for passionfruit, summer fruit, and satsuma mandarins. There are prohibition orders around exports and imports, around toothfish and tobacco, and a set of fees, charges, and levies around animal products. There is an indexation for alcoholic beverages, and the non-grape wine levy. In short, there are all the ingredients here for a party, and I am not talking about a party of the political variety. This is where the Māori Party has a particular interest in the regulations and validating provisions that are under debate.

Let me look in particular at the impact of this legislation on the excise duties for tobacco products. I have spoken before in this House about the concerns I have around the overuse and misuse of substances such as alcohol and tobacco. I come to this from a number of sources. As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints I am of course influenced by the Word of Wisdom code of health that we practise, which tells us to avoid substances such as tobacco and alcohol. It is a personal position that sits very comfortably alongside the policy position we are advocating within the Māori Party.

The facts are overwhelming. Just a month ago the Ministry of Health told the Māori Affairs Committee that Māori women have the highest prevalence of smoking of any group, at 49.3 percent, followed by Māori men at 41.5 percent. The ministry also reminded the committee that young Māori are more likely to smoke than other young people, and that second-hand smoke exposure is higher amongst Māori than non-Māori. As a walk amongst our family urupā would tell us, tobacco is the leading cause of preventable death amongst Māori and is known to cause cancers, heart disease, strokes, and respiratory illnesses. Of course, it is not just those with a cigarette in their mouth who have a problem. Tobacco products also harm non-smokers through exposure to second-hand smoke. Ministry of Health statistics show that smoking is a major issue for Māori in terms of health, equity, economic status, and cultural identity.

Given all of that, the Māori Party is delighted to support the amendment in this legislation that makes a CPI inflationary increase to the rates of excise and excise-equivalent duties on tobacco products. This means that the annual adjustment in the excise duty on tobacco will ensure that the excise duty proportion of the price of tobacco does not become cheaper over time, in real terms. In plain English, tobacco products will not become cheaper to consumers, in real terms, as their income levels rise.

The House will be aware that the Māori Party has successfully negotiated a select committee inquiry into the impacts of smoking on Māori. That inquiry will review the historical actions of the tobacco industry, which promoted tobacco use amongst Māori, and it will note the impact of tobacco use on the health, economic, social, and cultural well-being of Māori. The inquiry will address the impact of tobacco use on Māori development aspirations and opportunities, as well as including a range of policy and legislative measures to address any findings that may come out of that. The Māori Party will also introduce a member’s bill to ban the importation, manufacture, and sale of tobacco products in Aotearoa. But that is not all that we are doing. My colleague the Associate Minister of Health Tariana Turia is also doing everything possible to invest in the right people, programmes, products, and processes to successfully support our people to quit the deadly habit of smoking.

I wanted to look in some detail at the tobacco products indexation, because I think it demonstrates that subordinate legislation can be of fundamental importance in supporting vital Government activities that must be mandated by legislation such as this.

Another key aspect of the legislation is the changes to the Social Security (Rates of Benefits and Allowances) Order 2009. The effect of this part of the bill is to make CPI inflationary increases to benefit payments. As the House will be aware, all benefits are indexed for movements in the CPI. This increase is done through the annual general adjustment, which increases benefits, pensions, allowances, and some other assistance thresholds. Some of the increases, such as those to New Zealand superannuation, are due to legislation, whereas others, such as those to core benefits, are done by convention. As I understand it, the CPI increases to benefits were not locked in by the previous Government. We are pleased that the changes are included in this bill, which will ultimately mean an increase in benefits.

Although of course we support this increase to benefit payments, the key issue for the Māori Party is to really understand whether the current level of benefits is sufficient to support whānau well-being. The Māori Party has consistently advocated for benefits to be set at a level that enables families to meet their basic needs, including their housing and food costs. We have been concerned at the way in which low benefit levels are contributing to child poverty and the conditions that thwart healthy child development. We know that benefit levels are too low and are a major contributor to the disturbing levels of poverty. Although we support the changes to the rates of benefits and allowances, we want to place on record again our resounding call, as articulated in our confidence and supply agreement, that we will see what we can do to achieve significant outcomes in whānau ora through eliminating poverty and advocating for social justice. Lest this be unclear, I say we expect to see these advances made not just in our lifetime but in the term of this Parliament. There is no time to wait for all people to enjoy the state of well-being that they are entitled to. In respect of this fundamental goal, we support this bill at its first reading. Kia ora.

KEVIN HAGUE (Green) : I will take just a brief call. I note the comments of my colleague Rahui Katene to the effect that this type of legislation is normally of interest to only a particular kind of lawyer. I endorse that comment, and note that I am no lawyer. I express my admiration for her response to that situation, and, indeed, express my support for many of the measures that she advocated in her address.

The Green Party is confronted with a dilemma with this kind of omnibus bill. It covers many measures that we find unobjectionable and support, but several that we oppose. I have taken a brief call just to note that the Green Party is steadfastly opposed to the free-trade agreement with China, and therefore has qualms about that set of provisions in the bill, and also disagrees profoundly with the Government’s approach to biofuels, so has some problems with the provisions of the bill in that respect. In that situation, we have a choice: ought we to oppose the legislation because we oppose some provisions within it, or ought we to support it going to the Regulations Review Committee, while noting our opposition? In this case, we take the latter course and we will support the bill going to the select committee.

• Bill read a first time.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) : I move, That the Regulations Review Committee consider the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill, and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 23 November 2009.

• Motion agreed to.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) : I move, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill that it have the power to consider and, if it thinks fit, adopt the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 66. I am moving this instruction because the amendments contained in the Supplementary Order Paper concern drug-driving, so are not relevant to the subject matter of the bill, which aims to enhance the powers of the police and road-controlling authorities to deal with illegal street racing.

The Supplementary Order Paper implements a commitment I made on 24 June this year when Parliament passed the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4). That bill created a new offence of driving while impaired by controlled drugs or prescription medicines in the bloodstream. It also gave the police new powers to enforce that offence. I am pleased to recall that there was a broad display of bipartisanship on that bill.

Just before the bill was passed, I was approached by anti - drug-driving campaigners concerned about the exclusion from the bill of the 34 tranquillisers and anti-anxiety medications known as benzodiazepines. The exclusion means that a person who fails the compulsory impairment test and gives a blood sample that contains one or more of those drugs cannot be charged with the new impaired-driving offence. It was too late, by then, to amend the bill, but I agreed that I would have officials look at the issue as a matter of urgency. I promised that if their advice supported the inclusion of benzodiazepines, I would seek to have the legislation amended before it came into force later this year.

The Ministry of Transport has reported to me that the reasons for excluding benzodiazepines from that bill were weak. Recently published research shows that benzodiazepines can cause impairment in the ability to drive. There is also evidence to show that the impairment is linked to dosage and tolerance as experienced by longer-term users. Apparently when the bill was being prepared there were concerns that innocent people who had been prescribed these drugs would be processed by the police. It was feared that this would bring the legislation into disrepute. I am advised that those fears were overstated, and there are several safeguards to prevent such a situation. Only impaired drivers would be stopped and tested, and there is also a legal defence for those who have been prescribed the drug and use it in accordance with medical advice.

The Supplementary Order Paper also makes a couple of drafting changes to the legislation to simplify and clarify it. The legislation adopts the term “controlled drug” from the Misuse of Drugs Act, but gives it a significantly different meaning. That creates scope for confusion. Further, the interpretation contains separate definitions for “controlled drug” and “prescription medicines”. These separate definitions are unnecessary, so the two separate items would be replaced by a single term, “qualifying drug”, with a definition that includes prescription medicine, controlled drugs, and members of the benzodiazepine family.

Implementing these changes through the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill will enable the amendments to be put in place before the drug-driving legislation comes into force on 1 November. This will simplify the implementation of the new regime. I look forward to receiving support for it from all other parties in the House.

• Motion agreed to.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour) : It is a pleasure to take a call on Part 1 of the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill. Labour supports this part, although, as we have said before, we have serious concerns about the expectation raised by the amendments in this part among the communities that have been suffering harm from illegal street racers. We also have some concerns, which we have expressed, about its companion legislation regarding vehicle confiscation and seizure. However, we believe that this bill has some useful powers that will enhance the ability of enforcement officers to deal with the menace of illegal street racing.

Part 1 is the guts of the bill, and its measures aim to reduce the harm and nuisance caused to the community by illegal street racers in terms of road safety, noise, public nuisance, and disorder. The bill strengthens the power of the police, local authorities, and other road control agencies to deal with boy racers and their antisocial behaviour. As I said, we have concerns, and I will get into those. But I reiterate that we have enormous sympathy for those submitters and the other people who are suffering from the harm caused by illegal street racers. I refer particularly to those who came to the select committee to talk about the measures in Part 1, the residents of the so-called four avenues of Christchurch who described to the committee the recurring nightmare of the congregation of boy and girl racers in and around their streets, with noise, drunkenness, and bad behaviour disturbing their sleep. Anyone who has had occasional experiences of loud parties, or cars going up and down their street, will have some idea of how the heart sinks when the noise starts up, and how the deep bass of the music or the noise of the revving car going past seems to get into one’s bones, and one has to steel oneself for yet another sleepless night. For me, fortunately it happens only occasionally. For those residents who submitted to the select committee, it is occurring every Friday and Saturday night. It is awful.

The bill does indeed give police more powers, but the question yet to be answered—and I ask the Minister in the chair, the Hon Steven Joyce, whether he might want to respond to this—is whether the police having those extra powers means that they will be accompanied by additional resources. What will the Government put in place to make sure that all of the powers in Part 1 can indeed be resourced properly by the police so they can do their job?

One of the things in Part 1 that I want to talk a little bit about is the definition of “cruising” in the interpretation clause. This attracted quite a lot of attention in the select committee. People were confused about the clause and had concerns about it, and many of the submitters made suggestions about how we could change it. I still find it quite bizarre that Parliament seems to be adopting a street language term. When I look at the plain meaning of “cruise”, it means coasting, going on a journey, gliding, speeding, going on a tour, or going travelling. The only time I have heard of “cruising” is in relation to illegal behaviour by street racers. Probably earlier in our day cruising meant that men got in their cars—look at Mr Mallard; he knows all about it—and crawled along the kerbs of the streets trying to pick up chicks. That was what they were trying to do. I want to know why the Government has decided to adopt street language and to use the term “cruising”, which I would be worried about because it might just encourage the boy racers and the not-so-young men racers.

Although the select committee did propose some amendments to the definition of cruising, surely driving backwards and forwards over the same stretch of road is just as much “cruising” as repeatedly driving over the same stretch of road in the same direction. Labour wants some clarity in this area. It seems pretty stupid as it stands, and we do not want a law that gives racers the ability to thumb their noses at police officers by saying they are driving backwards and forwards, rather than in a circle.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) : I will take just a brief call on the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill. This bill is one that many people around the country have been looking forward to for a long time. It will be something for which the Government will take a lot of credit, in being able to work towards providing some solutions to the many New Zealanders who feel their lives are intruded upon by those who engage in activities that predominantly disrupt their nights.

I thank the Labour members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for the way they worked on this bill. It was a committee that worked well. Even though there may have been some disagreements and different points of focus, the committee members worked well together, and constructively, to get the best result for New Zealand’s residents, so I say thank you to those members who did that.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Oh, there’s more?

DAVID BENNETT: Yes, there is more. I say to the member across the Chamber that I am sure there will be more from his electorate, as members of the Canterbury community will take great delight in seeing this bill go through the Committee.

Let us look at some of the key concepts of this bill. In Part 1, the definition of “cruising” is an important definition. There is also quite a focus on by-laws as a mechanism to achieve the goals that have been seen to be needed, in regard to the ability to control activities in these circumstances. There is also a lot of talk about closing some of the loopholes that may have existed in the past, which may have been used by drivers to avoid the full force of the law. Those measures are predominant in this part. There are prohibitions on the sale and disposal of motor vehicles to close the loopholes that were being used in the past.

Overall, Part 1 is quite a substantive part. It covers the major concepts of the bill, which both major parties will be supporting, and which reflects the community’s desire to have real action on this issue. We congratulate the Minister of Transport on bringing that action forward at a time when the public desires it.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) : I join other members in stating that the Labour Party will support the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill, as we have said in the past, but we will raise a number of issues. I congratulate the Minister of Transport on the way he has managed this legislation. Unlike his counterpart Judith Collins, this Minister has been rather considered in the language he has used and the expectations he has raised.

Hon Tau Henare: He’s the Minister of Transport, that’s why.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: It should not really matter what portfolio one has, I would have thought. What matters is the substance of one’s argument.

On the issue of benzodiazepines, Labour will support those measures. There is some merit, I think, in what is being proposed.

I want to concentrate on a couple of things that were raised by my colleague Darien Fenton. The first is one of police resourcing. Everybody agrees that this issue of street racing is a pretty ugly issue around the communities. There is a bit of a myth perpetrated by some that it is related to Christchurch, maybe Hamilton, and one or two other places around New Zealand, and that everybody else is immune. I recall that when I launched the legislation that I introduced to the House, I launched it in Hamilton because on the main drag of Hamilton—I cannot recall the exact—

David Bennett: Te Rapa straight.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I am indebted to the member. Te Rapa straight had become a drag-strip and “hell on earth”, as one motelier described it for me. We support these measures, but there is an issue around police resourcing. It is OK to put forward ideas and to write legislation, but the question then is how one will enforce it, and whether police will have the means necessary to do so. A large amount of money, several million dollars, has been taken out of the road patrol budget. We know that there has been a requirement for a $21 million cut in police resources, even though the Minister, Judith Collins, denies it. We have a document from the district commander for Canterbury, Dave Cliff, in which he notes that fact, and we have the transcript where the Commissioner of Police alludes to it. We know that 340 vehicles, or around 10 percent of the police vehicle fleet, are gone. We also know that despite the promises made by the Minister of Police, a large number of front-line vehicles are in that fleet. If an officer ain’t got a car, it is pretty difficult to chase down some of the people who are perpetrating these crimes.

I note from Supplementary Order Paper 78, which the Minister of Transport has introduced, that he has brought in measures where, as I understand it, a car can be seized if, basically, someone does a runner from police. I support that, but the question is whether vehicles will be available to enforce it. We know, for instance, that a large number of front-line cars have been removed from the fleet. Police themselves have said that to me directly. Police themselves have scratched their heads and said that every car in the vehicle fleet is a front-line car, whether it be for youth education, community policing, youth aid, or patrol.

In fact, I was sitting in Belfast in my mobile electorate office bus some weeks ago, holding a clinic, when a highway patrol officer, I will not say who, pulled up behind me. I knew I had not committed a crime, because the keys were out of the ignition and she was stationary. He called me over and looked around—he did not want to be seen too quickly talking to a Labour MP, because he knew the National Party bosses would be after him. I said to him that it was great that he had a vehicle. He said—and this was some weeks ago—that the highway patrol car, which was a brand-new Holden and was badged up and designed to chase down people who were speeding, was “gone”. I asked him what he meant by “It’s gone”. He said “It’s gone. It’s being taken away.” The Minister of Police and, I believe, the Minister of Transport, told Parliament repeatedly that any cuts in the vehicle fleet would not be from front-line resources.

I make the point to the Minister that although we support the bill, legislation is only as good as the way it is implemented by the courts. In fairness I do not think that the courts have used in the past the strength and powers that they have to enforce existing legislation. That is to their detriment, and certainly it is to the detriment of communities. But, equally, if police do not have the resources in respect of vehicles, they will not be able to implement this legislation to the satisfaction of Parliament or of the communities. That is no disrespect to them. Sadly, the men and women in blue, as is starting now and has already happened over the last few weeks since the vehicle fleet was cut, are starting to get it in the ear from the public when they cannot turn up to enforce the laws of the land.

Even in my patch we have already had people complaining. Two people in my patch discovered a burglar and asked for police assistance. They could not gain that assistance in what they felt was a reasonable time, and they were disturbed about that. I do not blame the police in my area—this is in respect of Papanui and Redwood. They are sound human beings and highly professional. But the truth is that we know that in Canterbury alone, 32 vehicles have gone. That is from the district commander, Dave Cliff. He says that 32 vehicles have gone. They are out—gone.

We know there are difficulties—because police have told us—in the shift changes. When one is waiting for a vehicle and for the next shift to come along, crime does not just stop at the end of the shift. The job has to be dealt with. Officers are waiting for up to 2 hours, I am told, to get access to a vehicle on a shift change in order to implement legislation like this.

I will also touch on the definition of “cruising”. One of the things I was concerned about when my legislation was passed was that some innovative person who had committed an offence would go to court to contest one of the definitions—say, for instance, the sustainable loss of traction—and a judge who, quite rightly, is charged with interpreting the definitions of that legislation might depart from Parliament’s intention and make a different ruling or water down those clauses. In talking to the police, one of the difficulties I have with this is that the police have said they are not quite sure how they will be able to be enforce the definition of “cruising” as it sits in the legislation. This is not a political dig at the Minister in the chair, the Hon Steven Joyce, because I think this is a very, very difficult issue to try to write into legislation.

When 300 or 400 hoons are cruising, to use the term, around Cathedral Square in Christchurch, which is in my patch, they might be driving at the speed limit, they might be legally licensed and registered, and the drivers might well be, and probably are, sober, but they are making one heck of a nuisance of themselves. But if we look at the definition, we see that it could be interpreted in Christchurch as looking for a car park. A member of a vintage car club said to me that that is what vintage car drivers do. They get in their vintage cars and go cruising. They do it legally; they do not make a nuisance of themselves. So although, in fairness, I congratulate the Minister on making a decent effort to try to crack the nut of the definition of that behaviour, I am concerned that if this is put to the test, a court may indeed reinterpret the word in a way where innocent folks who are not part of this sort of behaviour get done over.

Some young people are car enthusiasts. They call themselves boy or girl racers, but they do not actually break the law. They do not do the sort of stuff that upsets our communities. A group of them came to see me in my electorate office and said they were car enthusiasts who had put a lot of dough into their cars. They go to Colombo Street and sit on the side of the road. They do not leer it up, they do not speed, and they do not make a noise, but they just sit there and they show off their vehicles and what is under the hood, as is a time-honoured tradition between young men and women. They brag about and have pride in their vehicles, and that is OK. But one woman made the point to me that they are treated the same way by the cops as the hoons who stuff it up for the rest of them. She conceded that that is a difficulty for the police, because they cannot differentiate.

The point I make to the Minister—and I would be grateful if he could perhaps give us some legal assurances—is to ask how confident he and his officials are that the definition of “cruising” will be able to be enforced. I also ask whether his legal officials have given him any idea as to whether the definition is likely to be tested in a court. If it is, I ask what the likelihood is in various scenarios of the definition being watered down.

I tell the Minister that we support the legislation. We think it has merit and some strong provisions, unlike the companion legislation put forward by Ms Collins. Now that we have seen the detail of that bill, we view that bill as a weaker bill in respect of third parties than is the case at the moment.

I would also be grateful if the Minister could perhaps give us a reassurance on the issue of police resourcing. We were given commitments in this Parliament that of the 340 vehicles, no front-line vehicles would be lost. The Minister of Police said she envisaged that it would be vans going. I will tell that Minister what the problem with that is. In Rangiora the youth aid officer now drives a van. It is called a police prison van, because he had his youth aid vehicle taken away from him. I suspect he will find it rather difficult running around catching crims who may break the law in respect of this legislation, in a big hulk of a police prison van. The Minister of Police said that that would not happen.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) : I will make just a couple of comments in response to previous speakers. Firstly, with regard to police enforcement of the proposed new law, the police budget for road policing has been increased by 16 percent over the next 3 years—as opposed to what happened during the last 3 years—subject to agreement between the police, the New Zealand Transport Agency, and the Minister. That agreement will allow the police to enforce the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill and to go about the rest of the road-policing programme.

The second point I will make in respect of enforcement is that one of the points of this legislation is to provide the police with sharper tools, so that things, and perhaps boy racers, stay where they are put. It tries to address, and I think it will go a long way to addressing, operational issues that have arisen from previous legislation. We went to Christchurch, sat down with police, and got their opinions on measures relating specifically to illegal street racing. We then had good discussions with transport officials, justice officials, and members of the police in Wellington about the approaches that would make a difference. The result, in the transport sense, is this bill. It has a total of 15 changes, and includes such things as demerit points.

In terms of the definition of “cruising”, I think it has been improved by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. It is now pretty straightforward. I fail to see how somebody parking a car could be caught under that definition. I fail to see how a vintage car enthusiast could be caught under that definition. Of course, the police are not going around hauling people off the streets for the sheer sake and enjoyment of it. The definition states: “ ‘Cruising’ means driving repeatedly in the same direction over the same section of a road in a motor vehicle in a manner that—(a) draws attention to the power or sound of the engine of the motor vehicle being driven; or (b) creates a convoy that—(i) is formed otherwise than in trade; and (ii) impedes traffic flow”. It is one of those things that we know when we see it, and we can see it in the four avenues in Christchurch and in Victoria Street in Hamilton on any night of the week. This legislation will give the councils and the police a tool so that they can to work together to get rid of that antisocial behaviour.

CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) : Let me join my colleagues in acknowledging the very real problem that so-called boy-racers create for our society. We do not underestimate that problem, which is why we support the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill, albeit with some concerns about particular points. I will address a couple of those points in a minute. Real efforts have been made to address the boy-racer issue, and I particularly acknowledge Clayton Cosgrove’s work in that regard. Real efforts have been made to try to sort out the issue, and I also accept that the Government is trying to deal with the problem further. My concern is that I am not sure whether some provisions in this bill are as improved and as straightforward as the Minister in the chair, the Hon Steven Joyce, has just said. I will talk about those shortly.

But I also think the real issue that we are trying to address is that of noise. When we listened to the submitters to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on this legislation, we heard that the things that really came through, when it was all boiled down—and they were probably in this order of priority—were noise, issues around antisocial behaviour, and then issues around road safety. All of the things in this bill are, if you like, proxies for dealing with those particular problems. They do not actually address those problems themselves.

The issue of cruising is a case in point. Part 1 talks about cruising, and I will look at the definition of that term again. The definition of “cruising” in clause 4 refers to the act of “driving repeatedly in the same direction over the same section of a road in a manner that … draws attention to the power or sound of the engine of the motor vehicle’’ or that “creates a convoy that … impedes traffic flow”. The issue is to do with the phrase “repeatedly in the same direction over the same section of a road”, which was the change made at the select committee. The Minister said it is one of the improvements to the bill. That is fine, but, potentially, driving backwards and forwards over the same stretch of road raises just as much concern about cruising if the issue is about the sound of the motor vehicle. Many submitters also raised genuine concerns about lawful activities being captured by the definition. Maybe the activity of parking a car is a bridge too far and maybe the Minister is right about that, but other lawful types of activities could potentially be captured. For example, somebody could be taking part in some sort of legitimate convoy, as might happen during an election campaign. Convoys of vehicles go around in that instance. So-called car enthusiasts might go around in their hot rods, and they quite often like to draw attention to the power or the sound of their vehicles.

I am a bit concerned when the Minister says we will know a vehicle is cruising when we see it. I am not sure whether that is good law. I am not sure whether we should make it a discretionary thing, whereby the police can say a nice 50-year-old man in his flash hot rod is not cruising, but a 20-year-old in his or her souped-up car—whatever young people drive; a Nissan, or whatever it may be—is cruising. So I do worry about the definition of “cruising”, and I think there are a number of areas we need to look at. The first of those, as I have already said, is the issue of why driving repeatedly in the same direction is covered, but driving backwards and forwards is not similarly deemed to be cruising. I think that is still an issue. The other issue is the question of legitimate activities. We do not want to have definitions that effectively enable boy racers—I use that term advisedly to include girl racers and everybody else; we know whom we are talking about, as the Minister says—to thumb their nose at the police because the definition allows a great deal of legal debate about what we are trying to capture here.

A significant number of submitters raised their concerns about the definition of “cruising”. One of the problems was around the committee process itself. These issues were raised, and we had a very good process around the hearing of submissions. I think everybody would agree with that. One could not help but be moved by some of the submissions we heard, and the problems with regard to boy racers became very apparent. But I think the select committee got into a bit of trouble with the really rushed process in the consideration and deliberation phases. These sorts of issues were flagged, but finding solutions to them was done in a very rushed manner. Officials were put under a great deal of pressure to produce answers to questions like the ones I have just raised about the definition and the issue of whether legitimate activities might be captured. The officials were put under a great deal of pressure to come back to us and give us their advice. In respect of the drafting, we were under real time pressures. We were receiving the documentation in very short order indeed. I do worry that the definition of “cruising” will come back to bite us, if you like, and I really think it is a shame that we did not spend a great deal more time on getting that particular bit right.

The way that the “cruising” definition will be put into place will be by the use of by-laws, so Part 1 of the bill provides for road-controlling authorities to make by-laws. Those by-laws will include ones to specify areas of roading on which cruising can be controlled, restricted, or prohibited, or ones to specify the amount of time that must elapse between the successive times a vehicle can be driven along a section of road before it would not be regarded as repeatedly using the same section of road. I think that is quite an interesting point. One wonders what the science is behind that measure. Will the interval be 1 minute, 5 minutes, 10 minutes, or 15 minutes? The question is really about noise. If the cruising occurs in the middle of the night, regardless of whether it occurs at 5-minute intervals, 10-minute intervals, 15-minute intervals, or 20-minute intervals, arguably it is still equally disruptive. Again I say I do not think we really got our heads around some of these issues.

The issue of by-laws is interesting. The thing I found fascinating was the number of submissions made by local authorities who did not want to be given the right to make by-laws. Here we were putting up legislation, and most of the local authorities that submitted on the bill said they did not want to have the right to make by-laws, and they thought it was a matter of providing nationally consistent legislation.

I will talk a great deal more about the issue of by-laws and give members a flavour of some of the submissions on the issue of making by-laws. For example, the Waimakariri District Council said there may well be difficulties with the definition of “cruising”, and particularly with the use of the word “repeatedly”—that relates to the question I raised about the amount of time—with what we mean by “the same section of a road”, and with what we mean by “draws attention”. The submitters raised at least three areas of concern around the definition. Mr Parker, from the Christchurch City Council, said the bylaw-making provisions will be ineffective. In fact, the Christchurch City Council opposed their introduction. As an alternative, it suggested having either national legislation that applies to certain roads or legislation that councils can opt into. The council also felt that the definition of “cruising” may well be ambiguous. We made a change to the definition after the submission period, but I do not think it captured all of those concerns. Dunedin City Council was concerned that legitimate activities—it used the examples of car rallies and Christmas parades—should not be captured in the definition of “cruising”. The Waitakere City Council thought that the by-law approach may not be effective and could lead to displacement for boy racers. It thought, like one of the other councils, that there needed to be a change to the existing legislation.

I bet that members would be really interested to know what Local Government New Zealand thought about the legislation. It said by-laws will be costly to establish and there is no requirement for councils to implement such by-laws.

BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) : I am very pleased to speak to the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill. Labour supports the bill. We want to see enhanced powers for the police to deal with the issue of boy racers, and no member of this House knows that issue better than I do.

I want to ask the Minister in the chair, the Hon Steven Joyce, the Minister of Transport, a very serious and important question. I have looked through the bill and its accompanying legislation for the commitment that was given by the National list MP Nicky Wagner—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Who?

BRENDON BURNS: Nicky Wagner; the member may have heard of her. Over the last term of Parliament, she gave a commitment to Christchurch that she was going to deal with the issue of noise. As members are probably aware, there are a few problems created by boy racers, but one of the most persistent, annoying, and vexatious problems to residents is the noise problem.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Anything in here to solve that?

BRENDON BURNS: Well, a number of things were promised in respect of it. A petition and a member’s bill were brought to Parliament to have the noise limit brought back from the excessive maximum level of 95 decibels—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): That is in Part 2. We are on Part 1.

BRENDON BURNS: Thank you. I would like to pose a question to the Minister in terms of general debate, because the bill deals with the issues created by boy racers. In respect of decibel ratings, why do we not have the measures indicated by the National list MP from Christchurch Ms Wagner? It is important that we know. Is it that the Government does not want to tackle the issue? Is it that it has received advice from officials on it? We have officials present here this afternoon who can perhaps assist.

I understand that the Government looked at the issue, and believes that the problem is that if we reduce the maximum noise level to 90 decibels—and this is a matter for the Minister to clarify—then we penalise a lot of people who are not causing a problem. Those who do cause a problem are those who roar up and down Bealey Avenue, Fitzgerald Avenue, and other wide major streets in Christchurch, and, indeed, many other streets of inner-city areas in this country. Those are the drivers who need to be targeted. I think the bill does that, and I acknowledge the Government for that. Obviously, and as noted by the Minister of Police, Judith Collins, these measures accompany and add to measures introduced by the last Labour Government. It is important that we as a Parliament acknowledge the need to deal with the issues created by boy racers. They are a menace and they need a strong response from Parliament.

But I suspect that the problem that the Government faced was that if it reduced, as had been pledged and promised, the maximum noise level back to 90 decibels, that would impinge upon the rights of thousands—indeed, tens of thousands—of New Zealanders who own a car slightly nosier than 90 decibels. They may, for instance, have saved up and bought themselves a nice V8 Holden and put a fruity exhaust on it. Somebody may have inherited a car with a noisy exhaust system, but is not causing a problem by driving up and down avenues at 2.00 in the morning. It may be that a motor enthusiast has a car configured for racing events, and occasionally takes it on to the street, but is not causing a problem. That is why I would like the Minister to give us some indication as to whether the Government considered those issues in the context of this bill and the accompanying legislation, decided on the matter in hand, and made a considered decision. As I said, we had repeated pledges and promises from a member of this Parliament that when the Government changed, this issue would be dealt with.

The past Minister in charge of transport issues, Mr Duynhoven, did address some of the issues, and this bill is building on some of his measures. One of those issues is demerit points. Many, many boy racers do not pay their fines. It is much better to acknowledge the fact that they do not pay fines, will not pay their fines, and sometimes cannot even be forced, believe it or not, to pay their fines. So we are seeing an extension of demerit points. Somebody who owns a $10,000 car fitted out for boy-racer activity really does not want to lose it. Demerit points are important because if drivers lose their licence, lose their insurance, they might still take the risk of driving on the road, but, firstly, they risk the full force of the law being thrown at them for being non-licensed drivers, and, secondly, they will not have any insurance cover. They may at times act like idiots, but they are not all stupid. So I think it is important that we see a continuing ratcheting up of measures such as demerit points.

But I ask the Minister to explain to us what happened to the issue of noise, because a very considered promise was made by a member of this House.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) : I want to return to the issue of cruising, as outlined in Part 1 of the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill. I was a little bit amazed at what the Minister said, and it was noted by Carol Beaumont, that we will know it when we see it. I am not a lawyer and the Minister in the chair, Steven Joyce, I suspect is not a lawyer. I note that Mr Finlayson is here, and he is an eminent lawyer, I am told by some. Others may take a different view, but some say he is an eminent lawyer. I just raise this issue again, but with greater worry. If the Minister is telling us that the legal basis from which either he or the department—I presume it was him—drafted this definition is that we will know it when we see it, then I offer some assistance from our side to the Minister. We have some lawyers over here who might be able to help. That is not how to make law.

As I turn to the legislation, the concern I had was about the definition of, for instance, “sustainable loss of traction”. We spent quite a bit of time on it. An eminent person—and I better not mention his name because National might hunt him down if it knew he helped me—within the ministry spent a lot of time tightening as much as possible the definition then of “sustainable loss of traction”. I know it might sound stupid to some but I remember quite a bit of fear being expressed by submitters from vintage car clubs and from all sorts of folk, including people taking part in the Christmas parade or other parades, who appeared before the select committee. There was the fear that even though their motives were pure, somehow inadvertently they may fall victim to this issue. There was even a fear that a young person, for instance, who squeaked his or her brakes at the lights, might hear a policeman saying “Oi, we got you”. I do not take credit for the legal drafting, and others should, but we spent a lot of time tightening the definition of “sustainable loss of traction”, in the hope—which proved to be correct because it was never tested in a court—that a judge would not take a case, make a terminology interpretation, and water it down. It was also to give confidence to those who were not the perpetrators that we were going after that they would not be caught by it. They were the innocent folk. But we are now hearing, regarding the definition, that we will know it when we see it. The Minister shakes his head, but that is what he said. Is he now denying that is what he said? He said it not two or three speeches ago.

In practical terms, I agree with the Minister that most police, I suspect, will know it when they see it. However, there is the unintended consequence. The definition draws attention to the power or sound of the engine. To what level, I ask the Minister? What is the test? Is it revving up? I suspect it probably is, but to what level? Is it somebody who revs up, and hits the accelerator instead of the brake? Will they be caught by this very non-specific definition? But the Minister says that we will know it when we see it. Maybe we should call this the “You’ll Know It When You See It Bill”.

The bill refers to “impedes traffic flow”. What does that mean? Does that mean they drive in a group at 50 kilometres per hour, which is the legal limit, as they do now? What is the difference between that and going around Hereford Street looking for a car park? Normally when I have driven around there at lunchtime on a Friday there are about 300 or 400 folks who are not breaking the law, who are driving legally, who are sober, and whose cars are registered and licensed, engaging in exactly the same activity. Despite the squawks we hear from the back row, I know that the Minister is well intentioned. But the point I am desperately trying to make—

Hon Tau Henare: What? What is it?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: No, I am not trying to make the point to the thing at the back of the Chamber. The point I am trying to make to the Minister is if this definition is not tight enough—

Hon Tau Henare: Do you support it?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: —it may cause an unintended consequence. But equally if it is not tight enough, there may well be a test case where a judge decides to water it down, or alter it in such a way, or let somebody off and sets a precedent. I would be obliged if the Minister could gives us some reassurance or clarify what he meant by saying that we will know it when we see it. If he cannot do that and he is not confident in his own drafting, I ask him perhaps to yield to that eminent lawyer Mr Finlayson, who I think could give us quite a good dissertation in respect of the definitions. He may well be able to give us some assurance. The problem is that this bill is not part of Mr Finlayson’s portfolio, but he is an eminent lawyer. Maybe the Minister could lean across the aisle to him and get him to pass a note to tell him that this is OK. I want to catch these people, just like the Minister does. Christchurch has had a gutsful of it, just like the Minister has, and as have other places.

I think we should have an assurance that this bill will do what we want it to do. Firstly, an assurance that it is strong enough, and, secondly, that it is blunt enough that a judge will not be able to make a strange interpretation of it that will water it down or capture somebody who should not be captured. We will then end up back here a couple of months after that common law precedent goes through, trying to pass amending legislation to get it right. This is not an uncommon practice, and I say this in a bipartisan way.

When I was Minister for Building and Construction, a judge—I think it was Justice Stevens—altered through a court judgment the compensatory benefits or damages payable to victims of leaky buildings. It was not what the Government—or the Parliament generally, I suspect, as a whole—had intended. On that occasion—and it threw a cat amongst the pigeons—we were advised by our departmental lawyers that it was as tight as a drum, it would be no problem, and it would be OK. From memory we had to suspend Standing Orders, come back, and blast through a bill consisting of three, four, or five clauses, or whatever it was, which I think all parties supported, to correct the record and to stop other members of the judiciary from using that precedent and perpetrating what Parliament did not intend. I think it is a fair question. The Government and we as a Parliament are going to a lot of effort and we are supporting this bill. To clarify it for that person in the back row, we are supporting this bill. But what we want to do is support a bill that gets it right.

Hon Tau Henare: Sit down and get a move on!

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: That sort of inane contribution from the back, which flows like verbal sewage, does not help the matter. If the member wants to make a contribution and help his colleague out—I take it he is not a lawyer either; neither am I—he could get to his feet and make a contribution, rather than making sounds akin to a belching noise down in the back row.

David Bennett: Oh, that’s unfair.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Well, maybe it is not a belching noise; it could be another emission, but we will not go there. But I reiterate and say to the Minister that I would be grateful if he could readdress the point on cruising. We want to stop the sort of stuff that he is trying to stop in this bill, but I have a fear, based on his own words, which may come back to haunt him, that we will know it when we see it. A test case may be taken and this may be watered down or there may be an unintended consequence. Again I hope that Mr Finlayson, as a lawyer, may decide to take a call and provide us with that reassurance, but I think the Minister is duty-bound to address that issue.

What happens in a political campaign when members of the National Party, as they did on a number of occasions, drive down the middle of roads with loud hailers blaring and flags flying, drawing attention to themselves and the noise of their vehicles? Perhaps they are in a convoy, and perhaps, some would argue, they are impeding traffic flow. Could the Minister tell me whether that would be illegal under this bill? Will that be called cruising? What will the police do in that respect, for instance? What will they do if the cars are decorated, if the horns are sounding, and there might be a truck that has a bit of music playing on the back of it? Is that considered cruising if there are 20, 30, or 50 such vehicles heading down Hereford Street in the middle of an election campaign? I think that is a fair enough question. It probably arises out of self-interest; it probably concerns all of us, I suspect, if we think about it. Will the police take the view: “Don’t worry. The Minister says we’ll know it if we see it. We’ll put a finger in the air and try to define the law.”? If somebody takes a case against the police and embarrasses them as a police force, will the Minister stand up beside them and say: “No, no. I blew it in the Committee stage because I said you guys would know it if you saw it.” And that is the strength of the legal argument.

I want to get this right. Labour wants to get this right. Labour supports the Government in this, but we would like more reassurance, as would the communities in Christchurch, in Hamilton, in Dunedin, in Auckland, and in other places, that it is right and that when the police do see it, they will have the tools, the power, and the legal definitions to deal to those people. I do not think it is good enough for someone who is collecting a quarter of a million bucks and taking a warrant and the limousine to simply stand up and say: “Don’t worry, she’s right. They’ll know it if they see it.” I think those will be words we will be happy to use at future public meetings when people say that they did not see it, they did not know it, and we are still being harangued from pillar to post by these boy racers. Maybe we should ask Judith Collins in the next round if she takes the same view—that the police will know it if they see it.

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) : I move, That the question be now put.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour) : I want to take a reasonably brief call on Supplementary Order Paper 78. I appreciate the Minister’s explanation earlier on, and we support Supplementary Order Paper 78, but I do not want any rewriting of history around it. I am one person who has been on the select committee for the last 4 years and went through the submissions of the submitters—along with David Bennett over there, so I have no doubt he will agree with me on this—and the issue of benzodiazepine was never raised. It was never raised by any submitter, it was never raised by the officials, and we were never advised that it had been considered that it would make the scope too wide; there was never a discussion that I can recall on the issue of benzodiazepine. I want to put that on the record so that nobody thinks that the select committee in the last Government was not being responsible when it came to the implementation of the bill that Supplementary Order Paper 78 is amending.

We support the amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 78 but we do so with a little bit of caution. The caution I want to sound is that there are some issues around this, and we saw that in the media when it was announced. One of the things that gives me some comfort is the process in the bill—the process of testing whether people have drugs in their blood. If people are driving with drugs in their blood, the testing is for impairment. Also, before testing a driver for impairment, the police must have good cause to suspect that a person has consumed a drug.

However, the caution I would like to put on the record is that the test could be really difficult for some people—older drivers, people who could well have been good, law-abiding citizens all their lives. They could be suspected of having benzodiazepine in their blood, and that could be related to the fact that they were taking it according to a prescription. They would not be prosecuted but they could feel quite aggrieved against the police, so some care in this whole area is required. We accept that it is a problem; we accept and we completely support the previous legislation that Labour introduced, and that this Government passed, around being able to test for impairment when people have been using drugs, and not using them if they are impaired, and around not using them according to the prescription and their doctors’ instructions. Also, quite a lot of information recently from the New Zealand Drug Foundation states that the drug does significantly increase the risk of crashes, and younger users are at higher risk. So, obviously, those drivers need to be intercepted and that is why we are supporting the legislation.

Although the police can rightfully use this legislation to target drivers taking benzodiazepine, they should be careful that older, bona fide users are not being treated unfairly. We have to approach this with caution, and I ask the Minister to make a comment on whether there are plans for any public education on drug-driving before the legislation is implemented, because that is coming up fast. I ask what the plan is for that, so that people know about it, and they know how to interpret it, if they are taking any medication. All I can say is thank goodness Prozac is not in this list, because half the country is on Prozac, I understand. I would like to be reassured that leading into this legislation with the addition of benzodiazepines, the public is going to be properly educated and prepared for this. I would also like to ask the Minister to make a comment on his other Supplementary Order Paper, Supplementary Order Paper 66, which he has not done. Thank you.

• The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 66 in the name of the Hon Steven Joyce to Part 1 be agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The debate includes schedules 1 and 2.

BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) : I am very pleased to speak to Part 2 of the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill and I would like to come back to the issues traversed a little earlier around noise, as correctly configured into Part 2 of the bill. I note that the select committee did consider the 2006 petition from Ms Wagner and 435 others on the issue of the decibel rating. Again, I would like to ask the Minister in the chair, the Hon Steven Joyce, to give us some explanation of the Government’s view on the issue. The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee’s consideration of the issue considered the fact that from 1 June last year all new vehicles entering the road had to meet the 90-decibel test but it also considered that the lowering of stationary tailpipe noise limits would not necessarily reduce vehicle road noise at night. I would like to ask the Minister for some advice on that point, and what the officials are saying in respect of it, because, anecdotally at least, and certainly in terms of the petition presented to Parliament in 2005—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: What party was it from?

BRENDON BURNS: The National Party.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: She got rolled.

BRENDON BURNS: Well, she certainly made lots of noise about the fact that she was going to deal with this issue. I would like to know what the Government’s position on this is. Obviously the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee has formed a view that with the legislation before the select committee, and with the changes introduced by the Hon Harry Duynhoven and the Labour Government to take effect from 1 June last year, maybe this issue has been addressed, but we have to ask seriously whether the police, even with the provisions of this bill and the anti-cruising by-law provisions that the bill includes, will be able to deal with the issue of noise. There is a significant difference in noise between a car at 90 decibels and 95 decibels. Ms Wagner made much of the fact of it being akin to being quite a distance away from a motor mower and being right up alongside a motor mower being revved at full capacity. Certainly, if one is living on Fitzgerald Avenue, the difference between 90-decibel and 95-decibel cars is considerable.

It is a bit simplistic to say simply that lower stationary tailpipe noise limits would not significantly reduce vehicle road noise. We must take a closer look at the issue of the modification of exhaust systems. Many businesses around the country make a very good living out of taking stock standard noise exhaust systems and tuning them to the point where they can scrape in just a fraction below the 95-decibel recommended maximum.

Obviously a huge increase in noise volume is created between 90 decibels and 95 decibels. I really think the Minister needs to address this question. What is the advice from officials on this issue? Do they support the select committee’s view that at 90 decibels, with the measures in this bill, we will see a significant abatement of the noise problem? A lot of the antisocial behaviour centres on noise. I have to confess that it is not just car exhausts. There is a lot of associated noise from people in cars shouting, tooting horns, and so on, but it is the constant roar of the exhausts that causes a lot of stress to people living in urban environments such as in my electorate of Christchurch Central. Promises have been made to Parliament and to voters that National would address the noise issue, and I ask why it is not being addressed in this bill.

The select committee has formed the view that maybe the measures in the bill will provide an answer, but I believe that that is a little simplistic. Labour’s position is that we must look at the issue of modification, as there really is a difference between 90 and 95 decibels. I suspect that the position will be—and I would like clarity from the Minister on this—that by reducing the level to 90 decibels we will bring in tens of thousands of other innocent motorists who are not out there causing a problem. If that is the view of the Government, then I would like to hear that. The residents of Christchurch Central, of inner-city Hamilton, and of places like the North Shore, Lower Hutt, and Wellington Central, and elsewhere deserve to know why the Government, having made strong indications to the electorate that it was going to cut—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Pledges.

BRENDON BURNS: Pledges, indeed.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Promises.

BRENDON BURNS: Yes, promises. Much noise was made about this issue. Public meetings were held. In fact, a website was set up by Nicky Wagner, “Stop the Noise”. In fact, I think the website is still up. Maybe it has been turned down a bit of late, but a very high expectation was created by the member that she would deal with this issue. When she stood in Christchurch Central at the last election she told the people of Christchurch Central that she would deliver on this issue. I do not see anything in the bill that will deal with it. The select committee has formed a view, but the Minister is responsible for the bill. He has the benefit of officials and official advice, and he can provide the Committee with an assurance as to what the view of the officials is.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Tell us why Nicky got rolled.

BRENDON BURNS: Obviously she has formed a view that this needed to change, but maybe she does not have any clout within the National caucus.

Hon Steve Chadwick: It’s nanny State.

BRENDON BURNS: Yes, it sounds a bit nanny State, does it not? That could, of course, be the other explanation, as the Minister campaigned on the previous Government being a nanny State Government. But we have to acknowledge that the Minister has indicated that he will deal with the issue of cellphones. We are going hands-free a little later in the year. So he is prepared to grapple with some of the tough issues. He is prepared to wear the tag of nanny State from time to time.

Hon Steve Chadwick: But they know best.

BRENDON BURNS: Clearly, the Government does know best! While we are on the matter of cellphones, we have to ask the question that if we are going to have hands-free for cellphones, then what about global positioning systems (GPS)? A GPS can distract drivers from the issue at hand, whether they are roaring down Bealey Avenue at 100 kilometres an hour on a Friday night or just searching for a further indication of where to go. I would like the Minister to comment on what the advice to the Government from officials has been. Should there be, as Ms Wagner promised the electorates of Christchurch and the nation, a cut in the noise level down to 90 decibels from 95 decibels? There is nothing in this bill on that. The Minister is responsible for this area. He gets the official advice, and he can tell us, should he choose to do so. I think he should let people know, because they have high expectations.

If the Government does not give us an explanation I will continue to ask these questions. The National Government is now in power and it should tell us, given all the promises and pledges made by Nicky Wagner to Christchurch voters not just at the 2008 election but also in 2005—so it is a repeat promise—that she would deliver on this issue and ensure the noise limits were reduced. She aligned herself with the Noise Off campaign group. She held numerous public meetings and put up a website saying “Stop the Noise”, yet the noise will continue under the measures proposed in this bill. The Minister owes the House an explanation.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) : I want to pick up from where Mr Burns left off, because he and I and other colleagues from Christchurch—Lianne Dalziel and Ruth Dyson—face the issue of noise to a huge extent every night in our electorates. I think that Mr Burns in his own diplomatic way was being very generous and diplomatic in respect of Nicky Wagner. I can recall that Kate Wilkinson, Gerry Brownlee, David Carter, and, latterly, Aaron Gilmore, stomped the streets of Christchurch and greater Canterbury, held public meetings, and had petitions on this issue. I say that Mr Burns is a generous soul, but he was far too generous to Nicky Wagner. She pledged, damn near in blood, that change would occur. She lambasted the previous Government, saying that nothing had occurred, that the noise level had not been addressed, and that when she got into Government this would all change. Nicky Wagner presented the petition from her and 435 others to her own party’s majority-run committee—I am advised that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee has a majority of National members on it.

Mr Burns has referred to Noise Off. I cannot recall the names of the individuals in Noise Off—

Brendon Burns: Jonathan?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I am not sure of the surname, but a number of people from Christchurch in a group called Noise Off have campaigned vigorously for a 90-decibel rating, and Ms Wagner was very, very happy to lend her political weight, such as it is, to that group and any other group. Like bees around the honeypot, they clustered around her in support of her position, and I mean no disrespect to those people because we now know that they were hoodwinked—

Hon Steve Chadwick: They had hope.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: My colleague says that they had hope. They were hoodwinked. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us, or maybe Ms Wagner could tell us, as I am sure she wants to take a call on this issue. She is here somewhere. As a list member from Christchurch who campaigned vociferously on this issue, she will want to question the Minister—

Hon Steve Chadwick: It was a crusade.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: —it was a crusade—vigorously as to why she was rolled by him, and as to why, when National has a majority on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, her colleagues rolled her on this issue.

Now it is accountability time. What was said before the election is now being revisited after the election on those who said it. We have people coming to us in our electorate offices saying: “Hang on, wasn’t this Government going to do something and bring the noise down to a 90-decibel level? Wasn’t it Nicky Wagner and Kate Wilkinson who said that?”. Ms Wilkinson got up in front of the people of Mandeville in my electorate, a couple of weeks after the election, and said: “It will all be taken care of. We’re in Government now. This mob is out. We’re going to sort it.” Gerry Brownlee, David Carter, and Aaron Gilmore said the same. Their words have now come back to haunt them, and it would be helpful if those members would tell the people of Christchurch why they let them down, why they promised to do it, and why they pledged to do it. If it was not National Party policy it makes it worse, because those pledges were then made under false pretences.

The Canterbury members on this side of the Chamber are making contributions. I invite the National members from Canterbury to ask the Minister why he rolled them, and why the majority National members on the select committee rolled them. Why did they not come clean? They were still promising this days and weeks after the election. But when the rubber hit the road, excuse the pun, and we got the legislation in, why then did the majority of National select committee members—and for those who are listening, I tell them that the majority rules in this place; the party that has the majority on a select committee rules the day—roll their colleagues Nicky Wagner, Kate Wilkinson, Gerry Brownlee, David Carter, and Aaron Gilmore? Why did this Minister basically brush them aside and say “We aren’t going to have a bar of it.”

I think to not acknowledge that noise is a huge part of the problem is to dismiss thousands of people and residents around New Zealand. We heard of St George’s Hospital, I think it was—

Brendon Burns: Southern Cross.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Southern Cross, I am sorry, a hospital on Bealey Avenue, which has had to move patients from one side of the hospital to the other. In fact speeches were made about this particular issue by National MPs before the election. They were wringing their hands and saying how awful it was—and it is—and how the Government should do something about it, and that if it did not, they would. Well, they have the opportunity here tonight.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) : Where are the Noise Off people when we need them? Oh, suddenly it is much quieter; that is great. I will make only three points. Of course, the first point to make, to the Opposition member Clayton Cosgrove, is that the previous Labour Government did have 9 years in which to take action on this particular issue, and, finally, just before it left office, it changed the law so that the noise limit for new vehicles entering the fleet would drop to 90 decibels. Of course, at that time the Labour members had the opportunity to set that limit for all vehicles if they felt so inclined, which of course they did not. So that did not happen.

The second point I will make, perhaps particularly to Mr Burns, is that there is a difference between primary legislation and road rules, and that any change in vehicle noise limits is subject to a road rule, not to primary legislation. Apart from anything else, that is a practical reason why noise limits are not specifically addressed in the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill.

The third point I will make is that the process we are addressing here in the bill is all about tackling the behaviour that creates the noise, as much as we can. We know that successive Parliaments have tried to do that and have had a limited effect, sometimes with more effect than at other times. Tackling the behaviour involves is a combination of changes to the law and operational activity by the police, as well. We are giving the police a tool box under this legislation that we think will make a significant difference. If we are dealing with noise in the avenues in Christchurch, we are dealing with antisocial behaviour by illegal street racers. That is what we are dealing with. We have to deal with that behaviour. The way to deal with that behaviour is to hit those people where it hurts, which is with regard to their licences and their vehicles, and that is what this bill and the companion bill set out to do.

I am pleased that Labour is supporting this bill, because it knows that it will have an impact. I think that the sooner we get this legislation passed and the sooner we get it into the Christchurch market place and around other parts of the country, the better we will all be at dealing with illegal street racing and the related noise.

CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) : I rise also to speak in relation to the issue of noise. It came up in the course of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee’s deliberation on the petition of Nicky Wagner. I think there are a couple of points, and they relate to the point I made earlier about the deliberation and consideration phase of our select committee work being very rushed. A number of important issues were raised about lower decibel requirements, and a lot of information was provided by officials in this area, but I do not think we really got to debate it.

I think it is too simplistic to say that lower stationary tailpipe noise limits will not significantly reduce vehicle noise. I think also that the issue of modification of exhausts is one we need to look at more closely. There are countries, for example, that ban such modifications completely, and some that have lower decibel limits than we currently have. As has already been noted, Labour took action in that regard in its last term in Government.

The area I particularly want to focus on is the fact that the police already have powers to take action in the area of noise under the Land Transport Rule: Vehicle Equipment 2004 and the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004. We noted that those rules provide the police with a relatively straightforward way of dealing with noise, as long as the police are there. So it is about police resourcing, actually; use of the vehicle rules that I have just mentioned depends on resourcing.

One of the things I found particularly interesting was that there is very inconsistent usage of those rules around New Zealand. We saw quite a bit of evidence. I will give members some examples.

Hon Tau Henare: Oh, don’t!

CAROL BEAUMONT: Oh, I am sure that Mr Henare really does want to know these things. If we are taking a holistic approach, we need to look at what is used already. If we looking at noisy vehicles, we see that there were 249 infringements in the Waitamatā area, whereas in Auckland there were only 15. I do not know; arguably, there are different numbers of vehicles in each area, but both areas are quite large, and it seems to me that that is a major inconsistency. If we go through to Counties-Manukau, we are looking at 82 infringements in relation to noisy vehicles. In the Waikato area we are looking at 111 infringements. On the other hand the Bay of Plenty, which does not have the same population and therefore, one would think, does not have the same number of vehicles as Waikato, had 202 infringements in relation to noisy vehicles. Let us look at the Canterbury area, because it comes up a lot in relation to vehicle noise. In the Canterbury area there were 926 infringements. That is quite a lot of infringements in the area of noisy vehicles. On the other hand, in the southern area there were 147.

My point is that there is quite a lot of inconsistency. One of the things that became obvious to us, and the point was made by the police themselves, is that a lot can already be done in relation to this problem. Essentially, the main part of the problem with boy racers is the noise element, and a lot could be done if there were consistent policing across New Zealand. It seems to me that those two rules on noise are not being applied consistently at the moment, and that they may provide a more straightforward way of dealing with it than some of the propositions that are being put up in both the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill and its companion bill, which we will be talking about next.

I go back to the point made earlier that the issue is police resourcing. The utilisation of these provisions requires sufficient police at the right time and in the right place, and that is a problem. It seems to me that it is particularly a problem for us at a point when the Minister is actually cutting funding to the police. Cutting $21 million from the police budget and reducing the number of police vehicles on the roads will make it more difficult, arguably, for the police to use those noise provisions.

I thought it was important to note that we do have some noise rules that could be a very useful device, but we do not have adequate policing to use them.

JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) : I move, That the question be now put.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) : I will return to the previous contribution that I made, and base this contribution on some of the comments made by the Minister in the chair, the Hon Steven Joyce. I was quite surprised that in respect of noise, the Minister basically said, as I understand it, he did not believe that the Government should make changes to the primary legislation, but it might set a noise limit through a rule. I say this to the Minister: this is the highest court in the land. This is Parliament. If the Minister is of a mind to, this Parliament can do anything that it likes. He could make changes in respect of the 90 decibel limit in this bill, if he was of a mind to do that. He can do anything that he likes. This Parliament can pass any legislation, saying anything. That is its constitutional power.

Brendon Burns: Provided they have Māori Party support.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Well, that is another issue. But the Government has the numbers, so it says, in respect of this bill, the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill. If the Minister wanted to do so, he could flick in an amendment or a Supplementary Order Paper—he has done a couple of them, which Labour supports—to change this bill. But he chooses not to do that. I suppose that in the first part of this bill it was a case of “They will know it if they see it.”, and in the second part it is a case of “Well, they will know it if they hear it.”

• Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I wonder whether you could give some advice to the Committee about the appropriateness of the Minister of Civil Defence parading around the Chamber with a man bag. I am very concerned about that, so could you give us some advice about that?

Hon John Carter: At least no one can say I am not prepared for when it happens. It is all here; the recipe is here. I just hope everyone else has theirs. I am very proud of it.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I know that the Hon John Carter was a boy scout. He is always prepared.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Before I start again, I say I am happy to yield to Mr Carter if he would like to tell us what is in the bag—unless it is his gym gear, which would create a hazardous waste area within the Chamber.

Hon John Carter: No, more than that!

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: That is great. Before the dinner break I was discussing with the Minister, who I know is very eager to take and answer questions, the noise issue in relation to Part 2 of the bill. A number of members of Parliament are from Canterbury, especially the vibrant member Nicky Wagner. Before and after the election she paraded around the countryside, and she presented a petition from 435 venerable, good-natured folk in Canterbury, who demanded that the Government do something about the noise issue and set the level at 90 decibels. She said—she almost wrote it in blood—at a number of public meetings before the election that this would happen. She lambasted the previous Government and had a crack at us, saying if she got into Government, this would occur, it would happen, and it would be one of the first calls to action that her incoming Government would put through legislation on. Then what happened? Nothing.

The Minister took a call in response to what I said, saying—and I may be paraphrasing him— the noise issue should be dealt with in rules rather than in primary legislation. I ask the Minister why he rolled his own member of Parliament. Why did he roll his own Cabinet colleague? Kate Wilkinson, a member who occasionally resides in my electorate, also paraded around Christchurch, saying if National got in, it would fix the noise problem for Canterbury and for the rest of New Zealand. Gerry Brownlee said that as well, although he may have been talking about himself rather than boy racers. David Carter and Aaron Gilmore said that, as well. Even after the election, those members still rocked up to public meetings and told people that now that they were in Government, they would sort the issue out. I am sure the Minister will be pleased to know that those members were extremely complimentary when he took over the transport warrant. They said he was a man of action and he would deal to the noise issue.

Hon John Carter: That’s why we’re here today.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I tell Mr Carter that here is the problem: the bill does not deal with the noise caused by boy racers, at all.

The 90 decibel pledge that Nicky Wagner and all the National people made is nowhere in this bill, nor is it dealt with in the companion bill. I say to the Minister that if he had a mind to, he could have any legislation passed that he desired to pass. He could pop the 90 decibel limit into this bill now if he and the Government wanted to honour their pledge on that. I am sure Nicky Wagner is around the corners of this Chamber somewhere. I cannot quite see her, but I am sure that she is here and will want to take a call, as will the Leader of the House as he parades into the Chamber tonight. Gerry Brownlee is among the Canterbury members who said that the 90 decibel issue would be sorted and the noise issue in Canterbury would be sorted. I am sure Mr Brownlee will want to take a call and tell the people of Canterbury, New Zealand, why he says—if he sits down—it will be fixed now. Is the member proposing an amendment?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: No, I just think—

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Well, the member will be able to tell the people of Christchurch why he sold them out and why he, his other Cabinet colleagues, and Nicky Wagner were rolled.

Nowhere in the two bills that we are debating tonight is there any reference to action on a 90 decibel limit. My friend Mr Burns has already alluded to that. Those members have been sold out. It is another broken promise from the National Government. We will enjoy, as we do now, constituents coming to us so that we can try to explain why the National Government has sold them out. I will be sending all of the people from Mandeville North to Kate Wilkinson’s office to get her to explain that. Brendon Burns will be sending his constituents to Nicky Wagner’s office for her to explain that.

Hon John Carter: That’s a good idea; they’ll get decent service that way!

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Well, the 435 petitioners who signed Nicky Wagner’s petition did not get decent service from her, because she, that member, this Minister, and this Government have broken their promise. Where is the action?

David Bennett: Oh!

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I invite the chair of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, David Bennett, who is the member for Hamilton East, or anyone else from the National Party, to get up and tell me where in the legislation there is the solution to the promise to go to 90 decibels. Can the member point me to that on a page, or in a clause or a paragraph of this legislation? Oh no, the member for Hamilton East cannot do that, because I suspect somebody got to him. His constituents in Hamilton East would be spewing, to use a colloquialism, if they knew what he was not doing now. He is not fulfilling an election pledge that he made.

I say to the Minister that he has an opportunity. We are here to help; we would support him if he popped in an amendment. But we know, because the majority of the select committee rejected setting a 90 decibel limit, that the National Government will not have a bar of it. That is a shame, because yet again the rhetoric does not match the action.

Hon Steven Joyce: 9 years!

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I know the Minister is calling for the chair of the select committee to jump up and move that the question be put, because he does not want to be in the chair. I invite the member from Hamilton to get up and tell his constituents why he sold them out. Or is he so ineffective, and the Minister so effective, that he, Nicky Wagner, and every member in Canterbury, including, bizarrely, the Leader of the House, were rolled? I do not think it is good enough to make a promise like that before, at, and after the election, and then, like little lambs, not to stand up and say “Well, we promised to do it; we said we’d do it. But we conned you; we haven’t done it.”, and not say why the promise has not been fulfilled.

David Bennett: Rubbish!

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Well, where is it? Where is the clause in the bill that deals with 90 decibels? Hello? There is silence. It is deafening. Members speak with a forked tongue over there on the Government benches. The silence is deafening. They are being challenged; it is on the record.

Brendon Burns: The silence of the lambs!

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: The Minister may take another call and tell us what he is going to do about the noise issue.

I do not buy what he said earlier. As that Minister and most of the Committee know, rules take a long, long time to get through the labyrinth of processes in relation to transport matters. If that Minister wanted to do something, he could pass the bill tonight with the limit of 90 decibels put in place, as the National members promised. They could do that tonight and we would support it, would we not? We would help to facilitate that, but the National members will not do that. This bill is a bit like the bill that we will be debating later tonight, as there is a big gap between the rhetoric and reality. Judith Collins said every car would be crushed, then on Radio New Zealand National she said that meant 10 cars a year. She says “Ha, ha!” to all the people in Christchurch and around the country who have to put up with this insidious behaviour. Effectively, the National Government is saying to communities around the country “Ha, ha! We hoodwinked you!” I am sure that the people from Noise Off, from other interest groups, from Cashmere, from out my way, and from Christchurch Central will be very, very interested when they read in the paper tomorrow and the coming days that this bill is hot air.

To be fair, I say to the Minister that there is a lot of good stuff in the bill. I concede that, but it does not deal with one of the core issues that National members of Parliament from around the country campaigned on. It does not even make reference to it, yet those same members of Parliament—members like Nicky Wagner, Kate Wilkinson, Gerry Brownlee, and the other two invisible men we have around Christchurch from time to time—will not get up and take a call to explain to their constituents why they have sold them out or why they have so little influence that they were rolled in the select committee. The 435 good souls who signed Nicky Wagner’s petition were rolled; they were not listened to in the select committee. They had no influence.

The fact is that the National Government has broken a promise that to some people in our community is a core promise. The people in Blackett St in Rangiora have to put up with this noise every night. So do people in Cashmere, and they called for this measure and National agreed to it, but now the Minister is silent. The National members shake their heads and throw in the odd interjection, but every time that Mr Burns or I have asked where the 90 decibel clause to fix this problem is in the bill, there is silence, because such a clause does not exist. I think that is a shame. To quote National’s jargon, I think that is a “missed opportunity”, because some of the measures in this bill are quite practical. They may go some way to solving or alleviating some of the problem, unlike the companion bill that we will be debating next. But the Minister refuses to acquiesce on the issue of setting the noise limit.

BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) : I am very pleased to take another call on the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill. I have taken an intense interest in this issue, firstly, of course, because of the plague that boy racers create in my electorate of Christchurch Central, and, secondly, because this was the issue that my National opponent in last year’s election campaigned upon. It was her cause célèbre. At meeting after meeting she stood up and lambasted the then Labour Government for its supposed inaction on boy-racer issues. Her view is not supported by Minister Collins, at least, who has acknowledged that good work was done by Labour and that this Government is picking up on it—and that is why Labour is supporting this bill tonight.

But there is a glaring omission, a deafening silence, around the issue of noise control. It was stated time and time again that National would address that issue. I do not have the full file, because it is quite voluminous, so I will give an abridged version of some of the undertakings made by Nicky Wagner, a National list MP. In the Nor’West News on 16 January last year she said: “We have some of the slackest vehicle noise rules in the Western World and so we need to make it so that vehicle noise standards are reduced from 95 decibels to 90, and require all excessively noisy cars to be tested at warrant of fitness time.”

Hon Member: This bill doesn’t do that?

BRENDON BURNS: No, not a sign of it. It is missing in action in that respect. In the Press on 19 February last year, Nicky Wagner wrote in an opinion article that the Labour Government’s new noise controls on vehicles do nothing to tackle the boy-racer problems in cities. In that article she also said that 95 decibels is much louder than the rules in many overseas countries. So, again, when I picked up this bill I expected to see a clause to reduce the maximum noise level down to 90 decibels. On 21 February 2007 she wrote, in an article titled “Noisy vehicle amendments not good enough”: “Proposed amendments to the vehicle equipment rule will not bring New Zealand’s noisy vehicle standards up to scratch, says National Party Associate Environment Spokeswoman, Nicky Wagner. The noise problem has been getting steadily worse throughout Labour’s term. This is a basic, environmental issue which the Labour Government just can’t get its head around. Under the proposed new rules, the acceptable noise level for cars would drop from 95 to 90 decibels. This is a standard that’s been in place in Australia since 1983, and here we are still waiting. And we will be waiting until 2010.”

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Who said that?

BRENDON BURNS: It was Nicky Wagner. In a letter to the Press on 27 February last year, in reply to Darel Hall, she stated: “Of course a 90 decibel level will catch 90 percent of boy racers, because by definition a boy racer has a modified noisy exhaust. The Government must act now.”

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Who said that?

BRENDON BURNS: It was Nicky Wagner MP—then, cheekily, “Central Christchurch”. In another newspaper clipping, from 10 March last year, National MP Nicky Wagner said: “tighter noise controls were essential. She backed the 90-decibel level, which she said was well above the standard of other countries and would not affect unmodified cars.”

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Who said that?

BRENDON BURNS: That was Nicky Wagner, too. Here is something interesting; it is not just Nicky Wagner saying that. Here is a statement from 9 September 2005, headlined “National to get tough on noisy cars—National will toughen up the regulations and enforcement of car exhaust systems to get the noise levels in neighbourhoods down …”. Do members know who said that? It was National’s environment spokesperson, Nick Smith. “The problem of noisy boy racers is huge. It causes annoyance and frustration for communities all over New Zealand. People have told me they have had nervous breakdowns, marriage breakups and job losses due to the problems of increasingly noisy cars night after night in their neighbourhoods. National will toughen the requirement to ensure any modified exhaust system is at least as effective as the car’s original. Modifying a car to make it noisier will be illegal. National will introduce a quantitative standard, similar to Australia, so that cars can be properly tested. Labour has allowed boy racers to get away with blue murder. Our car fleet has become increasingly noisy and it is time a new Government said enough is enough.”

Carol Beaumont: Who said that?

BRENDON BURNS: It was Nick Smith, environment spokesperson for the National Party. So there we are: not just Nicky Wagner but senior National front-bench MPs in positions of responsibility said they wanted to deal with the issue of noise. Here we are in the first year of this Government, and despite its member having talked tough on the noise issue, nothing is being done.

This bill provides an opportunity. Despite the protestations of the Minister of Transport, he can introduce an amendment. Labour members have indicated we would seriously look at such an amendment, if the Minister wanted to introduce one. But, no, he is not prepared to do that, nor is he prepared to give us any reason why the noise issue is not being dealt with. The officials are here tonight, and they could give him the answers if he does not have them at his fingertips. We would like to know why nothing is being done, despite repeated assurances to communities such as mine in Christchurch by not only backbench MPs but senior front-bench Opposition members at the time that they would deal with this issue.

Labour when in Government took the flak, week after week, of being criticised for not dealing with the issue of boy-racer noise, despite there having been a whole range of other bills. I acknowledge and commend my colleague Clayton Cosgrove for his bill back in 2003, which was the basis of the legislation we are amending this evening. It was a good measure, and it was followed up by Harry Duynhoven’s measure. There were two sets of measures in terms of tightening the nuts to make sure we dealt with boy racers. But there has been nothing from this Government. [Interruption] We will tighten their nuts, all right. There has been nothing from this Government to deal with the noise issue.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Who is nuts?

BRENDON BURNS: No, we will not go there. There has been nothing from this Minister. He has the opportunity to tighten the nuts, to deal with the noise issue, and to bring the maximum level down to 90 decibels. But there is not a squeak. There is silence—silence of the lambs. National members were lions in Opposition, and are lambs in Government. That is what I will be taking back to my electorate. The electorate’s expectations were raised time and time again throughout last year’s election campaign. In fact, right back to 2005 National promised that a National Government would introduce legislation to bring the maximum noise level down to 90 decibels. The opportunity is before the Government with this legislation, but there is not a squeak, not a word, not a clause, nothing. There is not even an explanation from the Minister as to why it has not been proceeded with.

I think the electorate has every right to feel jaundiced about that. It was promised that the noise issue would be dealt with. The people were told that at public meetings, they were exhorted to fill out petitions, and a member’s bill was introduced to try to deal with the issue. Expectations were raised. People were told that this issue would be sorted. Here is the first opportunity for this supposed Government of action, and it has not done anything. I again ask the Minister to take a call to explain why action has not been taken. The Labour Opposition will support him if he wants to introduce a late amendment to the bill.

I would also like to know what the officials think about this. Where are they on this issue? Do they believe that the legislation before the Committee tonight will deal with the noise issue? Obviously, Labour supports the bill. It takes further steps to try to crack down, to tighten the nuts on the boy racers. Yes, let us all support that, but there will still be a noise issue. We would like to know from the Minister tonight why he has not dealt with the noise issue. It was promised and pledged, and the electorate has an expectation that it will be dealt with. It is about time the Minister fronted up and answered.

• The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 66 in the name of the Hon Steven Joyce to Part 2 be agreed to.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) : Clause 1, of course, is the title clause of the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill. I confess that at the start of the debate I could not think of an alternative title or change until I heard the Minister in the chair, the Hon Steven Joyce, speak. He provided us with some very interesting titles, I think. One was with regard to the issue of cruising, which we had canvassed in quite a lengthy and serious way in order to try to elicit from him whether the definition of cruising would, to put it bluntly, stand up in court. Would it be possible for an offender to test it in court and water it down through case precedent? Would it be possible for police to enforce that particular clause, given its nature? Might it, indeed, have an unintended consequence for innocent folk who could be caught by it? I think the example I used, about which we did not get an answer, was that of an election campaign. That is something that is quite dear to the hearts of all of us here. It has been the practice of a number of political parties, including the National Party, to line up vehicles, quite legitimately, with loudhailers or music going—or, to use the definitions in the bill, by drawing attention to “the power or sound of the engine” from time to time—to then make a bit of a hullabaloo and draw attention to themselves, of course, and to move in a convoy. The question is whether that would be outlawed by this legislation now.

In response to the questions we raised about cruising and other aspects of the bill, the Minister’s response was to refer, presumably, to the police: “They’ll know it when they see it.” That was what the Minister said, so perhaps we should call this bill the “They’ll Know It When They See It Bill”. But that does not fill communities around the country full of confidence, because they want this bill to work. We want this bill to work. Communities that have to put up with this sort of stuff every night of the week around the country want this bill to work. That is why we are trying to test these propositions with this Minister, but we are getting no response. I am sorry; we do get a response, but it is not a response that fills us full of confidence, where he bolsters our confidence with legal argument from his officials and others, who can say definitively that the legislation will not be watered down by the courts—that it will not have an unintended consequence on the vintage car club or, indeed, force police perhaps to arrest folks who do not transgress the law but might transgress it technically. Instead of presenting us with legal arguments saying that boy racers will not be able to get around this legislation in court because we will nail them, the Minister’s response was: “They’ll know it when they see it.” I just say to the Minister that I do not know whether calling the bill the “They’ll Know It When They See It Bill” is very productive, but it makes the point. As I say, I think the communities that support these measures want to see them work, but they want the confidence to know that the measures will do the job that the Government and this Parliament seek to do.

We went on to the issue of noise, and I will not rehash those arguments; I am sure my learned colleagues will do that for me. Again, I say that if they will know it when they see it, as the Minister said, then, presumably, “They will know it when they hear it.” is the policy that he will put forward, or the slogan that he will rattle out, to explain why there is no clause in the bill that deals with the 90-decibel limit. In relation to “They will know it when they hear it.”, I say that people all around this country who put up with this noise day and night want a noise limit. As I said, Southern Cross Hospital in Mr Burns’ electorate—the example that was used by Nicky Wagner, and others—had patients who had to be moved to the other side of the hospital. Labour members recall having that example thrown up at us day after day. Well, there is an opportunity tonight—or there was, at least—to deal with that issue. Maybe the bill could be called the “We Sold the Folks Out Over the Noise Bill”, because that is effectively what has happened.

I suppose the other title we could use is the “Do the Police Have the Resources to Implement this Bill? Bill”. Do they? [Interruption] Well, the Minister shakes his head. Maybe I am not as eloquent as he is, but let us look at the matter in practical terms.

Hon Darren Hughes: That’s impossible!

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: At least I can look him in the eye when I am speaking. I do not have to look down at my desk and be ashamed of what I am doing.

Hon Darren Hughes: Ha, ha! He’s getting training on that.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: My colleague said that he is getting training on that. The question is, of course, whether the police in the maestro’s electorate in Kaikōura, or on the North Shore in Mr Coleman’s electorate—I am not sure where that is—will have the resources to enforce the provisions in this bill. Will they have the resources with 340 cars going? It is a bit hard for the police to chase boy racers if they do not have cars. It is a bit hard for a police officer on a shift to have to wait for a vehicle for 2 hours when he or she comes in. A police officer does not say to the boy racer being dealt with on the side of the road: “Sorry, my shift’s over. I’m out of here.” The police do not do that. They conclude the investigation and conclude the processing of the crime. But the police are waiting, we now know, for 2 hours to get out there, do the business, help communities, support them, and clean up that sort of behaviour.

I cannot remember, but I am sure Mr Hughes will tell me, how much money was taken out of the road patrol. But several million dollars was taken out of road safety and road patrolling; I do not know the exact figure. Then, again, front-line patrol cars are going. One police officer in my electorate stopped behind my electorate office bus, and the officer said that his patrol car was gone. He was a badged member of the highway patrol. How will that officer have the resources to enforce this legislation? Maybe he will be able to take a cab or run after the boy racer. There is a gap here, I say again, between implementation and the resources to do it. I know the Minister will get up and say what he said last time—that the Government has increased the police budget by x, y, and z.

Hon Steven Joyce: That’s right.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Yes. It is a bit like one of the Ministers who said that in the Budget the Government had given 43 new police cars to the police. A week later we found out that the Government wanted to take 340 police cars from the police—and it has done that.

Hon Darren Hughes: Terrible optics!

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Oh, yes; optics is something that this Minister apparently specialises in—and I am not talking about fibre optics. The Minister will say that the Government gave the police a Budget allocation. Let him then explain why it is requiring the police—according to Dave Cliff, the Canterbury district commander, in an article—to take $21 million out of their budget when crime is going up, when illegal street racing is going up, and when we know that in a recession crime will go up. The Minister giveth with one hand and taketh away with the other hand behind his back, hoping that people will not see that he and the Government are doing that.

I invite him to explain why there has been a cut in road policing. He will say he has given road policing a budgetary allocation—fine. Why, then, did the Minister take money from it?

Hon Darren Hughes: It was a reduction.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: It was a reduction, my colleague says. That is interesting. It was a reduction. So I say to the Minister, in concluding, that it would be nice if he would rise to his feet. I know he will probably crack a few jokes. He has been fiddling away there, working out how he could crack a few jokes, and I am sure we will all look forward to those, as he looks down at his piece of paper and reads them out rather than looking at his colleagues on the other side.

Hon Darren Hughes: Radio jingles.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Radio jingles, perhaps! But I would like him to answer those questions we have raised about the issue of cruising, the issue of resourcing, and the issue of noise. I think they are fair questions to ask, as they pertain to the title in clause 1 and the commencement in clause 2—we see that the bill has a staggered commencement. I think they are fair questions to raise. Presumably there is no opposition to that, because the Government members on the other side are struck dumb. They are not saying anything, at all. They are not even trying to defend the Minister’s position.

Hon Darren Hughes: It’s like caucus.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: It is like caucus for those guys. I think they are very critical questions that all communities have asked. I think that communities would extend quite a bit of goodwill to this Minister and this Government with regard to this legislation if they had those questions answered. But they are central and critical questions if people are living on the ground and in the communities where this sort of stuff happens. The activity has gone beyond being a pain in the neck. It has got to the point where there is some violence attached to this activity. I know that Mr Burns and others know people who have been impacted by that violence. But the simple issue around noise is not being addressed.

On the simple issue of whether the “cruising clause” will work, I will make a prediction. I do not reckon that it will, sadly, but I will support amendments in the future when we have to come back and stitch up what a court has unstitched, with proper amendments around that issue. I just hope that in respect of cruising we do not get unintended consequences.

In respect of police resourcing, I will make another bet with the Minister. The pressure will go on the police—and is already going on today—who are getting it in the ear because they cannot respond as quickly as the public would like. They are the ones who will get it in the ear, not the Minister. He will get an occasional letter from someone who is disgruntled, but, unfairly, it is the men and women in blue who will get it in the ear, as they did in Redwood when they could not respond to a burglary because they did not have the resources to do so.

I ask the Minister a final question. I ask whether, if this legislation does not work because of the cuts he has made, he will do what Judith Collins refused to do before the estimates hearing at the select committee. I ask whether he will stand up and say: “I’ll cop it. I’m the Minister; it is a Westminster system. I’m the person who required these cuts, I’m the person who required this legislation in the form it is to go through, and I’ll take responsibility.” Will he stand before the law enforcement agencies and say “No, no—you guys and girls do the job that I give you; I as the Minister will take responsibility.”? I ask whether the members for Hamilton, Hawke’s Bay and Kaikōura will take responsibility. No, the member for Hawke’s Bay is shaking his head and saying that he will not take responsibility. But I ask whether those members will take responsibility in their constituencies when the police cannot enforce the laws this Government puts upon them.

• Clause 1 agreed to.
• The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 66 in the name of the Hon Steven Joyce to clause 2 be agreed to.

• Amendment agreed to.

• Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

• Clause 3 agreed to.

• Bill reported with amendment.

• Report adopted.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) : I will take a short call in regard to the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill. I congratulate the Minister on his sterling effort in getting this bill through Parliament. I also congratulate members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on the way they dealt with the issue. They basically looked at the bill from an objective point of view and tried to get the best solution for New Zealand residents and citizens. The issue predominantly affects a lot of urban centres, not just Christchurch but also major centres throughout the country. This bill is the best we can do to deal with that issue.

Opposition members have said they see a few holes in the bill, but they had a chance for 9 years to address the issue; the member who has been talking for the last 10 minutes, Clayton Cosgrove, actually put up his own member’s bill a few years ago. Now he has had revelations about what he should have put in his bill but did not. He knows that the reality of what he has been talking about for the last 2 hours will not happen. This bill is the best attempt and the best solution we can get to the issue we are dealing with. Labour members know that, are voting for it, and know it is the best solution. We commend this bill to the House and congratulate all the officials who have helped us, as well. We have been through many a different avenue to get to this result. I thank them for their time and effort, as well. We support this bill to the House.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour) : It is a pleasure to take a call in the third reading of the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill. I too add my thanks to the officials for the work they did in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, which, I think, was done under some pressure at some stages. I acknowledge the members of the select committee.

I particularly acknowledge the submitters, once again. We heard from various submitters—some in Christchurch, some in Auckland, and some in Wellington. On the first day that we got back from Christchurch, where we had heard the first round of submissions on the Government’s two so-called boy-racer bills—this bill and its companion bill—I made a note that it was far more interesting than I had thought it would be. I came away with a very clear view, after hearing from the residents in Christchurch who were affected by good boy-racers, bad boy-racers, the police, and officials, that there is no quick fix to this problem. The legislation makes us feel as if we are doing something, but the question for the select committee and this House is whether these two bills will really make any difference or whether they are just window dressing. Having been through the select committee process and the consideration of the bills, I still believe that both bills, this bill and its companion bill, are window dressing.

I do, however, acknowledge that some useful tools are provided in this bill. I have acknowledged that in previous contributions. This legislation gives more powers to the police and, again, I want to share my colleagues’ concern that that is great but that there are still issues around police resourcing. We did not get an answer from the Minister about the issues around the cuts to the police resourcing we are seeing. Three hundred police cars have been cut—300 front-line vehicles. Enforcement is a really important part of making this bill, and the next bill we will be discussing, work. For example, the police on the North Shore, where I work, tell me that one in six calls that they attend relates to family violence. If there will not be additional police resources to deal with the measures in this bill, which give police more enforcement powers, what will happen to the issue of family violence? The previous Government was definitely committed to addressing family violence, and this Government may be committed to it. It is an ongoing issue. There is more and more reporting of family violence. There will also be ongoing issues with accident compensation, actually, and with sexual abuse counselling. However, I will put those issues to one side.

As I said, it was pretty obvious from the beginning that there was no easy fix to the problem. Submitters told us that noise was the big problem. I must admit that I came away, with my colleagues, thinking that if noise was the problem, then we should fix it. It felt as if it should have been easy to fix. Certainly, we had listened to Nicky Wagner, who had submitted a petition, and to all of the rarking up she had done over the last 3 years around the issue of noise, from the 2005 election through to the 2008 election—“This is something the Government has failed to address. Let us do something about it.”—and I think that that is a very sobering lesson for those members who are now in Government. It is very easy to rark up people. It is very easy to keep people distressed about things. It is very easy to say that we will fix it. But when it comes down to the problem, I say to Jonathan Coleman, it is not that easy to fix it.

I am particularly concerned that the expectations of the public have been raised about this bill and the companion bill. I think the public have been led to believe that this bill and the next bill will address the issue of illegal street racing, and that suddenly, in the four avenues in Christchurch, which are at the heart of the problem we have heard about, that street racing will stop. There will not be boy racers behaving badly. There will not be any noise. There will not be any of the bad social behaviour we have seen. Overnight it will stop when this bill is passed. I am really looking forward to coming back in a year and asking whether it has. Has the bill made any difference? I think that the people of Christchurch and the other cities who came along and made submissions to the committee about this issue—which is affecting them, and for whom we have a huge amount of sympathy—have been misled by this Government. As I said, it is a lesson for this Government about rarking up the issues when the issues are actually much more complex than this Government seems to think. During the select committee deliberation on this bill, I wondered how much thinking was done by the Government in putting up this bill, and whether there were some other approaches they considered.

All members, I am sure, who have any interest in road or transport safety, as I do, will have read the Automobile Association’s report, Saving Ourselves, and its submission on the transport safety consultation, Safer Journeys, that is out there at the moment. Some of my colleagues have mentioned that there have been successful police approaches to dealing with this issue. For example, there was Operation Sniper, and I think my colleague Carol Beaumont will talk a little bit about that operation in Manukau. Some young people enjoy baiting the police. The more those young people are out there, the more they will bait them. But the police have shown under Operation Sniper how the problem can be dealt with without this sort of legislation.

Another interesting thing in the AA report is the approach in South Australia. It is said that although New Zealand has stuck firmly to social marketing as an adjunct to enforcement, Australia has recognised that driving information campaigns on matters like fatigue cannot be linked to enforcement. Moreover, the Australians have gone further with social marketing campaigns to denigrate antisocial driving behaviour. The objective is to achieve a social consensus similar to that achieved on drink driving. The “small finger” campaign is aimed at young men showing off. I am interested to know whether this Government has had a look at what they are doing in South Australia, because I think that a lot of it is not just about enforcement and putting more laws in place, and making sure that the police have the resources; it is also about changing behaviour.

The Opposition does support some parts of this bill. We support the increase in demerit points because it is very obvious that fines do not work. In fact, fines become a badge of honour for many young people. They boast about the level of fines they have, with no intention of ever paying them. But, again, safe driving behaviour still relies on enforcement, on having police on the road, and on making sure they have the resources to catch people. As I said, we support many other useful tools, but that is one of them in particular. I think that a whole lot more work needs to be done around the demerits versus fines issue. There needs to be a whole lot more thinking about that and what it means. Labour is supporting this bill because overall we take a balanced view. The bill has more useful things than useless things in it, which is why we are supporting it.

I think that some real questions will be raised by communities that made submissions on this bill. I will be very interested to see whether in one year those affected by the serious harm that illegal street racers do to communities have found that things have changed. I suspect they will not have changed. I have to say that if the Government thinks that boy racers are a problem, then it should wait until the bikers get on the road and start rallying outside this Parliament with the concerns that they have around accident compensation levies. The bikers are just one group; I will not go into all the other groups.

Some other things were mentioned that people submitted on, and one was compulsory third party vehicle insurance. As reported in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee report, that insurance was suggested by several submitters as a means of altering drivers’ behaviour and reducing the numbers of unsafe vehicles. We understand that the Ministry of Transport is reviewing this type of insurance. We consider that it needs detailed investigation. The issue is outside the scope of this bill, but I suggest to the House that it is pretty urgent. It seems to be, from the submissions, that this is one way of really tackling the problem of what we have in New Zealand, which is a number of cheap cars that are easy to access. We can take them away, confiscate them, and crush them, but then people can get new ones. We have to make it more expensive through that compulsory third party vehicle insurance. Thank you.

DAVID GARRETT (ACT) : I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to support the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill, as we have done from the beginning. Until the new-found rapprochement between Mr Cosgrove on the other side and me was made, we were frequently at loggerheads. He mocked us on occasion, and no doubt will again, about what we were doing supporting bills like this one and whether we were not the party of freedom. I will not target Mr Cosgrove, because he is being very nice and polite at the moment.

But I will say that freedom is not the same as a word that is not heard much these days: licence. Freedom is the freedom to do what one wants to do, with the huge caveat that it does not interfere with the rights of others. Licence is the right, supposedly, to do what one wants to do. But it comes with a disconcerting consequence, which is that those who have their rights infringed can do what they like to another. That is called anarchy, and nobody on any side of the House, I do not believe, supports that. We support this bill because people do not, as speakers on all sides have said, have the right to disturb people’s sleep, drive them half mad, or simply interfere with their enjoyment of their back garden on a summer’s night. Classical liberalism does not allow that, and we do not support it.

I also agree with Mr Cosgrove about the reluctance of judges to use the law that he sponsored and pushed through Parliament. Sadly, judges’ reluctance to use the ambit of the law is all too common. That is one of the reasons why the “three strikes” bill, which the ACT Party has sponsored and which now forms part of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill, is necessary. I will use the example of Andrew Peter McGlynn. He is currently facing his fourth recall—yes, his fourth recall—from parole. Originally he committed murder 23 years ago. He was released from a life sentence after 9 years, committed an aggravated robbery, and was recalled. He was released again, committed another aggravated robbery, and was recalled. He was released again and assaulted a female.

That man should and would have been banged up for 14 years after the second aggravated robbery on parole had there been a “three strikes” law at the time. Sadly, the judges who dealt with him on those two occasions chose to give him sentences in the single figures, cut down by the Sentencing Act that was passed by the previous Government. This man is articulate and intelligent, and he has been able to fool the Parole Board not once, not twice, but three times. He is about to go back again. So I absolutely agree with Mr Cosgrove that the laws that we pass here are only part of the picture. Sometimes it is perfectly justified to blame the politicians, but not always. The judges must use what they are given by us, and if they do not do that, in my view that reflects very badly on the judiciary. This man, as I have said, is set again for recall after breaching parole conditions for a fourth time.

I will also speak briefly about Darien Fenton’s contribution, in which she said that we may have to come back here in a year, because the bill we are debating tonight may not achieve its aims. That is perfectly true, but there is nothing unique about that. Taxation law is amended constantly, for the very good reason that loopholes are found by lawyers who are paid a great deal more than I ever was as a lawyer. Those loopholes are closed, and they find new ones. Parliament then has to close those loopholes, and so on. That is why the Income Tax Act and similar legislation gets fatter and fatter by the year. It was ever so, and sadly it will always be so.

That is no reason to denigrate what we are doing here tonight. No doubt there will be clever lawyers—so-called civil liberties lawyers—who will take on these cases and find loopholes. We may well be back here next year. If we are, we will support whatever the Government proposes, if it appears to be a sensible response to those loopholes. Experience shows that in the case of both the boy-racer problem and the gangs, constant enforcement of the law by the police and constant, proper application of the law by the judges does work.

We talked briefly about the boy-racer thing in the last sitting week. I observed that at that time the problem had apparently abated somewhat in South Auckland. Mr Tau Henare has observed that it has moved to West Auckland. That is what happens. It is similar with gangs. I am reliably informed that when the police relentlessly applied the law in Wanganui and turned over, as they say, gang cars whenever they got the chance and there was reasonable cause to do so, gang crime went down. So it does work. It is a combination of effort by the police and by the judiciary.

As I have said, the boy-racer problem subsides when the law is enforced. There will be loopholes, no doubt, that will be uncovered and created by clever lawyers who somehow think their vocation in life is protecting those who make other people’s lives a misery. If we need to, we will come back here next year, the year after that, and the year after that to plug those loopholes, just as we do with tax law. Thank you.

Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) : I am pleased to speak on the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill. I also thank the Minister, officials, and other committee members for the work they have done on the bill.

This bill is about making our roads safer. It gives police and transport agencies greater powers. It is all about tackling illegal street racing and the antisocial behaviour that goes with it. It is also about what happens in the aftermath of illegal street racing—the litter, the broken bottles, and the alcohol-fuelled, hoon-like behaviour. It is about the terrorising of residents. We heard from moteliers from Bealey Avenue about how it had affected their businesses: the negative impact on their businesses, and the fact that their clients had had disturbed sleep.

We heard about mob-like attacks on police officers. In January this year Christchurch Hospital had to move its patients from the front part of the hospital, which was by the street, to the back of the hospital. That was a major disruption for a service like that. We heard, unfortunately, of a number of deaths that have occurred from illegal street racing. On average, 137 crashes a year result in injury or death caused by this activity, which involves mainly younger people. These are unnecessary deaths, and that is a tragic waste of human life. This bill will stop the menacing cruising behaviour by boy and girl racers, and the intimidation of residents and pedestrians.

The Government’s Supplementary Order Paper, which will allow a 28-day vehicle impoundment period for the offence of failing to stop when requested, is a good measure. We were quite astonished to hear in the select committee that the police were very concerned that the youth driving these vehicles did not stop when asked to; they sped off and played cat and mouse, and flouted the law with no respect for the law whatsoever. Clearly, the current penalty of 35 demerit points and a fine of no more than $10,000 is not working, and I am confident that the 28-day impoundment provision will send a clear message to these street racers that this Government is serious. I commend this bill to the House.

CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) : Like others who have risen to speak on the third reading of the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill, I would like to acknowledge that illegal street racing is a real problem and something we need to address. Like many others on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, I was very moved by some of the submissions we heard on the bill, and particularly by some of the submissions made in Christchurch. People’s lives were seriously affected by their inability to sleep at night. Not being able to sleep on an ongoing basis is a serious issue. In some cases people were not able to use certain parts of their houses, or their businesses were being affected. Ms Blue said that in some cases people had to put up with menacing and intimidating behaviour. We had a situation where a person actually chose not to submit on the bill because of being scared of the consequences of doing so. In the end, the Hon Lianne Dalziel submitted in that person’s place. Labour recognises the seriousness of the problem and we will support, and we are supporting, any genuine effort to deal with the issue of illegal street racing and the antisocial behaviour that goes with it.

The chair of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, David Bennett, mentioned earlier that this is the best that we can do. I am afraid I do not agree with that. I think genuine efforts had been made by the previous Government, and I would like to acknowledge the work of my colleague Clayton Cosgrove in that regard, particularly, and other Christchurch MPs. I think the Government is trying to progress those efforts and take them a step further, but this is not the best we can do; there is a lot of window dressing in this bill and its companion bill, and there are some areas of concern.

But before I go into those areas, like others, let me acknowledge all of the people who made submissions on the bill—and there were a significant numbers of submissions. Likewise, I would like to acknowledge the officials. They worked very hard, and a lot of particularly interesting questions were thrown their way, which they attempted to respond to and often responded to very clearly. We were under quite a lot of time pressure, which was unfortunate; the consequences of that are that some areas are not as clear as they might be.

The bill aims to disrupt and deter illegal street racing and related activities such as cruising by enhancing the powers of road controlling authorities to create by-laws in relation to such activities, and to provide enforcement officers with more powers to tackle illegal street racing. The elements that are part of that are, first of all, the issue of cruising, which has been well canvassed tonight. The definition of “cruising” causes Labour members some concern. We are not sure that the wording in place will do the job. A change was made by the select committee. The definition stated that cruising refers to the act of “driving repeatedly over the same section of a road” to draw attention to the power or sound of the motor vehicle, or in order to create a convoy that impedes traffic flow. But now the definition talks about “driving repeatedly in the same direction over the same section of a road”, thereby excluding going backwards and forwards over the same section of a road. That is a concern because the noise will be the same either way.

Likewise, I am concerned about the issue of by-laws. Although I can see the logic that by-laws enable local authorities to make specific and relevant changes in their areas, all of the local authorities—certainly, all the ones I can recall—did not want that power. That is a very interesting point and one we did not come to terms with. They were saying that they did not think by-laws would be the right tool. They thought there should be legislation, yet we have gone ahead and put in place by-law provisions. It remains to be seen whether they will be effective.

My point earlier was that after listening to all of the submissions I think there is no easy answer to this problem, and the real issues are quite significant ones that require a range of responses. Overwhelmingly, the significant issue is noise—it almost goes without saying. The problem with illegal street racing is the noise it creates and the disruption it causes. That is the biggest problem. The second and third problems are road safety issues arising from the actions of those illegal street racers, and their antisocial behaviour, which is often fuelled by alcohol.

The terminology of “cruising” and the use of by-laws to stop cruising are effectively a proxy; a proxy to try to stop the cars from going round and round, if you like, so the noise will not be there, the road safety issues will not be there, and the antisocial behaviour will not be there. In theory it is possible to imagine a situation where a car or several cars drive round and round some of the places we are talking about without causing trouble, without creating unnecessary noise, without creating road safety problems, and without antisocial behaviour. So it is not the actual cruising that is the problem; it is the things that go with it, and I do not think that we have effectively tackled those questions.

We decided the decibel issue was too hard so we have left it alone. We heard from the police that they have a couple of noise provisions that are potentially very effective and can assist them. They are the Land Transport Rule: Vehicle Equipment 2004 and the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004, both of which give the police quite a lot of scope to deal with the issue of noise. But to do so, they need to be there, and they need to be there in sufficient numbers and at the right time to utilise those provisions. The police made those points to us quite strongly. Likewise, road safety issues and policing of road safety problems are about having adequate policing.

Members can see that there are a whole range of possibilities relating to the third issue of antisocial behaviour. Why do young people congregate in these ways and take the actions that they do? Alcohol is certainly one of the reasons, and I guess there is an opportunity to look at that. The Law Commission has flagged the issue of drinking and cars and whether more needs to be done in relation to that issue. We have quite strong drink-driving provisions, but in the case of illegal street racing and boy racers the issue is not just the driver but the passengers, and there is a need to look at their antisocial behaviour, which is fuelled by alcohol. Significant things can be done in all of those areas.

I want to talk a little bit about some of the policing initiatives, because I was very impressed with what the police have been doing in some parts of New Zealand. We were led to understand that very effective initiatives and interventions are being undertaken by the police in regard to illegal street racing, such as Operation Sniper in Counties-Manukau. I will talk a little bit about that, but, first, I put on record my acknowledgment of the work of the police in relation to this issue. I think the police try very hard, with the resources they have, to tackle the problem.

What became clear to us is the need for greater consistency in police behaviour across the country. What has worked well in some parts of the country can be utilised elsewhere. I will explain a little bit more about Operation Sniper in Counties-Manukau. It targets illegal street racing and driving complaints in Counties-Manukau. Basically, a full-time sergeant has been put in place to deal with the problems. A number of initiatives have been looked at. These included looking at intelligence around illegal street racing, staff training on the relevant legislation and what could be done within the existing rules, education campaigns at the local high school, using the existing by-laws in place in Manukau City, looking at overt and covert police tactics, working with partner agencies such as the Manukau City Council and the Department of Corrections, working with affected local business owners and residents, and trying to develop new initiatives. There has been a significant impact as a result of those initiatives, and the numbers bear this out.

Hon TAU HENARE (National) : I am glad I was part of this bill. I want to thank Steven Joyce; David Bennett, the chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—and a good chairperson he is, too—Nicky Wagner, who went out of her way to collect many, many signatures; and Paul Quinn, as well. Nicky Wagner went out and collected many, many signatures because this was an issue particularly in Christchurch.

I want to talk about the meaning behind this bill. This bill is about reducing harm, reducing the nuisance, reducing disorder, and reducing antisocial behaviour. It has nothing to do with noise. If it had something to do with noise, then fellows like me and my mates in South Auckland in the best part of the 1970s would have been done for making too much noise. There would have been legislation all over the place about making noise. It is not about noise. It is about reducing harm to the community. I know that those people who get up and talk about noise are getting a wee bit old. They cannot handle the sounds that the little Honda Civics and Nissans make. Some of us can handle the noise that the V8s and the Fairlane 500s make going up the street. I know that it is a long time since we heard that big, grunty sound. The issue is about the harm and the disorder that is created around the use of vehicles today.

What I like about this bill is that it states that a licence is a privilege, not a right. When somebody gives us a privilege we have certain responsibilities: to act nicely, and to act within the law. If people do not act within the law, then their licence should be taken away from them. I like the idea of a licence, as a piece of property, belonging to the agency. Licences do not belong to individuals, they belong to the agency, and it is a privilege for individuals to hold that piece of property until they no longer need it, or they have transgressed and they have to give back that property because they have stepped over the mark.

So I think this is a good bill. Obviously, to some people it will not be the biggest Christmas present they have ever had, but it does go a long way to reducing harm, nuisance value, and disorder, and everybody knows what comes from disorder. The bill is also about reducing antisocial behaviour. I too commend the bill to the House.

BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) : I will just pick up on the comments made by the previous speaker, Tau Henare, who said that this bill is not about noise but about harm. Well, I challenge him to tell that to my constituents—to tell them that no harm is caused by cars, 500 at a time, with modified exhausts, roaring down Fitzgerald Avenue or Bealey Avenue at 2 o’clock on a Saturday morning with unabated noise coming from their modified mufflers. He should tell that to my constituents, to whom Nicky Wagner pledged and promised that she would deal with this issue, and that she would see the allowable noise level cut from 95 decibels to 90 decibels. She said that it would be a priority for this National Government. She blackguarded Harry Duynhoven and called him a petrolhead, yet here we have Tau Henare saying it is OK to roar about in V8 cars like he did in the 1970s. Well, as I say, he should come down and tell that to my electorate.

My colleague Carol Beaumont quite rightly categorised this bill as covering three things. It is about noise, cruising, and antisocial behaviour, mostly linked to alcohol consumption. I have to note at this point that in the Committee stage and so far in the third reading we have not heard from a National member from Christchurch—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: What?

BRENDON BURNS: That is right—not yet. Much noise was made during the election campaign and throughout the last 3 years by people like Nicky Wagner, like Kate Wilkinson, and like Gerry Brownlee. We have not heard a peep from them so far on this bill. Ms Wilkinson is in the House tonight and I hope she will take a call and explain to the people she sought to represent, and to whom she indicated that National would deal to the noise issue, why she has not.

It was not just the Christchurch MPs who gave this indication. The petition considered by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee was, in fact, launched in Nelson in February 2006. The reason it was there was that the environment spokesperson for the National Party, Dr Nick Smith, wanted the petition launched in Nelson. At that time he told the Nelson Mail he had had more than a dozen residents approach him, angry at the noise from the popular wide-bore exhausts—I think that refers to the car, not the member. He said that thousands of cars were being imported from Japan with perfectly good mufflers, but they were being replaced with systems designed to be noisy. He said that it was environmental vandalism and that no other country allows perfectly good muffler systems to be ripped off and replaced with mufflers that do not work. He was very keen to support Nicky Wagner’s petition, supported by a member’s bill, about the control of noisy exhausts.

Not only was that petition circulated around Nelson and Christchurch but also it was available at National Party electorate offices in the run-up to last year’s election.

Hon Member: Was it?

BRENDON BURNS: Absolutely. Members of the National Party were encouraging their supporters, would-be constituents, and voters to sign the petition. They said: “Come and sign the petition. Make sure you support it, because we as a party in Government are going to deal with the noise issue. We are going to make sure that the noise gets reduced from 95 decibels to 90 decibels.”

Of course, we have not heard a word in the debate on this bill around that issue. There has truly not been an explanation from the Minister as to why that did not occur. Perhaps the reason is that finally, after years of talking up this issue, National realised that there were between 50,000 and 100,000 ordinary Kiwi mums and dads who happened to own a car with a noisy exhaust system who could be faced with fees of up to $500 if they were forced to take that back to the original muffler system. Maybe that was the penny that dropped in the ranks of the National Party, even though Nick Smith, as the environment spokesperson, was saying that it was environmental vandalism for 95-decibel cars to be allowed on the roads, and even though Kate Wilkinson, Gerry Brownlee, and Nicky Wagner were also saying that we need to deal with this issue and were telling constituents in Christchurch that we must reduce the noise from 95 decibels back to 90 decibels. So maybe the penny dropped. Maybe they began to realise that that is why the issue had not been tackled by the then Labour Government.

So there was the opportunity in front of the new Government to deal with this issue. All sorts of pledges, promises, and indications were given to the electorate last election, and I know there will be many, many people in Christchurch who will feel disappointed, to say the very least, that they have not been listened to. [Interruption] No, I would hope that Nicky Wagner would call a public meeting, as she has done several times on this issue, to explain why she could not get the support of her colleagues on this bill, because that was the raison d’être and the basis of her campaign, not just in 2008 but also in 2005. Repeated pledges, undertakings, and assurances had been given to voters in Christchurch Central, and across the Christchurch electorates, that this issue would be addressed by the incoming National Government. There we were a month away from election day, with a bill that provided a perfectly legitimate vehicle for this issue to be tackled, but the Government was not prepared to follow through on the undertakings given by its members when in Opposition.

Again, we see a situation where we have people who are quite prepared to be lions in Opposition but lambs when it comes to Government. It is very easy to talk up an issue, it is very easy to call public meetings, it is very easy to operate a website saying we are going to deal with this issue, it is very easy to send out petitions and regular newsletters, and it is very easy to work with the Noise Off lobby and say “We are going to deal with this issue.” That must be a very disappointed lobby group tonight, because I think Jonathan Gillard and the members of Noise Off would have had every expectation and belief that this National Government would fulfil the promises and undertakings given to constituents in Christchurch. They had an expectation that they would have seen action on this issue, but in fact a deafening silence is left in its place.

I will turn to a couple of other aspects of the bill. I note, now that Minister Collins is in the House, her acknowledgment that this bill and its companion measure are not, as one or two other members opposite have claimed, the first action taken on these issues. This is an ongoing response from Parliament to the terror and tyranny that boy racers can present to electorates such as mine. I suspect this will not be the last that we see of the issue. But this legislation is attempting to tighten some of the nuts and deal with some of the loopholes that sometimes clever, if devious, people are able to find in legislation.

I note that many of the actions being introduced under this bill are in fact already covered by existing legislation, particularly Labour’s Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Act of 2003. An example is that the existing law allows police officers, who believe on reasonable grounds that a vehicle has been operated in an illegal street race, to impound that vehicle for 28 days. Now we are seeing that period moved so that the capacity for vehicles to be impounded on a second offence is for up to 90 days. I commend and support those kinds of measures.

I have some questions about the way the select committee has dealt with the issue of passengers drinking in cars. Quite recently I visited some businesses off Tuam Street in my electorate, a major thoroughfare. It is not the Tuam Street frontage that has been affected; around the back is a cul-de-sac where boy racers gather. Tens of thousands of dollars worth of damage has been caused to businesses by boy racers parking up, drinking up, smashing bottles, pulling down coverings to windows, climbing up drain pipes, and pulling them down—tens of thousands of dollars worth of damage has been caused. I think that the to leave this to local body by-laws is not providing the necessary teeth that might be required to deal with that. I am very conscious that the Law Commission report covering all aspects of liquor law has been released. I understand that we have seen some 400 submissions on that process go to the Law Commission. There will be a final report to Parliament before the end of this year.

I hope the Government will look very seriously at whether leaving it to local authorities gives sufficient power to enforce the issue of drinking in cars, because the sorts of mayhem that I have described in that quiet cul-de-sac off Tuam Street is but one example of the sorts of problems that are emerging. We already have in Christchurch a by-law that prevents people drinking anywhere within the inner-city area. So it is absolutely forbidden, whether one is sitting in a car, sitting on the riverbank, or sitting outside, yet that sort of damage is being caused. I hope the committee’s position on that is picked up, developed, and enforced by the Government when it responds to the Law Commission review.

In summary, I think that the bill does take some steps in the right direction. It deserves to be commended for that. There are some loopholes that deserve to be filled. There is no silver bullet on this. Noise is an issue that I think will have to be addressed by this Parliament—that absolutely will need to be addressed—but this is a good step in the right direction, and Labour is very, very pleased to be able to support this bill. We believe that it will fill some of the loopholes. However, I do believe that this will not be the last that this Parliament sees of these issues.

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) : I am very pleased to take what will probably be the final call in the third reading on the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill. Given that this is the first time tonight that I have spoken on this issue, I take the opportunity to thank the officials for their very good work through the Committee stage, and also during the deliberation on this bill by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. I am sure the officials are around, because the companion bill will be debated shortly by the Committee, so there is still some work to do. This opportunity is my one chance to thank them for that effort.

I also thank the hard-working chairman of the select committee, David Bennett, not only because he told me I should but also because I think he did a very good job. In fact, I am surprised that other members of the select committee, particularly those on the other side of the House, have not joined me in doing so. It strikes me as symptomatic of the very passive-aggressive kind of approach that members on the other side took in the select committee. They sat as quiet as mice when we were talking about some of the issues, yet they were up like lions in the Committee stage, saying things that were not part of the select committee process. I will give members one example.

Hon Darren Hughes: Did the member shut up for long enough to listen to anyone else?

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: What?

Hon Darren Hughes: Did the member shut up for long enough to listen to the other members of the committee?

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Oh, goodness me, that is the Cosgrove interjection, is it not? I am sure Labour members are being paid by the word tonight.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to be helpful. Either that member may be colour blind or there might be a sight problem: that is Mr Hughes; I am Mr Cosgrove.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): I ask the member what Standing Order he is talking to.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Misrepresentation—106.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): There is no Standing Order on colour blindness.

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I can assure the member that I knew exactly which member I was referring to, although it is not surprising that he checked, given that it appears there are doppelgangers on the other side—people who look very much like the select committee members, but could not possibly be, because they do not act as if they were there.

I am very interested in Ms Beaumont’s plaintive cries that somehow this Government is working just a little too hard for her liking. Every time a bill is reported back to the House, she is concerned that we have rushed it through, or that we have not considered it. Well, that is what a determined, deliberate, carefully considered, decisively acting Government does. In fact, the member was very concerned about the officials. I think the officials relished the opportunity to get clear, articulate questions in a timely manner that they could report back on. It probably made their lives easier.

I will also touch on a point that Ms Fenton made in the Committee stage about expectations being raised. Frankly, in relation to this bill, the only people who were raising expectations were those on the other side. We have always said this bill is a very important step on a journey. It is not a magic bullet; it is not going to solve all the problems. Members on the other side know that. If they did not, they would have said so in the select committee, or they would have come here with a minority report or a Supplementary Order Paper. All we have had is bagging, and no constructive contributions to the discourse.

I will finish by touching on three important areas that were raised by members in the Committee stage. They concern the police. I congratulate the police and also the Police Association on their contribution to this discussion. They raised some very good questions. In relation to police resources, we have heard ad nauseam that they will not be enough. I would much rather take the advice of the police on that issue than the advice of members on the other side. The police told the select committee that they have the resources to give effect to this legislation, that it will probably make their role easier, and that it will free up resources for doing other things. I am very happy to accept that; they know best.

I will also touch on the “They will know it when they see it.” comments, and the derisory response we got from the other side. That insults the police. It says that the police are too stupid to distinguish Mr Cosgrove’s grandmother who is rolling around the Kaiapoi Pak ’N Save car-park—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Both of my grandmothers are dead.

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —well, OK, I defer to the member on that—or a campaign contribution, or the Christmas parade from what we are talking about. I think they would be insulted by that sort of logic. On the other hand, I have every confidence that they know what they are talking about, that they will act appropriately, and that they will use their constabulary discretion.

The last thing I want to touch on is noise. Boy, have we heard a lot of noise about noise. I want to refer to Nicky Wagner’s new campaign manager, Clayton Cosgrove, and remind him that although there are some serious issues with illegal street racing in Christchurch, it is not the centre of the universe. We have issues in Auckland, Hamilton, Lower Hutt, and Dunedin. The fact that the Canterbury members on the other side who have spoken are not members of the select committee should not be a problem.

There was very careful consideration of the noise issue, and I am really surprised that those members on the other side who were on the select committee could be so dismissive of that. We had the officials arranging noise tests out the back of the parliamentary precincts. They were very helpful in understanding that an arbitrary noise limit would not be effective. We also heard from the police that they believe that the powers given to them through this legislation, although it might not be a magic bullet, will definitely aid their attempts to rejoice—reduce—the amount of noise coming from illegal street racing.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Rejoice!

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: It might not be a case of “Rejoice!”, but it is certainly an improvement. For that reason, I commend the bill to the House.

• Bill read a third time.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) : Mr Chairman—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: A few bald patches in this building!

DAVID BENNETT: That is the pot calling the kettle black, is it not? At least I am not trying to cover mine. There is a bit of fertiliser going around this Chamber as well, I would say.

The Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill is a companion bill to the one we have just debated, the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill. It is a companion bill because together they deal with the issue of boy racers. As Tau said, it is part of the wider whānau and how we are working together across all parties in this Chamber on this issue.

It is unfortunate that the largest Opposition party, which is all it is at the moment, has not been able to support this bill in the nature it supported the previous bill. That is to the detriment of this Chamber and of that party. It shows that those members are not serious about trying to find a solution to these issues. They are trying to over-politicise issues that the Government has made serious attempts to fix.

This bill has a number of parts to it, but one key bit is the crushing of vehicles. That is what it will be known for as a bill, but that is not the only thing that this bill deals with. However, it is something that many people will consider to be this bill’s legacy. If we look at Part 1 of the bill, we see that it basically deals with confiscation and destruction. Those are covered by new sections 129A to 129F of the Sentencing Act 2002, inserted by clause 8. They deal with some of the key elements of that concept of confiscating and crushing vehicles. There are a number of other offences in this legislation that deal with things such as the sale and disposal of motor vehicles and conditions on the dismantling, deregistration, and confiscation of vehicle. Essentially, Part 1 deals with the heart of the legislation, in the sense that it refers to the confiscation and deregistration of a vehicle, and the potential for the dismantling and destruction of a vehicle in certain cases. That is the nature of the legislation. It has a process that one has to go through.

This bill is part of the suite of legislation we have put together to deal with the boy-racer problem. We support it in this Chamber, and we look forward to the parties in this Chamber supporting it so we can deal with the issue once and for all for the good people of New Zealand. Thank you.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) : I begin where I began in the second reading of the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill, and that is to commend the Minister in the chair, the Hon Steven Joyce, for a couple of points. To be fair, there are a number of loopholes that are closed through this legislation. As I said in the second reading, when I tried to push my bill through, a number of years ago, I did not anticipate—I cop that, and neither did the police, or transport agencies who gave advice—the loophole regarding third-party ownership. I commend the Minister for closing that loophole. I think that is a good thing. I do not think it should matter who owns the vehicle; if there is an offence, it should be dealt with.

The second thing I commend the Minister for is the hardship provisions in the bill that have been tightened. I anticipated, as was the advice at the time from the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Transport, and the New Zealand Police, that judges would use the full powers of the legislation and confiscate cars, as they can do today, on a first offence and they must on a second offence. Sadly, as the Minister of Police has publicly said, and I think she is partly right, through the loophole judges have not been able to exercise the full option that they can. Also, judges have taken a view, as is their right and privilege, that permanent confiscation is a secondary or tertiary option.

Although we have some difficulties with this bill, we will show the Government the courtesy it showed me when I pushed my bill through, and we will support it. But we do so because there is an issue of accountability. We have put up Supplementary Order Paper 73 because although this bill does a good thing and closes a loophole, it goes further. It closes the third-party loophole and allows someone to potentially move on the vehicle owned by a third party. That is a person who has not committed the offence but one who owns the vehicle in which an offence has been committed. The difficulty is that this was trumpeted by the Minister when she said that all the boy racers would be closer to the crusher; they would have all their cars crushed. We will get to that little bit of idiocy in a moment, but the problem is that the current legislation says that the court may take the vehicle for ever from an owner and an offender on a first offence, but must take the vehicle—and that is the key point—on a second offence in 4 years. That is as it should be and that is how it will go.

But when we get to a third party, the Minister went further than just closing a loophole; she went and weakened the legislation. I quote from the Police’s own advice to the select committee: “If you are a third party owner and somebody takes your car”—and we know that over 50 percent of these vehicles are signed over in their mates’ names; it is not dad’s or mum’s car, it is their mates who sign their cars over in their respective names—“and commits an offence, firstly the owner gets a letter.” The owner will be shaking in his or her boots when he or she receives a letter to say that somebody has been very naughty in his or her car. Then there is a second offence. What happens? This is how tough this Minister is. On a second offence in 4 years the owner of the vehicle will get another letter saying that somebody has been very, very naughty in his or her car.

Hon Shane Jones: Call your mum.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Yeah, right! Call your mum! The boy racers are shaking in their boots after two letters have been received by the third-party owner of the vehicle. Then, on a third offence in 4 years—and here is where the rubber does not hit the road—the Minister has taken away any reference to mandatory confiscation or even mandatory crushing. What happens on a third offence is that a court has the discretionary right, on a third offence, to take the car permanently and/or crush it. There is no “must take it”; there is no “must crush it”. After receiving one letter that says one is naughty, and then two letters that say one is naughty, on the third occasion a judge can toss a coin or do what he or she wants to do, and exercise his or her discretion.

The only defence that the Minister has put up to justify that is that it strikes a balance. We know the Ministry of Justice’s briefing is that that strikes a good balance. The little hoon who terrorises people around the show flicks ownership of the car into his mate’s name, because this is not about somebody taking mum and dad’s car. The owner then receives another letter, and then a court might do something. That is really tough, is it not? I am sure that when Judith Collins was wandering around saying: “I’m going to sort this out.”, when she was swaggering around with her six-guns saying: “I’m going to have all the cars crushed. I’m going to sort it out.”, communities did not know that there was no mandatory provision. If one is a third-party owner, the courts do not have to do anything in respect of crushing or permanently confiscating vehicles. Labour has introduced an amendment that simply says that if one is a third-party owner and somebody runs amok in one’s vehicle, that owner does receive a letter to say that if it happens again the car will be taken. A court must, and will, take his or her vehicle.

Every parent I have talked to has had this reaction: “Well, if my son or daughter took the car and I got a letter saying the car was going to go because of what they did, I’d sort it out pretty quick.” I think that strikes a fair balance. But really, this is not about striking a fair balance with mum and dad. We know, from the police evidence, that these kids do not take mum and dad’s car. They flick the ownership into their mate’s name. The Minister has said that many times herself. A fair balance would be: “Johnny, somebody’s run amok in your car. Here’s a warning. Next time, the court will take it.” Labour has put up that amendment, to be helpful. Labour thinks it is in line with the existing legislation that if one is an owner and an offender, the owner gets a warning and then the car goes. I think that is tough, and I think that is what the communities want. We offer that to the Minister in good faith. She said to me in the House: “You’ve never come to see me about it.” No. There is a Supplementary Order Paper here, and it is pretty simple if one understands one’s own legislation. It was on the Order Paper this morning, which is far more notice than that Government ever gives Labour members, when it drops hundreds of pages of Supplementary Order Papers on us.

The Minister and I will be on Morning Report tomorrow—we are going to duke it out on radio over this one. Labour does not support the crushing of vehicles, but it will not torpedo the bill. I will tell members why. It is because it does not work. What evidence do I cite, before Government members interject on me? I cite the Minister’s own words. The Minister, on Radio New Zealand—and we have the transcript—and in other places, when asked: “How many cars, Minister, will be crushed?”, do members know what she said? She said 10. But that was not the rhetoric that was used as she built up a big head of steam over months on the crushing issue. No, she said that everybody will be closer to the crusher.

I say to the Minister that in Christchurch there are 1,000 boy-racer cars a night, on a bad night, on a Friday or a Saturday night. I know that Christchurch is not the centre of the universe, so I cite Hamilton and other places. The Minister says that 10 cars a year are likely to be crushed. Then when pushed on it on Radio New Zealand, she said: “Oh, but I know the judges will do it.” I say to the Minister that she does not know that, I did not know that, and no one knows that, but I hope they will. The Minister is a lawyer and she does not know that the judges will do that. It is 10 cars a year that will be crushed, which proves it is a stunt.

Hon Tau Henare: It’s more than you’ve done.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I do not have 10 cars. We can see the photo opportunity now, of the Minister hitting the button at the first crushing. I wonder whether the Minister would be prepared to tell us why crushing 10 cars a year is going to work. What sort of signal will that send?

Then there is the other issue, of course, about somebody whose vehicle might be the only asset that person has. The Minister has put out a press statement saying she is going to have cars recycled back into the community. If, by the Minister’s own words, only 10 cars a year are going to be crushed, then this press statement from her is bunkum; it is absolute bunkum. There is no evidence, and the police have produced no evidence, to say there will be recycling. We can dispose of the car any way we like. I say we should maximise its value, because most of these people have fines and court costs, and I do not think the innocent should pay the fines and court costs of the offender.

But there it is. Ten cars a year will be crushed. That proves it is a stunt. We have 1,000 boy-racer cars a night in Christchurch, and hundreds of such cars a night around the country, and the Minister is condemned by her own words. Only 10 cars a year will be crushed. How many people out in the real world actually thought, when the Minister was going around, huffing and puffing, that it would be only 10 cars a year? “Every car will be closer to the crusher.”, she said. She is desperate, absolutely desperate, to get this crushing clause through, so that it can be worn as a badge of honour. At the end of each year she will have 10 badges of 10 cars, as 500, 600, or 1,000 cars maraud their way around Christchurch. That proves it will not work, and that proves it is a stunt. I say to the Minister that even the Police Association, in its own submission—and the Minister is wont to quote the Police Association—said: “the car-crushing provisions are unfortunately ‘a side show that looks good’ ”.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) : It was very interesting to hear the Hon Clayton Cosgrove speak. He has taken the last two calls in this debate on the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill, and has talked particularly about his Supplementary Order Paper 70, which proposes mandatory confiscation of a substitute’s vehicle—that is, a vehicle owned by a third party—after a second offence.

What he failed to mention in his last two speeches was that his Supplementary Order Paper also proposes to omit the provision for the destruction of cars of recidivist boy-racers or illegal street racers. He has forgotten to tell the very good people who are listening to this debate that he is too scared to send these cars off to the crusher. Apparently it is all to do with the fact that he does not want to have stunts. It is a bit rich for that member to talk about stunts or strutting. I think we have all seen quite a lot of that from him.

This bill tidies up the loopholes left by the previous Government’s legislation, which was championed by the member who has just resumed his seat, Clayton Cosgrove. That legislation had the best of intentions, but it did not work because it had loopholes that one could drive a Mack truck through and still not touch the sides. National has listened to the people. I thank the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, and its chair David Bennett in particular, for the work it has done on this bill. This bill has come back to the House with amendments. I am surprised at the member Mr Cosgrove, who is now speaking so passionately about the bill, because he did not once attend a select committee hearing or listen to one of the submissions. If he was so interested in the bill he would have attended the select committee, but he did not. Instead, we now have a Supplementary Order Paper from Mr Cosgrove that simply does not deal with the issue.

The police are looking forward to this bill coming through in its entirety. They are particularly looking forward to having provisions with some teeth in them. We would like to see no cars crushed, because that would mean that this bill has done its job of stopping unwanted behaviour.

This bill is not about retribution; it is about public safety and about listening to the people. I believe that Part 1 goes some way towards giving back to the people of Canterbury, Hamilton, Lower Hutt, Dunedin, Palmerston North, Rotorua, South Auckland, and now west Auckland some of the power to have their roads used for legitimate purposes.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour) : I want to respond on behalf of the Labour Opposition to the Minister’s comments, and to note that in her contribution the Minister failed to mention a couple of things. First of all, she did not mention that under the provisions of the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill there is no mandatory crushing or confiscation of cars. She can talk tough all she likes, and she can talk about loopholes—and Labour supports closing loopholes—but we need to be honest.

This Parliament needs to put on the record that this bill does not provide for mandatory crushing. It is all just a bit of a media stunt. There is a whole lot of talking up an issue that is important to a whole lot of people. I was on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, and I heard about how this issue is hurting people, and about the damage it is doing to them. That is why we have tried to be helpful to the Government by proposing an amendment.

I acknowledge my colleague Clayton Cosgrove and the work he has done over the years on this issue. It is not a new issue for members on this side of the Chamber. We have been working on it for many, many years. We hoped that we would get some cooperation from the Government in the interests of community safety, because we want to see this bill work. We want to see it do what it was originally proposed to do, and to see it close the loopholes that, we freely admit, were there. Another speaker said earlier tonight that we may have to be back in a year closing loopholes and addressing this bill again. Well, what is wrong with that? That is the nature of making laws. We do not always get everything right the first time, and I predict that we will not get this one right the first time either.

I feel very, very sorry for the people of Christchurch, Hamilton, and other cities who believe that this bill, which the Minister has gone through the country talking up and talking tough about, will not deliver. That is why, as I said, Labour members have offered a solution to the Government. We were looking forward to hearing from the Minister whether she would support it, but I guess we have gathered that she is not going to support our Supplementary Order Paper. The thinking behind our Supplementary Order Paper is that it does not really make a lot of difference to offenders whether their cars are confiscated or crushed, because, either way, they lose their cars for good. That is the point.

Hon Tau Henare: Just wind her up.

DARIEN FENTON: What is the Hon Tau Henare trying to tell me, over there? He is trying to remember his days in his V8, is he? He is trying to remember the good old days and to relive his glory days in the old V8 out in west Auckland—in the 1980s, was it not?

Hon Tau Henare: Seventies!

DARIEN FENTON: Sorry, was it the 1970s? OK.

The only people who will suffer from the crushing of cars will be New Zealand taxpayers, who will essentially foot the bill for unpaid fines that cannot be recovered. The Minister likes to talk tough, but it turns out that the new confiscation and destruction order will be only a last resort. It is not mandatory. The court may order a vehicle to be destroyed, and it can do so only if the offender has been convicted three times within 4 years. That is a higher threshold than the current law has for mandatory confiscation of a vehicle.

We have, as I said, tried to offer a solution to what we see as an important issue. I think everybody on all sides of the Chamber is genuine in trying to find some solutions to this awful problem for communities. As I have said many times, I fear that the public have been led to believe that this bill is a solution, when it simply will not work.

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) : This is what I do not understand: if a member admits that there is a loophole in the law that needs to be closed, why would the member table a Supplementary Order Paper that reopens it? If a member wanted to strengthen the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill, why would the member put in a Supplementary Order Paper that weakens it? That is what Supplementary Order Paper 75 does. It really underscores the confusion that Labour members have concerning this part of the legislation. The Labour minority report from the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee said that this bill would amend the situation around section 129. It does no such thing; the provisions in section 129 that relate to the owner and offender remain. There is the mandatory confiscation of the car if the owner who was an offender commits a second offence. The member Clayton Cosgrove, by his own admission, said there was a loophole: people were selling cars to each other and they were transferring ownership willy-nilly. This part of the bill will fix that. Why he would raise a Supplementary Order Paper that completely undoes that, I do not know. It would also put the vehicles back on to the market. Who is the market for illegal street racers’ vehicles? It is illegal street racers. So what are we going to do? We will have the situation where cars are completely recycled, and I cannot see that as being an improvement whatsoever. So we really have to shoot the Supplementary Order Paper down in flames, and see it for what it is: a confused response by a confused party to very clear legislation that will improve things.

I also strongly endorse the Minister of Police’s comments around the number of cars that are crushed. How can a party possibly think that a high number of crushed cars is success? Surely, the opposite applies. The magic number would be zero, because that would mean we had improved compliance and reduced illegal street racing. For that reason, I cannot support Supplementary Order Paper 75, and I strongly support Part 1 of the bill.

CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) : I start by saying that Labour members are supporting the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill with amendments. We will continue to support any genuine efforts to make progress in this area. That is because this is a serious issue. All of the speakers from this side of the Chamber and, frankly, all the speakers from that side of the Chamber have acknowledged that this is a serious problem. I acknowledged when I spoke last time not only my colleague Clayton Cosgrove’s effort but also the fact that the Government is doing something in this space.

We are trying to raise areas where there are concerns. I think that Mr Woodhouse’s contribution was a little confused. He started out by saying that Supplementary Order Paper 75 weakens the provision, but that is actually one of the Government’s Supplementary Order Papers. We put forward Supplementary Order Paper 73, and we intend to put up a proposition to toughen this bill.

I also start by acknowledging the people who submitted to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on this bill. There were 58 of them. A lot of those people did not actually support the crushing part of the bill. Those of us who looked at it carefully saw that there are some very useful things in it; I want to add my comments to those made by Mr Cosgrove about the closing of the loophole regarding third parties. I think that is a very sensible move. That is a very good part of this bill.

Basically the bill has a number of provisions. They include strengthening, supposedly, the powers of the court to order confiscation; empowering courts to order destruction; and strengthening provisions to seize motor vehicles to enforce collection of unpaid fines. I will focus particularly on the first two of those provisions in this initial contribution. As it stands at the moment, the focus has all been on the crushing provisions. Those have been, if you like, the window dressing that has shown the Government being tough. Already we have heard quite a clear contribution from Mr Cosgrove. He pointed out how tough, in fact, the legislation is. It says that offenders have been bad; then it says that they have been very, very bad; and then police might think about doing something about it. We need to be looking at real progress that builds on the legislation that was put in place by the previous Government, the Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Act of 2003.

We should also—and the police supported this—be looking at why the courts have been so hesitant in this area. We did not have a lot of conversation on that area in the select committee. We did not really nail what the issue was there. Basically, the rate of confiscation under the provisions of the current law is less than 2 percent. It begs the very real question that the police raised: if the courts are not using those current confiscation powers, what makes the Government think they will use the new destruction powers?

Michael Woodhouse: Closing the loopholes.

CAROL BEAUMONT: The loophole is one part of it, and that is a positive, as we have said. That will deal with one of the issues, which is cars being registered in someone else’s name. But that is not the only reason why rates of confiscation are so low. We think, and this is the reason for our Supplementary Order Paper, that the focus should be on toughening up the current law so that vehicles are confiscated on a second offence, as the law intended. Really, it makes very little difference to the offender whether the car is confiscated or crushed because, either way, they do not have the car. I think that is the point.

We have talked about the fact that maybe 10 cars a year will be crushed. That does not seem to be all that tough. I think that the amendment that has been put up on Supplementary Order Paper 73 is worthwhile. I ask the Government to seriously consider supporting this amendment, because both the Government and the Opposition have said they want to deal with this problem. Both have said we should get tough on some of the people who are making other people’s lives a misery. Well, here is an opportunity to improve the bill that is before the Committee. Supplementary Order Paper 73 effectively provides for an amendment that will make it mandatory for a vehicle to be confiscated on a second boy-racer offence. That is what we will ensure. We do not agree with the crushing of cars, and we think that mandatory confiscation on a second offence—even when owned by a substitute for the offender, a third party—is a very useful contribution. I ask the Government to consider supporting it.

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.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) : I will start by quoting from the Police Association on this car-crushing bill, the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill. The Police Association said a very interesting thing in its submission to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. It stated: “the car-crushing provisions are unfortunately a ‘side show that looks good … but [which] in reality will have very little effect’.” That is what the Police Association said.

I will address what Mr Woodhouse, I think, said about the recycling of cars. We cannot have it both ways. If we want to prevent recycling, as the member said, then we would have the mass crushing of cars, which is what the Minister in the chair, the Hon Judith Collins, basically told everybody would happen. Everybody would be “closer to the crusher”, she said in baritone-like tones. But now that the Minister says only 10 cars a year will be crushed, I ask the member how that will prevent recycling. That is nonsense; it is complete bunkum. It is a complete stunt. Everybody out there thought that the Minister was talking about mass car crushing, when she said everybody would be “closer to the crusher”. Then she said—and we have the transcripts; she said this on at least three occasions—it would be 10 cars a year. Well, I am sure that boy racers will be shaking in their boots, knowing that 10 cars a year, out of the thousands that cause mayhem around the country damn near every day, will be crushed. I am sure they are shaking in their boots at the thought of 10 cars going per year. It is just illogical, and it is a stunt.

If the Minister wants to have any credibility in this debate, she ought to explain why she gave everybody the impression that there would be mass crushing, but now says it will be 10 cars a year. I tell the Minister that that is not being tough. That is being weak. That is being incredibly weak, and we know that this Minister really wants to appear to any audience to be tough. I bet that people out there did not quite realise, when she was scooting up the popularity stakes over this bill, that only 10 cars would be crushed per year.

I ask the Minister whether she will accept our amendment. The amendment simply states that instead of sending out two naughty letters—one letter to say somebody has been naughty, and then another letter to say a judge might actually do something by ordering that the car either be crushed or be confiscated car permanently—one letter will be sent to the owner of the car to say that if somebody runs amok in the wagon again, it is gone, and to say a judge will order that. The amendment takes away the option of merely not crushing the car, because if the car is not crushed it would be confiscated permanently. I asked the Minister whether, if she will not accept that amendment but is desperate to keep the crushing provisions in the bill, she will put forward an amendment to say there will be one warning and then the car will be subject to mandatory confiscation and mandatory crushing. She might have thought about doing that if she wanted to be really tough, but she has rejected that without giving any logical reason for doing so.

There has been no real evidence of recycling. If anybody thinks that a boy racer who loses his $30,000 souped-up Nissan Skyline can nip around the corner to Turners Auctions and spend another $30,000 to buy it back, then I say that person should wake up. The car does not have to be sold as a whole; it could be disposed of in parts, as my colleague said. It could be disposed of in a number of ways, but the value would be preserved. We may wonder why we would want to preserve the value of a boy racer’s car, when he or she has gone around and made life difficult for people and caused havoc for the community. Boy racers, as a number of folk on both sides of the Chamber have said, normally have a heck of a lot of fines and owe a heck of a lot of court costs. If we take their car away from them, often it is the only asset they have. I am not getting teary-eyed over boy racers, but I think that the smart thing to do would be to utilise the value of the parts, the bits—or of whatever form the car may be in; I do not mind—to pay off the court costs and the fines, the tow truck fees, and the full disposal costs, rather than to have innocent folks in the community doing that through their taxes.

It will be interesting. Maybe the Minister will propose an amendment, if she is desperate to keep the car-crushing clause in the bill, to say there will be one warning, and then a judge must take away and/or crush the vehicle. That would give the Minister what she really wants, which is the photo opportunity with her finger on the button and her hands on the launch codes of the crusher. I ask her whether she will propose such an amendment. It would be really interesting to have her response on that.

I wonder whether Nicky Wagner, who did not speak in the noise debate—she was rolled on the 90 decibel issue—but who had put a stake in the ground and said the Government would sort the matter out, is prepared to go to the people of Christchurch and say that in the case of a car owned by a third party, the first thing that will happen if somebody runs amok is that the third party will get a letter to say somebody has been naughty. The third party will then get a second letter, maybe a letter from Judith Collins herself to really scare him or her, saying that somebody has been really naughty. Then on a third offence, Nicky Wagner will be able to tell her community, small though it is, that a judge may, if he or she sees fit on a good day, if the stars are aligned, take the car forever and/or crush it. But there is nothing in the bill in respect of a third-party owner that says a judge must act in the way I have described, whereby the car is taken, or crushed, or both. There is nothing in the legislation; it is entirely up to the judge.

I say to the Minister that I—even in respect of my legislation—and the police believed in our learned judiciary, and believed that judges would act on this issue. Even those people who did not go through the loophole that the Minister has quite rightly closed believed judges would act on the issue. Even the Police Association, as I have said, called the Minister’s crushing of 10 cars a year a sideshow.

I support the legislation, because I think what happens to our communities is an indictment of boy racers. We are offering goodwill on this side of the Chamber. We will support the bill, but we are offering an amendment. The Minister may want to put up her own amendment, which may agree with the provision in the amendment that relates to mandatory confiscation and crushing on a second offence. We are offering some assistance in this way, but it will be very interesting to hear the Minister’s explanations as to why a third-party owner receives one letter that says somebody has been naughty, receives another letter to say somebody has been even naughtier, and then it is all over to a judge. It is a lottery.

How does the weak Minister explain that? She wants to be seen as tough. How does she explain that, and how—

David Bennett: Jealous!

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I am certainly not jealous, I say to that member in all sincerity. I am certainly not jealous. That is a silly comment. How will Nicky Wagner or Gerry Brownlee in Christchurch, or other members, explain that the Minister is so tough that someone receives two letters and then the decision is up to a judge. Everybody thought that all the boy racers’ cars would be lined up, and maybe Gerry Brownlee would attend personally to do the crushing himself. People believed the cars would be lined up and crushed one after another. In the immortal words of the Minister, which are etched on to the memory of every journalist, every car was to be “closer to the crusher”. That is what she said. People thought it was a good thing.

I can understand why people want these cars to be crushed: they thought it would be done en masse, and they thought it would get rid of the problem. Now that the Minister has been forced to come clean, she said on Radio New Zealand National, when challenged about the 10 cars that are to be crushed per year, that she knew judges would order this. Oh, really? Well, maybe she has a crystal ball that the rest of us do not have. Maybe she has received commitments from judges who have said they will crush 10 cars a year. But the Minister cannot have it both ways. If Mr Woodhouse is worried about recycling, then why would we not crush the cars en masse? Why would we not make it compulsory that the cars be crushed? The bizarre schizophrenic argument that is now brought up is that the Government members do not think the mass crushing of cars is a victory. Well, the Minister did say it would be; it was a cause célèbre for the Minister. This was her big Clint Eastwood moment in the sun, in MGM gun-slinging style. Everybody believed that the crushing of cars en masse would occur. I thought that would occur until I saw the legislation. I could not believe what I saw, because I thought the Minister would be as good as her word.

Paul Quinn: You can’t look us in the eye.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I can look that member in the eye. Absolutely! It is a pity he cannot make a decent argument.

I say to the Minister that members on this side of the Chamber have some goodwill. We have put up Supplementary Order Paper 73 in my name in good faith. If she wants to amend it to preserve her crushing clause, she could do it. My amendments say someone would get one warning as a third party, then the car would go for ever. That is far tougher than any clause in this bill. I do not beat my chest over that, but I offer that measure to the Minister. I ask her to give me a good reason why we should give someone two letters that say a driver has been naughty and then leave it up to a judge to decide what happens to the car, other than the Ministry of Justice advice that the legislation provides a good balance. Well, the Minister should tell that to the people of Blackett St in Rangiora, who are terrorised by a hoon each night. The owner will not control the vehicle, because the owner is a mate of the person who offends, yet the owner will get two letters from the police that say somebody has been really naughty and then it will be up to a judge. How tough is that? How will the Minister explain that to a person in Blackett Street, which is in my patch and has been particularly hit hard by boy racing? Is she prepared to give us an explanation now? Is she prepared to tell us why somebody should get two warnings, and then it is up to the lottery of a judge’s decision as to whether the car should be disposed of in any way? Is she prepared to answer that question? She is not so tough now. There is silence. There is silence from all of the members on the Government side of the Chamber.

But I want to be given an explanation. I really want to be given an explanation, and I know that the communities would like to be given an explanation. Maybe as the debate on this bill goes on, we will get one. The bill ain’t tough at all, and the Minister knows that.

• The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 69 in the name of the Hon Judith Collins to Part 1 be agreed to.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) : Clause 28 of the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill deals with written notification in regard to fines. In the time we have left, which is very little, sadly, I find it interesting that a written notification has been put in place in respect of this part. We just debated this on another part, and I will not re-enter the fray on that, but it does not fill us with confidence.

• Debate interrupted.