DARIEN FENTON (Labour) Link to this
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) Link to this
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.
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) Link to this
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 HenareHon CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this
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—
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this
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) Link to this
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) Link to this
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) Link to this
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—
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.
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—
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) Link to this
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 CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this
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 CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this
—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 CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this
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.
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this
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 WOODHOUSEDARIEN FENTON (Labour) Link to this
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.
As I said, 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, and that gives me some comfort, as also does the fact that 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, around, obviously, 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. But 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.
A party vote was called for on the question,
That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 117
- New Zealand National 58
- New Zealand Labour 43
- Green Party 9
- Māori Party 5
- Progressive 1
- United Future 1
Noes 5
Amendments agreed to.
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 78 in the name of the Hon Steven Joyce to Part 1 be agreed to.
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) Link to this
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 petition from 2005 of 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—
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 will 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—
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.
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 ChadwickYes, 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.
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) Link to this
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—
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this
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 CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this
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 CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this
—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—
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this
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) Link to this
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) Link to this
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.
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 GOODHEWHon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) Link to this
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.
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this
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.”
Hon Darren Hughes Link to this
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 CarterAt 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) Link to this
I know that the Hon John Carter was a boy scout. He is always prepared.
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this
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 CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this
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 CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this
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 BrownleeHon CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this
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 CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this
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?
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this
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 CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this
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.
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this
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.
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this
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) Link to this
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.”
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.”
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.”
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.”
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.”
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.
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.
A party vote was called for on the question,
That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 117
- New Zealand National 58
- New Zealand Labour 43
- Green Party 9
- Māori Party 5
- Progressive 1
- United Future 1
Noes 5
Amendment agreed to.
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 66 in the name of the Hon Steven Joyce to schedule 1 be agreed to.
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 78 in the name of the Hon Steven Joyce to schedule 2 be agreed to.
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) Link to this
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 CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this
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 CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this
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.
[... plus a further 17 contributions not shown here]