Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) Link to this

I move, That the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. It is my intention to move at the appropriate time that the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill be referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for consideration, that the committee present its final report on or before Thursday, 10 September 2009, and that the committee have the authority to meet on the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday on a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area during a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 187, 189(a), and 190(1)(b), and (c).

For far too long the residents of our cities and towns have been subject to excessive noise, danger, and, in some cases, intimidation from people using vehicles in an antisocial manner. The extent to which this problem has got out of control was seen in February this year when a lone police officer was attacked when he approached approximately 300 illegal street racers and their supporters in Christchurch. In a similar incident last week, a lone female aviation security service officer was attacked by a mob of around 100 illegal street racers as she carried out a routine task at Christchurch International Airport. She was surrounded by those people and the windows of her vehicle were smashed. She must have feared for her life.

Although the activities that I have described are clearly already illegal, this legislation is about putting a stop to the antisocial behaviour that can sometimes lead to that kind of pack mentality and thuggish behaviour. Currently, apprehending a driver caught in the act of illegal street racing is difficult. Although existing legislation allows vehicle confiscation, the actual rate of confiscation is very low—less than 2 percent. This bill will enhance the powers of police and road-controlling authorities to tackle illegal street racing and the antisocial behaviour that comes with it. It will also adjust penalties so that they are appropriate to the level of offending and they discourage repeat offending. This bill takes a comprehensive approach to the problem, with 16 changes to existing provisions. In developing this bill the Ministry of Transport has worked closely with the New Zealand Police, as well as the Ministry of Justice and the courts.

Of course, this bill alone will not completely solve the problem. These issues go wider than the transport sector. But together with the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill introduced by the Minister of Police, the provisions in this bill will send a clear message that illegal street racing and irresponsible vehicle use is unacceptable and cannot be tolerated. This bill will allow road controlling authorities like local authorities, or, in the case of State highways, the New Zealand Transport Agency, to create by-laws that prevent vehicles cruising city streets—that is, circling the same streets without good reason in a manner that draws attention to the power or sound of the engine of the vehicle being driven, or creates a convoy that impedes traffic flow. I am sure members will appreciate that such an activity at a late hour with a loud exhaust can be extremely disruptive for communities and businesses.

An example is Bealey Avenue in Christchurch, where the level of disruption is so high that motel owners have lost business and a hospital was forced to move patients. To support any such by-law, the bill will also empower police to attach warning notices to vehicles that are used in breach of illegal street racing by-laws. If a vehicle is used in a second or subsequent offence within 90 days, it will be impounded. This bill will also require a vehicle ordered off the road for excessive exhaust noise to undergo an objective, metered noise test. Currently we have requirements for exhaust noise that are enforced at warrant of fitness checks, but some drivers will swap or tamper with their exhaust, once they have obtained their warrant of fitness. This provision is designed to reduce and control this practice.

This bill will rebalance the penalties for breaches of the conditions of the graduated driver licensing system, so they can be more effectively enforced. These types of offences are frequently detected at police enforcement operations that target illegal street racing. Conditions of the licensing system include limitations on the hours during which a restricted licence holder can drive, and restrictions around carrying passengers. These conditions are there for good reason: we know that young and inexperienced drivers are more likely to be involved in fatal crashes at night. They can be easily distracted when driving, and encouraged by their peers to show off and take risks. However, these licence conditions are often ignored. What is more, the $400 infringement fee for those breaches is also often ignored, or pooled and shared by all occupants of the car, or paid by parents. In short, its deterrent value is low. This bill will reduce this fee to $100, and will instead increase the demerit points for graduated driver licence system condition breaches. We know that it is demerit points that have the real deterrent value for young drivers, and it is important that that message is clear.

This increase in demerit points will not apply to those who fail to display an L-plate. Demerit points for that offence will remain at the current level. We know that on many occasions, once police leave the scene after issuing a ticket for a licence breach, the novice driver will drive away, once again in breach of his or her licence conditions. This bill will also give police a greater range of powers to deal with drivers who breach licence conditions. They include the power to direct a vehicle to be driven to a specified place, to forbid the person to drive, to take possession of the vehicle keys, to take other necessary steps to immobilise the vehicle, or to move it to a place where it does not constitute a traffic hazard.

Currently police, with the assistance of qualified vehicle inspectors, conduct operations to target illegally modified vehicles. The inspectors usually operate from a temporary site within the area of operation. However, while police may direct a vehicle to the site by the roadside for inspection, they do not have the power to direct a vehicle to be driven from the road site to an inspection site. It does not take very great powers of imagination to consider the outcome of a scenario where drivers of illegally modified vehicles are asked to voluntarily proceed to an inspection site. This bill will empower police to direct a vehicle suspected of not complying with vehicle standards to be inspected at a specified place of inspection nearby. This will greatly assist police in their ability to crack down on illegally modified vehicles.

We know that people who participate in illegal street racing often make an effort to obscure vehicle registration plates or use false or stolen plates. There is an infringement fee for this offence, but, as I have already explained, monetary penalties alone can be ineffective against people who have neither the funds nor the inclination to pay them. This bill will allow for the issuing of 25 demerit points for registration plate offences on top of the current infringement fee.

This bill will toughen up on those who fail to stop for police. That offence can lead to high-speed pursuits where the offenders drive recklessly in their efforts to evade the police. In 2008, 80 pursuits resulted in the offender crashing. The current penalty for failing to stop when directed to by police is a fine and 35 demerit points. For many drivers, especially those who could face a prison sentence, there is a temptation to flee, and risk adding only a fine to their punishment. This bill will introduce a mandatory 3-month minimum driver licence disqualification for evading a police request to stop. It will also require failing to stop when directed to by an enforcement officer to be taken into account as an aggravating factor at sentencing for dangerous and/or reckless driving offences. In addition, it will introduce a term of imprisonment of up to 3 months, and a mandatory 12-month licence disqualification for a third or subsequent failure-to-stop offence.

Under the current law, police can require a vehicle owner or hirer to provide details of the driver after an offence is committed in a vehicle. A driver who does not comply is liable to a fine of up to $10,000. However, many drivers respond to this simply by stating that they have no knowledge of who was driving their vehicle when the incident took place. Unfortunately, there is an incentive in the law for owners, especially if they were the driver, to refuse to give this information, and thereby avoid a significant penalty. This is a particular problem when the driver already has a high level of demerit points, and the alleged driving offence is punishable by demerit points. The current maximum fine of $10,000 does not have deterrent value for offenders who have committed serious driving offences. Courts rarely award anywhere near this maximum amount, and most fines range from $200 to $300. The bill will increase the maximum fine to $20,000 to highlight the need for more substantial fines. This will increase owner responsibility and help to improve road safety.

Furthermore, this bill will make mandatory the impoundment of vehicles involved in illegal street racing or sustained loss of traction like burnouts. Currently, this is at the discretion of the enforcement officer. Making impoundment mandatory makes it consistent with other impoundment provisions, and more accurately reflects the fact that these activities are extremely dangerous, not only for the drivers but also for other road users and bystanders.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour) Link to this

I am pleased to take a call in the first reading of the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill. I need to be clear that Labour supports this bill going to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, just as we support further measures to help combat the problem of illegal street racing. We have said we will work with National to achieve that goal. However, we do not believe that the Government’s new bills will add anything to the current laws that are already in place.

It was pleasing to hear the Minister of Police, Judith Collins, acknowledging the work done by the previous Government to tackle boy racers and reckless and dangerous driving. The previous Labour Government did many years of work to reduce the incidence of young driver offending. Underpinning our work was not only concern about the nuisance caused by illegal street racing but concern for young and novice drivers, speedsters, and those who persistently break the road rules. Labour implemented many measures to crack down on reckless and dangerous driving, but we need to find ways to change the behaviour, if we really want to end it. I remain to be convinced that this particular bill will change that behaviour, and that the current legislation already in place is not sufficient. As a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, which will consider the bill, I look forward to the discussion.

To some extent there have always been noisy young drivers—at least, since cars have been invented. This problem is not new, but I suspect that it is exacerbated by faster cars and easier access to alcohol by young people. I have an enormous amount of sympathy for residents who have to tolerate the awful behaviour of illegal street racers. It is even worse when such behaviour results in injury or death, such as the recent case of a former Glenfield College student who was struck by an out-of-control car driven by a young driver on Manuka Road. Although this case was characterised—as so often happens—as a boy-racer incident, alcohol and speed were the main contributing factors in those tragic circumstances. Alcohol and speed are the evils, not the owning of a car.

I also sympathise with communities that are struggling with exhaust noise and Fatboy mufflers. To that extent, the proposal in this legislation to order vehicles off the road for excessive exhaust noises and to require them to undergo an objective, measured noise test are worth looking at to see whether they enhance existing laws, although I will suggest that, as the police have said to me, it is a case of catch them if you can.

However, as I have already said, I believe that many of the actions permitted under this bill can already be undertaken within existing legislation, particularly Labour’s Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Act 2003. I propose to outline my reason for saying so.

The explanatory note of the bill states that it empowers enforcement officers “to attach warning notices to motor vehicles that are used in breaches of qualifying bylaws, and to impound the motor vehicle on a second or subsequent offence within 90 days:”. Under existing law, when a police officer believes on reasonable grounds that a vehicle has been operated in an illegal street race, an unnecessary exhibition of speed, or a burnout, the officer may impound the vehicle for 28 days at the owner’s expense, effective immediately.

Under the bill, as stated in the explanatory note, there is a proposal to “require a vehicle ordered off the road for excessive exhaust noise to undergo an objective (metered) noise test to reduce the occurrence of exhaust swapping or tampering:”. Under existing law, when a vehicle is impounded for racer offences, its warrant of fitness is automatically cancelled. This means that on release from impoundment the vehicle will have to undergo a new warrant of fitness inspection, and any illegal modifications, such as lowered suspension, extra lights, and noisy exhausts, will have to be rectified.

The explanatory note also states that the bill proposes that “impoundment of motor vehicles involved in illegal street racing or sustained loss of traction, currently at the discretion of the enforcement officer, be made mandatory:”. It also facilitates the confiscation and seizure of impounded motor vehicles. Under existing law, when a police officer believes on reasonable grounds that a vehicle has been operated in an illegal street race, an unnecessary exhibition of speed, or a burnout, the officer may impound the vehicle for 28 days at the owner’s expense, effective immediately. If a person is subsequently convicted of operating a vehicle in an unauthorised race or performing wheel spins, the penalties are the same as the penalties for reckless or dangerous driving. If no one is injured, the court may sentence a person to a maximum of 3 months’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $4,500, and it must disqualify the person from driving for 6 months or more. If someone is injured or killed, under current law the court may sentence a person to a maximum of 5 years’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $20,000, and it must disqualify the person from driving for 1 year or more. In addition, the court may confiscate the vehicle if it wishes. If the person is convicted of racing offences committed twice within 4 years, the court must confiscate the vehicle, except in cases of extreme hardship.

Another proposal in the bill is to “require a vehicle ordered off the road for excessive exhaust noise to undergo an objective (metered) noise test to reduce the occurrence of exhaust swapping or tampering:”. I have mentioned this already, but under existing law another provision is that if any vehicle’s exhaust is considered to be louder than the original exhaust fitted by the manufacturer, the vehicle must be given a green sticker, and those vehicles must apply for a new warrant of fitness.

The bill proposes to “give enforcement officers a range of powers to deal with drivers breaching the conditions of the graduated driver-licensing system, including the powers to direct a motor vehicle to be driven to a specified place, to forbid the person to drive, or to take possession of the ignition keys or other keys of the motor vehicle or to take other necessary steps to immobilise the motor vehicle, or remove it to a place where it does not constitute a traffic hazard:”. Under existing law, if a police officer finds someone racing or performing wheel spins, the officer may either charge the person—in other words, the person has to go to court—or charge the person and impound the vehicle. The officer may also choose to simply issue a warning.

As I have outlined, there are many existing provisions, but, dealing with the bill before us, I agree with the proposed changes to breaches of the graduated driver-licensing system, and note that some of these changes were mooted by the Labour Government after consultation with public and road safety stakeholders, and were reported back at the end of 2007. That consultation confirmed the view that demerit points are a far more effective deterrent than fines. So I look forward to considering more closely the measures proposed to discourage breaches of the graduated licensing system. The bill proposes to decrease the infringement fee for all breaches of the conditions of the graduated driver licensing system, because fines may be paid by parents, pooled and shared by occupants of the car, or ignored completely. Instead, the bill proposes to increase the demerit points for such breaches from 25 to 35 points. That makes sense.

Some people call for the driving age to be increased, but I am not convinced that that is the answer. Measures such as zero tolerance of alcohol consumption by young drivers would have a much greater impact. One of the things that have come to my notice when considering the issues of young drivers, reckless drivers, and the graduated licensing system is the large number of students who drive their cars to school these days. It is very different from when I was at school. The police tell me that breaches such as driving with unlicensed passengers or driving outside the prescribed hours occur reasonably frequently among these students, and that it is often their parents who are most indignant when their little Johnny is pulled up.

ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tāmaki) Link to this

I am pleased to rise and commend the Minister of Transport for bringing the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill before the House for its first reading. I also note with pleasure that the Labour Opposition supports the bill’s referral to a select committee, and I look forward as a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee to working constructively and positively with Ms Fenton and her colleagues. This legislation is needed. I do not feel any need at all to go back through the clauses and provisions of the Land Transport Act; the Minister did that superbly well. I will make a couple of observations.

The first is that this Government, once again, is acting decisively and quickly in the interests of the community. The community wants this measure, the Government is acting, and it is good that there will be agreement across the House on this legislation. I reflect on how it could be that, in this country, as a result of the behaviour of boy racers, patients in a Christchurch hospital had to be moved out of road-facing rooms. There was a time in this country when that would never ever have been necessary. The lesson for the boy racers coming from this bill is that the scales are being tipped against them. Boy racers may have become accustomed to ignoring the law, to flouting it, and to believing that there were no consequences. This bill begins to change that. The message is clear: the community and this Parliament will no longer put up with having the law treated with contempt. This bill makes significant steps forward, as I say, in shifting the balance to the good people of the community. I commend it to the House.

Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) Link to this

Tēnā tātou. Before I stand and support other speakers, I will acknowledge the success enjoyed by Metiria Turei, in her new status as a co-leader, Te Rōpū Kākāriki, and it is a pleasure to see such an obliging, progressive, and future-orientated Māori woman taking such a position of responsibility in a minority party. I wish her well in the future.

As my colleagues have said, this is a rare occasion: I find myself agreeing with the Hon Steven Joyce, the Minister in charge of the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill. However, the other person I agree with in commending this bill to go to the select committee is Clayton Cosgrove. To borrow an expression of a slightly divine nature, he did the Lord’s work in highlighting the hazardous nature of the owners of these cars, or the operators of these cars, and brought legislation to the House in times gone by. We discovered that, despite what this House does in relation to exercising its sovereignty—the sovereignty of Parliament—once the legislation is enacted, and once the regulatory scheme is implemented, it falls into the lap of the judiciary. In the form of democracy we practise, we have the Diceyean split. In the classic Westminster model, we make the law, the judiciary construes the law, and the executive executes the law.

I say to the Minister bringing forward this legislation that he should not overlook the challenges that the existing code has. It contains a range of punitive measures, which, to date, the courts have been reluctant to visit upon these perpetual, recidivist, wretched, and villainous offenders, who destroy the good peace of that English countryside atmosphere down there in Christchurch. That really is the challenge for us as parliamentarians, especially those of us who will be on the select committee listening to the submissions and refining this law. Law needs to be written in such a way that it does not just please the pugilistic tendencies of the current Minister. Rather it is designed—

KEITH LOCKE (Green) Link to this

The Green Party will support this bill being referred to the select committee. As the previous speaker Darien Fenton said in her elaboration on the bill, we are not necessarily convinced that all of these new measures are required to deal with street racing and the particular problems of road safety, noise, and public nuisance that ensue, particularly for people in the neighbourhood. We will be interested in going through the select committee process to see whether each of the proposed measures is needed, or whether they are covered by existing legislation.

Before discussion in the select committee, we do support the idea of demerit points rather than fines, but we are always a bit worried about a lack of flexibility in law, and making the impoundment of cars involved in street racing mandatory in certain situations is not necessarily the best course. It is going beyond the existing provisions for some flexibility by enforcement officers. I think it is good to have that flexibility.

As has been pointed out, the definition of cruising can be rather broad. In fact, I am worried how it could apply to some politicians. The word can have two definitions. One definition says that cruising creates a convoy that is formed otherwise than in trade, and impedes traffic flow. I have been around the electorate of Mt Albert of late. I have seen convoys of cars, sometimes with red, sometimes with blue, and sometimes with green on them, going around and formed otherwise than in trade. Or are we defining trade as the political trade, in which case we might be excluded? It is true that the longer the convoy in a political procession, the more it impedes traffic flow. We may be in line for cruising as political parties engaging in the by-election in Mt Albert. I draw that fact to members’ attention.

The other definition of cruising draws attention to the power or sound of the engine of the motor vehicle being driven. Again, that is fairly broad because sometimes at traffic lights people will just rev up their engines a little bit. It is not of great concern. But if people’s cars are making a really prolonged loud noise, then it is of concern. I am just a bit worried about the breadth of that definition.

Then we throw by-laws into this. Sometimes by-laws can be useful, but it is the police, under national jurisdiction, who enforce these laws. We do not want too many by-laws that create inconsistencies in the application of the law. Sure, we can create a by-law, and Bealey Avenue in Christchurch was mentioned as a place where boy racers tend to have a go on a Saturday night. We could make a by-law that they should not drive down Bealey Avenue, but then they will just move to another street. A by-law does not necessarily solve the problem. What Shane Jones said about the creation of places away from populated areas for people to do their speed-running and wheelies, and all that they like to do, is a much better solution, combined with the provision of more social alternatives for young people on a Saturday night or Sunday, or whenever they do it. That is a challenge for society, rather than just coming down totally with the heavy hand of the law.

I think there are other problems involved too that need to be addressed, as has been referred to. Alcohol is a big issue, as is binge drinking, and often, but not always, that is associated with boy racers. That is the dangerous edge of it, and it creates a lot of the accidents. A lot of it relates to having the right police resources. Bealey Avenue is not too far from the Christchurch Police Station. If the police know, as they do, that boy racers will regularly be there, then being present with the right number of officers and applying the existing law is perhaps a better way to go. We are particularly worried about the bill that is to follow this bill’s first reading, and which is associated with it. It is the one that allows for the crushing of cars. I think that goes too far, but we will speak about that further when that particular debate takes place.

We are concerned that this bill may go a little too far. I think Parliament has to address the alienation of some young people, and the fact that their only way of expressing themselves collectively seems to be by having cars that create these loud noises and annoy people. We need to find the root of the problem and provide outlets for them. One of the outlets is countryside tracks. It is not all wrong. Motor racing is very popular amongst New Zealanders. Often these people are engaged on their own behalf with their own cars, or that of their parents, and if it is in a safe place and away from causing any public nuisance, then it is not necessarily bad. So we do not want to infringe too much on the civil liberties of people.

With those few comments, the Green Party will be looking at the detail of the bill and listening closely to the submissions to see which, if any, of those provisions are absolutely required. Thank you.

DAVID GARRETT (ACT) Link to this

I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to indicate our support also for the bill, at least at the first reading stage, but before getting to the speech I have prepared, I just want to touch on comments made by the last speaker, which, I think, I could summarise as: “What’s really needed here is some nice, healthy, safe outlets for these people”—I will come to what I call them in a moment—“and if we only had some nice, safe, healthy outlets for these people who want to do burnouts and rev-ups, and whatever else they do, then we’d be fine.”

Well, we do have those outlets. There is a drag racing strip south of Auckland. Whenever I have driven past it on a weekend, it is almost never used. I think I have seen it, once or twice, with a big crowd. There are car-rallying clubs where roads are closed, and if people wish to drive at high speed and take their car out on a tree, they can. I can imagine the thrill of that. I have certainly been a youth, in a car, and, as the previous speaker said, there is motor racing and stock car racing, all of which are legal outlets for people who wish to get a thrill from speed, and from cars, and from noise, and from contest. So it is not a matter of a lack of outlets. In my view, it is a matter of lack of discipline and lack of respect for other people’s rights. It has been a pleasure to hear speakers on the other side of the House, with whom I can almost wholly agree—among them the Hon Shane Jones. He and I are probably fairly far apart on the political spectrum but I could not disagree with much of what he said.

On this issue I want to start with talking about the language, and this very term “boy racer”. It tends to suggest, at first hearing and to someone who was not a New Zealander, young boys in go-carts or on trolleys, as we used to call them. These people are not, in fact, boy racers; they are road criminals. They are road criminals who kill people. It has happened in Christchurch on more than one occasion. A man emailed me, just today, regarding a case presently before the courts that he was concerned about, which arose from just one of those types of events. Mr Shane Jones referred to the case of the security guard, and I would like, if I may, to read from an excerpt from the Christchurch Press, which fleshes out that incident a bit: “As she rounded a bend she came across about 100 boy racers, some of whom approached her car, smashing the driver’s window and two passenger windows with what were thought to be bottles.” Aviation Security general manager, Mark Everitt, said: “The car in front was right up against the bonnet. It was like they had her imprisoned. … She was really scared. She didn’t think she was going to get out of it.” What a terrible, terrible situation for a person, simply doing her job, round the back of Christchurch airport. Why should she be subjected to that kind of behaviour by those criminals? They are not boy racers. They are not frustrated, healthy car-racers. They are criminals.

The ACT Party will be supporting this bill to a select committee. We do not do so because we see it as perfect. Speakers on the other side of the House, and, indeed, from the National side have raised several issues that need closer scrutiny. The “cruising” definition is one such example. But a select committee is the place to flesh this out and to improve it. I would like to pay tribute to Minister Joyce and Minister Collins for the work they have put into this bill and the next one to be considered, and to my National Party colleague Nicky Wagner for her tireless efforts in lobbying on behalf of the residents of Christchurch and other centres plagued by those criminals. And plagued they are!

The incident I just referred to, and which the Hon Shane Jones referred to, concerning the security guard is well known but it is not the only one. It is happening all around the country. I hear, sadly I think, from Labour, and from Darien Fenton, what I would call Clayton’s support. She said that Labour will support the bill to the select committee, but that laws like this will not add anything. I believe that is shorthand for: “We are pretending to be open-minded but we won’t support it any further, because it won’t change behaviour.” She said it would not change behaviour. There is a limit to what legislators can do. We cannot make people respect each other. We cannot make people understand that their rights are subject to the rights of others. We can only make laws. All we can do is make laws, and perhaps make speeches on them. That is the only way we can attempt to change behaviour. We can only legislate, punishing bad behaviour.

I would join other speakers in agreeing that the Labour Party made a good effort in its last term to get laws in place, but, sadly, it has been proven that they have not worked. We have still got the problem. Mr Jones touched on the point—and I am delighted to take his point further—that the laws are frequently ignored by the judiciary. That is a problem and it is one of the problems that lie behind our proposals of a “three strikes” law for violence, with a mandatory sentence. Sadly, Parliament can indicate all it likes, but at the end of the day the judges make up their mind, unless Parliament says “This is what will happen.” Perhaps this issue is an illustration of where the softly, softly approach was put in place by the Labour Government, yet we still have the problem. We still see people, like that lady, being terrified while going about her lawful business around the back of the airport, and the judiciary is not applying the law. So maybe this is an illustration that, on some occasions, we need to get a bit firmer and say to the judges: “This is the law. These are the punishments after people have had two chances; they don’t get 102.” It highlights the need to be firmer perhaps on some occasions. The ACT Party is delighted to support the bill at this stage.

Hon TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party) Link to this

Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa. I would like to join with some of my other colleagues in the House and congratulate Metiria Turei on her appointment as co-leader of the Green Party. Tēnā koe, Metiria.

This bill that we are talking about today introduces a new offence—the offence of cruising. Of course, cruising is not a new phenomenon. Even in my day there was a fascination, for the young, in driving hotted-up cars through the main street. It depended on what one was driving: mum’s Morris Minor hardly stacked up against a Mark II Zephyr, but there is a big difference between idling down the avenue in second gear and the horrific speeds and risk-taking behaviour that we are responding to in this bill. This bill responds to the alarming data that in the period between 2003 and 2007 there was an average of 101 crashes per year from street racing and related activities. The estimated social cost of such offending was over $30 million. We should not minimise this behaviour or this issue. For those crashes we have a roll-call that must be attended to—that is, an average of 10 deaths, 46 serious injuries, and 125 minor injuries each and every year. Those deaths have resulted from the sheer reckless disregard for human life, and about 10 people every year have lost their lives because of the illegal street racing that has been going on for far too long. When it comes down to it, the choice is the destruction of a car or the loss of a human life. There is no choice.

There are vital public safety issues at the core of this debate that we cannot ignore. The Māori Party is pleased that this House is giving time to this issue, to ensure that no more injuries, and no more deaths, result from such antisocial behaviour. This bill amends the Land Transport Act, to increase the powers available to councils and police to disrupt, deter, apprehend, and prosecute drivers who are street racing. By far the most vivid representation of why such a bill is necessary was seen just last week in Christchurch, when a hundred-strong group of young boy racers threatened a lone female security guard—surrounding her, smashing the windows of her car, and causing general havoc at the Christchurch International Airport. The attack occurred at 10.30 p.m. in the middle of a routine check on behalf of the Aviation Security Service. I can only begin to imagine the fear that woman must have felt when her vehicle was blocked in, the windows were smashed, and she was then attacked.

I want to raise the question of why this subculture appears to have taken root in Christchurch. The bill fails to throw any light as to the psychology or the profile of these boy racers; the remedy is focused instead on a punishment for the vehicles they drive. Yet many questions are left unanswered as to the nature of the membership of this community. I am curious as to why there appears to be a disproportionate amount of offending of this nature taking place in the South Island. In the top eight areas for which the police received complaints regarding boy racers, four alone were in Christchurch City and the other was in Nelson. The only areas in the North Island that appear to be problem areas were the Auckland motorways, Henderson, and Tauranga.

Then, when we break down the total number of fines handed out by the police in the last 12 months between March 2008 and March 2009, we find that the results are quite staggering. For the offence of operating a motor vehicle causing sustained loss of traction, only 89 such offences were recorded in Greater Auckland, but a massive number of 342 cases were recorded in Canterbury. But the phenomenon is even more curious when we learn that these racers are predominantly male, aged between 16 and 28, employed, and middle-class. They are also often without—supposedly—a criminal history, although they have received a number of fines for driving offences. However, I suggest that some of the results of their behaviour and driving have certainly been criminal.

Even more of interest to the Māori Party is the analysis from Paul Beere of Waikato University, who suggests that there is no distinctive dress, music, political stance, socio-economic group, or other readily identifiable badges to mark these individuals. In fact, if no one noticed, I tell them that the only usual variable missing from this list is that of ethnicity, which, one would think, would be worthy of note. In an article in the Press earlier this year: “Boy racers: What makes them tick?”, a direct association was made with what the article referred to as “a skinhead, ‘white pride’ group,”. That article suggested that conflict was brewing amongst that community in reaction to tighter policing—conflict that erupted in open hostilities in Wigram late last January, when a lone policeman was targeted by several hundred boy racers bottling his patrol car and taking pot-shots with an air rifle.

The antisocial nature of these pack attacks goes beyond horrifying. We are not talking about recreational activities, or young boys playing around with an imitation Grand Prix. Christchurch mayor, Bob Parker, declares: “This is embarrassing and it is ugly.” Our greatest concern must surely be that these cowardly attack on individuals will escalate, and when combined with alcohol consumption, stunt driving, and excessive speed, we are looking at horrendous injuries and large-scale damage—and we have heard about a lot of the horrendous injuries.

So we welcome this bill, insomuch as we welcome any interventions that will assist in protecting public safety, and indeed in protecting these young people themselves from themselves. In addition to the new offence of cruising, there is a raft of legislation to give councils the powers to create by-laws in relation to illegal street racing and cruising. Yet the spectacle of boy racing is so region-specific that I had to ring my son to find out where the boy-racing circuits in Wanganui were located. His response was reassuring, even if it raised more questions. He told me that although there were definitely groups of young people in Wanganui who might constitute this category, apart from a few fast drives at the top of the avenue it was not really commonplace. There is the odd wheelspin on the grassed areas out at the beach where I live, but very little of this behaviour goes on, thankfully.

His answer left me wondering about the need for such wide-ranging by-laws and powers of seizure, and for the impounding of cars breaching street racing and cruising by-laws, when it appears that the extent of the problem across the land is variable. Even more puzzling to me is that although all the additional provisions introduced in this bill will inevitably impact on the tools of trade for the boy-racer industry, can we be convinced that it will really create the enduring solutions that we need? Questions that we will be seeking to find answers for during the select committee process of this bill are: what are the outcomes we seek to ensure that boy racers are prevented from offending? How will we support these young people to desist from using their cars as vehicles for self destruction? How will we support the families of these young people to encourage the young people to take active responsibility, not just for their passengers but also for those who may come into their path? How do we invest in communities to develop enduring solutions, and to create environments in which boy-racer traffic-offending is no longer viable? The Māori Party will support this Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill to go through to the select committee, in the hope that these more complex issues will be able to be explored. Kia ora.

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) Link to this

I also rise in support of the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill. As previous speakers have said, for as long as there have been cars, there has been a small number of mostly men, but increasingly of women, who have viewed the cars they drive as a symbol of their virility—of a thing to look cool in, a tool in the mating ritual perhaps, and certainly a means of light rebellion. The member Keith Locke’s comments about finding an outlet for using vehicles in that way might be valid for some, but increasingly a number of these people do not actually seek to race their cars; they want to use them to intimidate, to crowd out, to commit property offences, and, increasingly, to commit violent crimes against people. Certainly, too often they are people in authority. So the impact of these changes that I think we are seeing in our society is that what we once would have considered a sort of James Dean act has now become an act of lawlessness on a scale that by any measure is completely intolerable.

The Minister introducing the bill, the Hon Steven Joyce, and some others, have talked about some quite high-profile incidents in Christchurch. Although the highest-profile cases appear to be in Christchurch, even in my home city of Dunedin this problem is a growing one. At the weekend six cars were seized by police and bailiffs in a fines blitz that netted $21,000 out of several hundred thousand dollars’ worth of outstanding fines. So that goes, I think, to the reason this legislation is necessary. There are two reasons, as I see it: firstly, the sanctions described by Ms Fenton and Mr Jones are not having the effect of moderating behaviour. Secondly, although young people should be free to have a bit of rebellion, so too should other members of our community be free from the sorts of things that are happening, and be free to go about their business and their quiet enjoyment without the sorts of intolerable acts that are taking place. When we have moteliers not able to fill certain rooms because of the noise, when hospital patients are being moved, and when farm stock and horses are being spooked by this sort of behaviour, then it behoves this House to do something about it.

The so-called boy racers have thrown down a gauntlet to this House. They have thumbed their noses at its authority, and scoffed at comments made by members of this Parliament that they should somehow be called to account for their illegal behaviour. I congratulate and wholeheartedly support the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Police, and this Government, which is prepared to take up that gauntlet. Those people who have been conducting these acts, almost with impunity, should look out because the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill, along with a bill that will be introduced subsequently, will have a serious impact on their freedom to terrorise other people in our community. I support the bill for that reason.

CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) Link to this

Like my colleagues, I rise in support of the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill, at least its referral to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. We are doing so because there are a number of issues involved, and I will discuss those at a later point in this speech. I start by saying that, judging from the debate, it is obvious that everyone in this House is concerned about the issues of illegal street racing, the boy-racer phenomenon, and associated antisocial behaviour.

Those activities have a range of consequences that fall into a whole number of different categories, including issues of intimidation of other people, safety—both of other people and of the drivers and their passengers—noise, and public nuisance. Those consequences have implications for individuals. Already a couple of previous speakers have referred to the incident involving the security officer in Christchurch. Like others, I can only begin to imagine how hideous that situation must have been for the woman involved. I listened to a hotelier in Christchurch talking about the implications of noise for his business, and about customers saying they would not come back. There are implications for whole communities too, and, as Tariana Turia mentioned, the problem seems to have particular implications in Christchurch, and it would be very interesting to try to analyse why that is so. But Christchurch is not the only place in New Zealand where this issue has currency.

It is important that we start to address the issues, and certainly Labour has made a number of attempts to get to this issue in a way that is meaningful and will have some sort of effect. At the moment, police are perhaps hampered in trying to deal with some of the issues because they must clearly identify the suspect in the act of committing the offence. It can sometimes be quite difficult to do so when a group of people in cars is involved. Bystanders are often unwilling to be involved in identification as well, so there are low apprehension rates. There is no question about that. Arguably, the deterrent value of the existing law may also be low.

This bill is an attempt to disrupt and deter illegal street racing and related activities such as cruising by enhancing the powers of road-controlling authorities. Presumably, given the comments made so far, this bill will be passed by the House in some form, but a number of factors will come into play in determining whether we can expect to see some changes as a result. They include whether sufficient officers will be present at the right times and the right places to make arrests and to safely intervene. We can look at cases where police officers have been put in very difficult circumstances in group situations, as is often the case with boy racers. By itself, this bill will not tackle those kinds of issues. It does not tackle the question of whether there will be sufficient police at the right time and the right place.

Current law also provides a number of solutions to this issue, but tough law works only when the courts back up the lawmakers. There is a question about whether the current provisions are being used to their full effect. If we are keeping an open mind about what needs to change here, I think the select committee will need to look at what is currently in place, and whether there are any barriers to that law being actioned by the courts. For example, at the moment confiscation of vehicles is taking place only in a relatively small proportion of cases. The select committee will need to ask why that is.

If the courts do not back up legislation that is passed by this House, we get into a situation like that referred to by Michael Woodhouse, where people who are committing crimes are effectively able to thumb their noses at Parliament. In a civilised society like New Zealand that is not an acceptable outcome. We need to know that the laws we pass will be enforced, and also that they are enforceable, practical, and all of those things. As I have said, we will support this legislation’s referral to the select committee for further scrutiny, but we do not want to see this as just “tough talking”, or Judith Collins taking on the boy racers, as if this issue has not been considered quite significantly in this House by people who have tried to deal with it.

Let us recognise that there have been a number of attempts, and that this is not just a case of, finally, Parliament acting tough and talking tough and sorting it out. That is the attitude we will take to the select committee, to try to actively engage with the issues here. Some provisions in the bill have been raised in other situations. One of those is around demerit points for breaches of the conditions of the graduated driver-licensing system. I draw the attention of the House to a case where this issue was dealt with quite significantly in a previous road safety consultation, the See You There—Safe As consultation. In that case, a number of propositions were put up about the graduated driver-licensing system and how to use it better. I would commend that work to the select committee as well, and suggest that it should be part of the committee’s considerations.

Reference was made to my colleague Darien Fenton, who went through a number of the actions that are permitted under this bill. She was not trying, as David Garrett suggested, to brush off this issue as unimportant, or to say it is all OK. She was trying to point out that many of the actions permitted under this bill can already be undertaken within existing legislation, particularly the Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Act of 2003. I would urge people, as part of the select committee’s consideration, to think about why existing provisions are not adequate, and, if they seem to be adequate, why they are not being enforced in a way that is meaningful.

I will go to some of the points that have been raised and which are more to do with why this happens, rather than what we do in relation to the events of illegal street racing and boy racers. Keith Locke and Tariana Turia have both made some points that I think are really important. What is it that leads the young people who are involved in these activities to do that? What sense of alienation is leading them to find, in their cases, a sense of belonging among groups of other people with vehicles, and in behaving in a way that is intimidating, a public nuisance, and unsafe? We need to think about those things, and to do so is not to adopt some sort of “soft on crime” approach, as Mr Garrett was, I think, referring to before.

It actually is important that we as legislators look not only at the particular events and how we respond to those acts or events, but also at what leads up those acts and events, and what the consequences of those acts or events are, and what the outcomes from our intervention potentially could be. Will we stop those acts or events taking place in the future? Will we create a different sort of climate or culture that will make them less acceptable? Will we change the attitudes of people who are breaching the law? I think it is very important that the select committee also tries to analyse why these events happen, and what interventions are likely to stop them happening, rather than just saying straight up that this is the punishment people will get, if they do those things.

AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) Link to this

I am delighted to have the chance to rise and speak in support of the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill this evening. I will begin by saying that it was in my electorate of Selwyn that on Wednesday last week a female security officer was attacked behind Christchurch International Airport. I know that that incident has been spoken about before in the House during this debate, but as the MP representing the area I want to say that it was an action and an event that absolutely horrified us. I know that none of us would wish to see it repeated, and I am sure all of us would come together in absolutely deploring it.

This Government will not tolerate loutish, offensive, intimidating behaviour by these illegal street racers. Although the bill focuses on the impact of the drivers, the point made before the dinner break was a good one—that although we are dealing with traffic offences, the real issue has become not just the driving but what has evolved from that, which is a culture of bullying, intimidation, and mob mentality that has to be put to an end. This bill goes a long way towards addressing that issue.

It is true to say that many of the actions we talk about concerning illegal street racers are already illegal. The problem is that the tools in the law are simply not adequate for the police to make a significant difference and significant inroads. I believe that this bill, and the sister bill that will follow it, will see significant inroads being made into the problem as we give the police the tools that will start to make a real difference—tools that will allow the police to clamp down on this cowardly and reprehensible conduct.

We have heard these matters talked about already, but some of the specific points to note are the ability that councils and road controlling authorities now have to put in place specific by-laws in relation to cruising and other matters, and the compulsory impounding of cars involved in illegal street racing, whereas previously that had been discretionary. The measure that I think is particularly relevant is not only making the penalties tougher but also making them far more relevant to boy and girl racers, and focusing on the fact that fines mean nothing to that crowd. I have walked into many houses and seen thick bundles of fines pinned to the wall that, frankly, are a badge of honour. Piling up more fines will do nothing. We will make a difference only by getting stuck into their cars and their licences.

This bill closes up a lot of the loopholes that exist in the law. It casts the net wider so that we can be more effective. It will help the courts and the police finally to make inroads into the problem of street racing. It is a significant problem, there is no simple answer, but this bill is an excellent start, as is the bill that will follow it, and I commend it to the House.

Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) Link to this

I rise to support the first reading of the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill. I signal to the Minister of Transport that I have found a mistake in the explanatory note, and I want to see whether the Minister can find the mistake by the end of my speech. I will give him a hint: it is on the third page. I will return to that point when the Minister has got to it. The Minister is now getting a copy of the bill, which is a good start for a Minister sponsoring legislation through the House.

As previous Opposition speakers have said, Labour will support this bill being referred to a select committee. The previous speaker, Amy Adams, talked about the difficulties a lot of communities have faced with what are colloquially known as boy racers, and the terror and fear that they can strike into communities. I do not think there is any debate in Parliament tonight about the impacts and the effects of such activity. What is more difficult is to know exactly how to respond to such activity in a way that will actually change behaviour. We are very good in here at giving all the right speeches, making all the right noises, and saying all the right slogans about how to clamp down on boy racers and the aspect of their activity that we do not appreciate or approve of as a society, but it has been much harder to enforce the will of Parliament and bring about proper change in communities. That has been very difficult indeed to achieve.

Some aspects of the bill pick up on work that the previous Government was doing, and that is welcome. It is a very good thing. I refer particularly to the work we were doing on road safety goals for 2010.

I think a couple of parts of the bill are quite interesting, and I look forward to seeing what the select committee has to say about them and, equally, how they will act once they are in operation. For example, when Parliament has wanted to send a signal about activity that we do not approve of we have—for a long time—raised fines. That has been the way in which we have signalled to the community that this is something that Parliament is worried about—we have raised the maximum fines that can be imposed. But I think all members know from their work in their communities that sometimes a fine of $1,000 may as well be $100,000, in terms of the ability of the person being fined to pay that fine. People can rake up significant levels of debt, and it becomes quite meaningless. It can become almost a competition in itself in relation to how many fines can be incurred.

This bill, in one area, actually lowers the fine to a much more realistic, payable level of $100, but in order to balance that with the comments of members across the House about their disapproval of aspects of the behaviour of boy racers, the bill increases the demerit points. I think that is a really interesting innovation that the Government has put in the bill, and we look forward to seeing how it will play out, particularly at the select committee. It raises the issue as to what happens down the track when drivers get to the end of their demerit points and their licence is taken off them, but they continue to drive. What options are open to law enforcement agencies and the courts at that point? We may be just delaying the cycle we have been on with people not wanting to pay their fines; we may be getting back into that area. But it is certainly worth the attempt, because in addition to the tough side of this bill and the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill, we are trying to send a signal about community expectations.

I do not think people are against people enjoying the use of their motor vehicles, against performance vehicles, or against organised displays of cars. In fact, a lot of people get a lot of joy out of that. I do not think this is Parliament being anti-fun; I think this is Parliament saying that many of these boy racers cross a line and seek to use what might have started out as a hobby for them as a tool of intimidation against law-abiding people. I do not think it is fair at all for people to use their own personal interests to intimidate people who are law abiding and who want to enjoy life in their community. So striking that balance is important. A lot of young people in all of our communities will say to us: “Hang on, it’s all very well to be toughening up the law, but what avenues are you giving us to explore our hobby? Where can we go to have organised, safe, controlled, burn-offs? Where can we go to be in our cars?”. I think it is a challenge for all communities to try to find platforms to enable people to use—

NICKY WAGNER (National) Link to this

I rise to take a call on the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill because, as a member of Parliament living in central Christchurch, the home of the boy racer, I have lobbied long and hard to bring legislation to deal with this issue. Listening to the speakers today, I have found it very satisfying to hear that all parties support the bill being referred to a select committee. But the question is why it has taken so long for this issue to be dealt with.

General horror has been expressed by many people in the House about the latest behaviour of boy racers. There is the story of the lone policeman ambushed by a pack of violent and belligerent boy racers. Just last week there was the attack on the innocent woman security guard at the back of the airport. But these are not new; these are just extreme manifestations of the boy-racer culture.

Let me explain to members about how the boy-racer culture has grown and developed over the last decade. Tonight several Labour speakers have spoken about everything their Government had done to control the problem. But I have to say that in the last 4 years while I have been lobbying they have done absolutely nothing. During that time the boy-racer culture has been allowed to develop from noisy nuisance to violent antisocial behaviour. The number of boy racers has increased and a whole new criminal element has been attracted. The intimidation is not new. Over the years boy racers have ruined the lives of many families and many businesses.

I have several examples of this intimidation in the city of Christchurch: in particular, one business in Bealey Avenue that was targeted by boy racers over the last 2 years. The owner had made the fatal mistake of complaining about boy-racer behaviour in the media. The boy racers decided to punish him, and they were very successful. The motel had bottles thrown at it every weekend night, it was graffitied, signs smashed, and the door of the office was regularly urinated on. I visited the motel one day and went into the owner’s suite. The double bed was in the middle of the internal sitting room of the unit because the owner and his wife were too frightened to sleep in the bedroom, which had open windows. The owner was even attacked and beaten one night when he went out and disturbed people on his property. Eventually this couple sold out; they dropped $150,000 on the value of their motel and migrated to Australia.

That is not the only case. I know of at least half a dozen moteliers who have been driven out of business by boy racers since I have been a member of Parliament. No one should have to put up with this type of intimidation. No group of people has the right to make life miserable for others or to bully them so much that they have to leave the city. So I would like to thank the Hon Steven Joyce for this legislation. I look forward to the select committee working through the detail of the bill to make sure it is well drafted and will be effective. The antisocial, dangerous behaviour of boy racers needs to be curbed, and this bill will provide the mechanism to provide consequences for those who choose to break the law. Boy racers make choices. They make choices about how they behave, and this bill provides outcomes that may just help them reconsider some of those choices and that has to be a good thing for everyone.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) Link to this

I move, That the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee consider the bill; that the committee report to the House on or before 10 September 2009; and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and to meet outside the Wellington area during a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 187, 189(a), and 190(1)(b) and (c).