Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill

Oh, well, maybe he was; I will leave that for him to decide. It is very hard to believe that a boy racer will nip round the back of Turners Auctions as his $30,000 Nissan Skyline is going under the hammer in order to buy it back. I think the arguments put forward by Mr Woodhouse are fictitious, unless some evidence—that would be nice—could be put forward. We support these provisions, but with the rhetoric that we are hearing, I would also point out that one would think that this is not being done now.

I am sorry to harp on about Christchurch, which is a great part of New Zealand, but if one goes out with the police at any time there, one sees that they have developed very, very good and practical sting operations. They also have other operations when they just send out incident cars—plain-clothed cars. I was out one night with a couple of young police officers, and I saw that they have, today, the ability under the law to pull over anybody if they think that something does not feel right. They can pull over the young person, or the old person, or whomever. They can go through the registration and the warrant, they can check out the car, and they can also have the bailiffs and the court on standby—as they do—right through the night when they are doing these operations.

If it was Mr Brownlee in his Jaguar who owed a few fines, then they could say that they are sorry, but the tow truck is on its way unless he pays the bill. The car will be on the tow truck, and the tow truck is gone. I am sure that Mr Brownlee would never engage in that behaviour, good soul that he is, but the point I am making is that that happens today. It happens nearly every night of the week.

I know this because I have often been in the back of a police car over many years. The police can pull people over if things do not feel right, and not just where a driver is boy racing, or girl racing. They can pull over drivers—they have done this—and they can say: “Hang on, I don’t think this feels right.” They can check the vehicle through. They can look at the vehicle to see whether it complies. And, by the way, they can ring the bailiffs, ask them to put the details through the computer, and find out whether Mr Smith owes any fines and costs.

I recall being on Moorhouse Avenue one night when a young fellow was pulled up in this way. He gave the police what ho. The police professionals stood there and took it. I, as a lesser mortal, would probably have been less restrained. They told the driver that he owed $5,000 and, unless he paid up, the car would be on the tow truck. He rang mum. Mum—a rather affluent looking person— pulled up in a Mercedes. She put her arm around Johnny, lambasted the police for what they had done, which was the correct thing to do, and said that it was not Johnny’s fault. I ask what he learnt by that.

We support these measures, but we just say that some of the arguments put forward last night will be negated today.

Burns BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) Link to this

I am very pleased to take a call in respect of the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill as we go through Part 2 of this important legislation. I reaffirm, as we enter a new day—although it is still the same day in terms of parliamentary sitting time—that Labour strongly supports this legislation and its progress through the House. However, we are trying to make sure that Parliament does not have to revisit this bill on an ongoing basis, because it is our very firm belief that although the bill includes very many good measures, it still has a gap in respect of how we best deal with the issue of the confiscation and seizure—the very name of the bill—of boy-racer cars. The Minister of Police has been stating that she wants to see behavioural change in respect of boy racers, and our very clear position is that it will not be achieved by the measures involved with car confiscation and crushing, if, indeed, we go through the process that this bill outlines. That process involves boy racers who have a deal with a mate or a family member for the car to be owned by somebody else. The driver does some illegal drag racing or burnouts, the police pull him up, and they then send a warning to the owner of the car. Under the procedures of this bill, a second warning is then sent, and then finally on the third offence the car may be seized—

Burns BRENDON BURNS Link to this

May be!

—may be seized—and, at the discretion of the judge, if there are not extraordinary circumstances that he or she wishes to take into account, the car might be crushed. The estimate from the Minister of 10 cars crushed a year nationally could mean that in my city of Christchurch, with 10 percent of the population of New Zealand, we may see just one car crushed a year. I hardly think that that will deliver the sort of behavioural change that is needed. Labour wants to see behavioural change because the boy-racer menace affects many parts of the country, and none more so than my electorate. I was thinking last night about the visit I made earlier this year to a woman living on Fitzgerald Avenue who has moved out of her home and gone to live with family because she has had a gutsful of the menace that is brought. It is not just the noise; it is the ongoing behaviour and the threats that have been brought against her—quite a strong older woman—over the years. It has worn her down to the point where she has left her home without, I believe, having sold it, because it is sometimes quite difficult to sell properties in that area of Christchurch because of the menace that these boy racers bring. She is a strong person who, after years of going out, watching the boy racers, taking down the number plates, and trying to do her best to give the police the support they need to deal with the problem, has finally called it quits and moved, at considerable cost to herself.

I think the police deserve the best possible support that we can give them, and I truly do not believe we are doing it with this bill. It has a kind of pyrrhic quality to it, in that a few cars may be—may be—crushed, but there is no signal to boy racers that they will lose their cars. That is really what is needed, and that is why I strongly support the Supplementary Order Paper tabled by my colleague Clayton Cosgrove.

Another visit in my electorate reinforced the need for some really tough legislation on this issue. It was a visit—again, earlier this year or late last year—to residents living off Edgeware Road. They were not actually on the circuit of the boy racers—they were well away from the four avenues—but had the unfortunate experience of living a few houses away from a property where boy racers were resident. Of course, on a Friday and Saturday night the boys like to begin their evening by doing a few burnouts up and down that street. These people want tough action against it, and I believe they want to see the strongest possible measures emerging from this Parliament to deal with the problem. I do not think they would look at a bill that sees perhaps one car a year taken off the streets of Christchurch as a truly effective behavioural signal to the boy-racer fraternity; I think they would be strongly looking at the Government to do the very, very toughest that it can.

I believe the Supplementary Order Paper from my colleague Clayton Cosgrove would, indeed, deliver a tougher message. It would give a signal on the first offence that if the boy racer does it again, his car will be gone, confiscated, sold, and out of his ownership, and he will not be able to get it back. One or two members opposite have suggested that this will simply allow boy racers to go and buy their cars back. I challenge any members opposite who want to state that again to give us some evidence. A number of inquiries have been made about that issue, and no evidence has been put up to suggest that that is, in fact, happening. If we think about it for a moment, how could it happen? If we are putting up for sale a car that is worth $10,000 or $20,000, and if we have people who have no credit history, who often have bought the car on a long stretch of credit, and who in many instances have a large number of fines against them, where will they find the cash? If they are buying the car at Turners Auctions, they will have to buy it via cash. They cannot put it on the never-never. They have to be able to actually buy the car, so I ask how they will be able to do that. If any member wants to raise that issue again, I ask him or her to bring some evidence to the Parliament that that happens.

Let us look at another aspect of crushing. Here we are, as a nation and as a planet, debating issues like climate change. We need to make the best possible use of our resources. Crushing might have a photo opportunity attached, but if the car has plenty of miles left in it still, I ask what on earth is the sense in putting a perfectly good vehicle, one that admittedly may have been used for some heinous purpose, and which perhaps may need modification to put some decent tyres and other things back on it, into the crusher. Perhaps one car a year will be crushed in Christchurch for a photo opportunity for the Minister and, no doubt, one or two other National members from Christchurch, all so that they can stand there and have their photos taken with a car that is being crushed. That is what it is about. It is not about delivering the best possible outcome in terms of dealing with the menace that boy racers present, both in my city and many other parts of the country.

There is a very viable method here, and I think my colleague Clayton Cosgrove has even indicated a preparedness—and the Government has this opportunity—to amend the Supplementary Order Paper to maybe look at crushing after the confiscation on the second offence. That is something that the Government could dwell on. It would then be making the bill tougher than it is currently. But at the moment there is no signal to the boy-racer community that this Government truly wants to be tough on the issue. This measure would, in fact, send the real signal to them. It would say that if they misbehave, they have one chance. Everybody deserves one chance, but people certainly do not deserve three chances, with the possible outcome of a judge maybe sending a car to be crushed. I commend the Supplementary Order Paper to the Committee.

Collins Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) Link to this

I remind the member who has just resumed his seat and who is a new member, Brendon Burns, that the Supplementary Order Paper to which he refers was voted out last night. We are not debating it this morning. We are debating Part 2 of the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill.

I will refer to a couple of main points in Part 2. There has been some discussion this morning about why warnings are to be given to people who have an interest in a car, and why these cars are not simply seized and sold. That provision deals with the fact that some of the interests in the cars are those of finance companies, banks, and parents. When we are putting in place legislation like this, which can be considered quite Draconian from some people’s points of view, we need to have a balance of interests. There is no point having legislation that people do not believe is fair. We have one of the best police forces in the world. The New Zealand Police is, in my opinion, almost the best in the world, if not the best. One of the reasons why the police have one of the most fantastic success records in terms of public confidence—and I saw just yesterday a release about yet another new high of public confidence in the police—is that the public expects the New Zealand Police to act fairly and within the law. It is very important when we are taking away nana’s car, mum’s car, or a finance company - owned car that we act fairly.

I actually believe it is very important that a finance company knows exactly what is going on with its security, so that when it gets its first written warning about what is being done with the car over which it has security and which it has lent a lot of money to secure, it can take action. The company understands that when a car is lost—it is gone, it is sold, or it is crushed—it has lost its security. I believe that finance companies will start taking action. Certainly when I was growing up, and when a lot of people in this Chamber were growing up, young people could not get new cars. They could not borrow from finance companies to buy cars, because, basically, those companies were much tougher about the ways in which they lent. Over the last 10 years or so there has been a great loosening up in that lending, and one of the results has been that a lot of very high-powered cars have been sold to people who cannot control them or their own behaviour, unfortunately.

There has been a lot of talk about how much crushing there will be. Actually, the point of the bill is stopping the behaviour. For a party that says it is opposed to the crushing part of the bill, yet says it is opposed to the bill because it is not tough enough, I think Labour really needs to get its rhetoric right. This bill is actually not about me. It is not about photo opportunities. It is actually about trying to take some action that means something, because the previous Government, despite its very best efforts, frankly could not put a bill together on this issue that had any standing at all.

One of the reasons that the judges do not under the current legislation use confiscation and surrender of vehicles as much as was expected is that the legislation has every sort of loophole available. Frankly, judges have to be able to apply the law as presented by Parliament. We have made it perfectly plain in this legislation that we expect that the judges will apply the law because that is what they do. We are giving judges discretion in terms of what happens to the cars of the worst recidivist offenders. If judges feel that they cannot use that discretion, we would like to know why. I actually think that judges will use it. We have to get the law right. We have always said that this legislation will not be a silver bullet. But it is a vast improvement on the previous Government’s pathetic attempt, which, I have to say, anybody with a law degree could have seen had loopholes right through it. It was very, very difficult legislation. Of course, one has to give the previous Government credit for at least trying, but it did not try hard enough.

Part 2 of the bill, I believe, will deal with the issue of people who sell their cars before the court has been able to take action and confiscate them. That is one of the big loopholes. On the subject of what happens when people’s cars are put up for auction, I have some news for Mr Burns. When one buys a car at auction, one pays whatever is the highest price bid. That is how an auction works. People do not actually turn up to an auction and say that because a car is worth $20,000 they are going to pay $20,000. I tell Mr Burns that what happens at an auction is that a car might be worth $20,000, but if the highest bid is $300 that is what is paid for it. That is how it works in the real world. I know that is not something that members opposite have a lot of experience in, but that is what happens.

As for the question about where the evidence is that boy racers send their friends along to buy up a car at $250 or $300, I ask the member why he does not ask the police when he is strutting around police stations. That is what they say. The police in Canterbury tell me that that is exactly what happens. When Sergeant Nigel Armstrong was attacked by boy racers earlier this year, I went down to Christchurch and I asked them there why this behaviour was still going on. The police said that the boy racers’ mates turn up at the auction, they buy the cars for $250 or $300, and they are laughing. The police say that they are laughing at them. They are laughing at the previous legislation. This part of the bill is one of the steps that we are taking to close that loophole. If they want to keep laughing, they will end up with their cars crushed, frankly.

10 a year—10 people.

The member calls out “10 a year”. Actually, I hope that they get the message that we mean business, and hopefully they will stop their behaviour.

You said all the cars would be crushed. You said that all the cars would go to the crusher.

Unfortunately Mr Cosgrove consistently makes up these things in the Chamber. Frankly, we know that the cars will be closer to the crusher. Mr Cosgrove really needs to consider that he has been so mean-spirited all year about this legislation, asking earlier this year what will happen to poor grandad’s car. Now he is suddenly asking why we are giving grandad a chance to take some action about his grandchild. On one hand he said that we should not have the cars crushed, because it is Draconian. Now he is complaining that we are crushing only 10. Well, for goodness’ sake, Mr Cosgrove really needs to get with the programme and understand that the people of Waimakariri, who almost voted him out last time, will definitely do it next time.

It is very, very important that we focus on behaviour. This is about public safety. It is not about media opportunities; it is about public safety. When those people decided to take on the New Zealand Police this year, to threaten them, and to shoot at them, they took on more than they ever bargained for. This Government supports the New Zealand Police and it supports the law-abiding people of New Zealand. This Government will not stand by and say that it is all too hard and we cannot do it, which is what the previous Government did .

Garrett DAVID GARRETT (ACT) Link to this

I will take just a short call to follow up on Mr Cosgrove’s point—he graciously acknowledged that I had one—regarding recycling through sales. He told a story, which sadly is all too believable, of silly mummy in the Mercedes turning up and comforting little Johnny, who had several grand worth of fines. It is no surprise how little Johnny became like that. Sadly, there is probably no surprise about how he will turn out as he gets older. But one source of the money is right there: silly mummies from Remuera or Fendalton who think little Johnny can do no wrong, and who, if the car is confiscated, will turn up at Turners Auctions with the gold card and buy back the car. I personally get all of my old dungers from Turners, and I can recommend it as a place for an absolute bargain. I think I got my last car, which was valued at about $2,500, for $1,200. As the Minister in the chair, the Hon Judith Collins, rightly says, at the dunger end of the market where there are no reserves, the highest bid gets it. Of course, a seized car will not have any reserve, at all, so $2 might get it. That is one point.

The other reason that we support the legislation is that it enshrines that wonderful principle of “three strikes”. It gives a chance, gives another chance—and I would be a bit less generous than the Minister, I have to say, which is probably no surprise—and gives every opportunity.

Garrett DAVID GARRETT Link to this

How many chances would you give?

I think two is probably right, with crushing on the third. The point is that judges need to be given the tools, and this is the place where they are given the tools. But judges also have to use them. I know all the lofty arguments; I wrote essays in law school about who has the greatest influence in our constitutional arrangements. The answer is—and Professor Joseph would agree with me, although he would use more elegant language—that the sovereignty lies here, and if judges do not take the signal then we will be back next year. I put on record that if it is necessary to back Mr Cosgrove to make an amendment to this legislation in order to make crushing mandatory, or confiscation, or whatever will work, then we will support it.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) Link to this

I thank Mr Garrett for his bipartisan approach. I think it is the second time in almost a week when the ACT Party has pulled the rug out from under the National Party. First was the levies bill, which ACT was very sceptical about. Mr Garrett said exactly the same thing, in that he would be back here to back us if the legislation did not work, and likewise with this legislation today. I will address a couple of points that the Minister made in her speech. It was an astounding contribution.

Not many months ago, the Minister of Police, Judith Collins, said, like MacArthur’s “I shall return” statement, those infamous words “every car will head towards the crusher.” They will be burned and etched into our memories. This Minister has declared war on everyone. She has declared war on gangs, war on P, war on boy racers—war on everyone. She is the General Custer of the Parliament, except General Custer had a last stand. He had a last stand. Suddenly we had a speech today that is all about fairness, balance, and not wanting to be Draconian. The Ministry of Justice’s notes are riddled with the term “We need balance”, but this is not about photo opportunities. It is not about sending a signal.

Collins Hon Judith Collins Link to this

Ha, ha!

Quinn Paul Quinn Link to this

I tell the Minister in the chair, Judith Collins, to hang on a minute. I invite the journalists who might be taking an interest in this issue to go back and read the transcript of the Minister’s statements and the media statements. Somehow, Labour is now being too tough. The Minister said that she thinks that grandads, parents, and finance companies should have due warning so that they can retrieve their vehicles or provide a remedy if someone has taken their vehicle and run amuck. In the case of a finance company, it can preserve its assets. No one on this side disagrees with the Minister on that.

This is what we disagree on fundamentally. It is not parents’ cars that kids take and run amuck with; they take mostly—one in five, according to evidence the police gave before the select committee—their mates’ cars, change the ownership, and run amuck. The Minister said that herself. She is trying to construct an argument that in the case of parents whose sons or daughters take their cars, somehow the Labour Party will give them only one warning and then the car is gone, and that is terrible. There are two problems with that. Firstly, kids are not taking their parents’ cars; they are—deliberately—taking their mates’ cars. I do not think we should give quarter to that. Secondly, all the parents I have spoken with have the view—including a couple I talked to in Belfast a week or so ago—that if they got a letter, a warning, saying that little Johnny had taken their wagon and run amuck and that the next time he does that their car is gone, well, they would sort it out and that would not happen again. Likewise, I believe that a finance company should get a warning to say that its client who owes it $20,000 on a car has run amuck in it. We say give the finance company one warning and then take the car. I suspect that finance companies will put clauses in contracts in the future to say if they get a letter, if they get the encumbrance, the finance company will come around and take the car off the boy racer the first time themselves in order to preserve that asset value.

But the problem is that the Minister has found her kinder, gentler, fairer, more balanced side, which translates to the fact that she is weak; she trumpeted around the country that she would get tough. We believe that the appropriate balance is to give one warning to the third party, and, if the offence happens again, the court must take the car. On a second offence, a court is required to take the vehicle in the same way as provided for in existing legislation that the Minister has preserved. If someone is the owner and offender, the court may take his or her car on a first offence but must take his or her car on a second offence within 4 years. But this Minister, given how tough she is, has written into law that third-party owners will get a letter if someone takes their car and commits a first offence. That is how tough that Minister is. They will get a letter saying that Judith Collins says that someone has been very naughty in their cars. On the second offence, they will get another warning letter that says that Judith Collins says someone has been very, very naughty in their cars. Then, on the third offence, it is up to a judge. There are no mandatory provisions on a third offence in respect of cars owned by a third party that says, as with an owner and offender, that a judge must take the vehicle. That is what we proposed last night and the Minister would not accept it, given how tough she is.

I say that Minister has hoodwinked people. I ask whether the people in Kaiapoi, in Blackett St, and in Hamilton will think that this Minister is tough on boy racers when, after a third offence of making people’s lives hell in the streets of New Zealand—after shaking in their boots when they got a letter saying “You’ve been naughty”, signed off by Judith Collins, Minister of Police, and then a second offence saying “You’ve been very naughty”, signed off by Judith Collins, Minister of Police—on that third offence, it is up to a judge. I wonder how tough the Minister of Police, Judith Collins, will be viewed by people in respect of that.

On recycling, I say that the Minister has provided no evidence apart from hearsay. She told me to go around some police stations. Well, I have, and I do; it would be good if she did. But the ones she turns up to are the ones she opens that the previous Government built and then claims the credit for. Well, I hold up the evidence that was before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that the New Zealand Police provided. Here it is, in black and white. In this document there is no evidence, provided by a professional, excellent, hard-working effective police force, that talks about recycling in the numbers. It produces numbers in respect of changes in ownership—one in five people. It produces numbers of offences, fines, crashes, fatalities, tragedies, and industries, but there is not one figure in here in respect of recycling. Yet the Minister gets up and thinks that it is OK to say go and talk to the police. I do, and I have for many years. Maybe there was a slight oversight. Maybe a line dropped off the presentation at the select committee. But I would have thought this Minister—smug though she is, sort of the Cheshire cat of the Parliament—who is so humble, and who cannot get the smile off her face, would get up and say: “OK, fair go. I’ve made a claim that there’s mass recycling all over the show. Here is the evidence, Parliament.” But she said nothing.

I say to that Minister that we support the bill and we support it for a couple of reasons. We support it because I believe we should show this Government the courtesy it showed me when we had a crack at this issue. I agree that there are some loophole changes. [Interruption] I cannot even give these guys a compliment without Mr Quinn going troppo over there, but that is OK. We know which room he should be in in the Parliament. The second reason is that the bill does close some loopholes around hardship and around third-party ownership. But the other reason we will let this go through is it will give us a very, very important point, a litmus test, to judge and hold this Minister accountable. We believe this legislation is not tough enough, and we put up a very simple Supplementary Order Paper. We said that we do not support crushing for two simple reasons. One is we support permanent confiscation—it should be mandatory. After the Minister told New Zealand that all the cars will be heading to the crusher she admitted, and she even admitted it again today, that about 10 cars a year—10 cars a year—will be crushed. I am sure the boy racers are shaking in their shiny shoes. I am sure they are terrified of Judith Collins pushing the button 10 times a year on the crusher.

The other reason we do not support it is it makes no sense.

You just said you do support it. Where’s this guy at?

Garrett David Garrett Link to this

We do not support the crushing provision but we support the bill. If the member is going to go nuts, I say to him that the reason we cannot vote against one clause in Part 1 is because we are voting on Part 1 in totality. He says he is a lawyer but he does not understand when we debate a bill part by part. So there are parts of Part 1 and Part 2 that we do support. But we only get one vote, I say to Mr Quinn, who is a silly, silly member. The other reason we do not support crushing and we support permanent confiscation—[ Interruption] Oh, the members on the opposite side of the Chamber are awake now; the lattes have kicked in. The other reason we support permanent confiscation is because we can dispose of a vehicle in a certain way, for instance for parts, whereby we can realise the asset value of that vehicle and use that asset value to pay the fines of the offender, and not have the innocent pay the fines and the court costs through taxes. That will be the only result of what happens with crushing cars. It is 10 a year.

Goodhew JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) Link to this

I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 69 in the name of the Hon Judith Collins to Part 2, and the following amendment in her name to clause 28 be agreed to:

to omit from new section 100TB(2) “100N(2)(d)” and substitute “100N(1)(d)”.

Amendments agreed to.

Link to this

A party vote was called for on the question,

That Part 2 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 113

Noes 9

Green Party 9

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Part 3 Amendment to Privacy Act 1993

Tisch The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) Link to this

The debate on this part includes the schedule.

Burns BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) Link to this

It was interesting to hear the Minister’s comments in respect of Labour’s position on the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill. She said we are being too tough. I find that a little ironic. I reflect back to the accompanying bill, the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill, which was passed last night, where we had another example of a party talking tough but going easy. Like this bill’s companion measure and the promises and pledges to deal with the issue of noise decibel ratings that failed to materialise in it, we have a similar issue here about how we are actually going to enforce the seizure and confiscation of boy racers’ cars.

The comments from the Minister about how the bill needs to be framed to make sure that grandad does not lose his car are interesting, because most of the cars are not owned by grandads; the boy racers do a swap procedure where one owns the other’s car and vice versa. The measures of this bill allowing three warnings before a car may—just may—be seized and crushed will hardly send the sort of message that the community is going to be frightened in its boots about.

When we talked earlier about the issue of cars under the alternative proposal of Supplementary Order Paper 73, tabled by my colleague Clayton Cosgrove and now defeated by the Committee, the Minister suggested that if cars were to go to auction, we could see a $20,000 car being sold for $300. It was interesting to hear David Garrett comment on that. He was talking about an old dunger—I presume he was referring to a car rather than himself—and how he had bought a $2,500 car for $1,200. I think that is more the order of things. We tend to be able to buy cars at auction at considerably less than their value, but certainly not at some sort of giveaway price in most cases.

Mine had a reserve. Theirs will have no reserve.

Burns BRENDON BURNS Link to this

Well, if finance companies were likely to have a very, very major interest in most of those cars going to auction, under the proposal that Labour tabled, does the member think that finance companies are going to let their interest in a motor vehicle disappear?

Quinn Paul Quinn Link to this

That’s right. Now you’ve got it! You’ve finally worked it out, Brendon!

Burns BRENDON BURNS Link to this

I ask Mr Quinn whether he can give me an example of where a finance company, on any piece of asset in this country, would allow its interest to be given away at some sort of fire-sale price. Not at all! There is no prospect of that, whatsoever.

The Minister then suggested that the police wanted the crushing mechanism because they said that it would deal with the concerns that they have. That is interesting, because my clear understanding is that when this issue first came up at the start of this year, the very clear call from the police in respect of how best to deal with the boy-racer issue was for the Government to introduce a cease and desist mechanism, whereby the issue of where boy racers assemble and congregate could be dealt with. The police’s proposal was that after a first gathering of boy racers on a street corner, at a set of traffic lights or wherever, if the police saw behaviour that was going to lead to disorder, they could issue a cease and desist order, and the next time such an assembly took place the boy racers would be walloped. So if the Minister is saying that she wants to be tough, and if the Minister is saying she is doing what the police asked, could she comment about what happened to the cease and desist order idea?

We have in its place a bill that says “three strikes and maybe—just maybe—you will be out”, but that was not what was indicated. I have a press report from earlier in the year reporting that when the legislation was introduced to Parliament in May, Judith Collins claimed: “every offence”—for street racing—“will bring them closer to the crusher.” Will they be closer to the crusher with every new offence? Well, we have discovered that that is not the case. What we will see is a “three strikes” policy, and maybe—just maybe—a person will be affected if the judge decides to be tough. That is why it was a shame that last night the Committee did not support the Supplementary Order Paper tabled by my colleague Clayton Cosgrove, because, as David Garrett has indicated, I think we will be back in the Chamber quite soon looking at these issues again.

It was interesting to note that Mr Garrett, as a member of a party that supports the “three strikes” policy, suggested that he would like it to be a “two strikes” policy. I say to the member that he had the opportunity last night to propose an amendment to amend Labour’s Supplementary Order Paper. He could have supported it, but he did not. So, effectively, he is voting for something that he does not have that much belief in. How can he and his party do that?

Collins Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) Link to this

Part 3 is actually about the Privacy Act, but as the previous speaker, Mr Burns, has ranged wide and free, I think we should correct a few of the statements he has made. What he is doing, and his party has consistently done today and last evening, is to repeat the errors that they made in Labour’s minority report to the House. I hate to disabuse them of this, but, frankly, a substitute’s car—in other words, a car that is owned by someone else—can actually be confiscated on the second offence, after one warning. That is provided for in new section 128(2)(b), which is inserted by clause 6. Their comments show that, yet again, they have not read the provision. So whatever the Labour members on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee were doing, they certainly were not listening when the officials from the New Zealand Police and the Ministry of Transport were trying to tell them what the bill said.

Mr Burns has made some comments about finance companies. He seems to think that they will miraculously turn up at auctions and buy back cars or stop them being sold. It is a good point, except that under the legislation that the Government has inherited from the previous Government, the finance companies had no idea what was happening to the car, because nobody ever told them. What this legislation does by its written warning procedure is advise the finance company about what is happening.

In picking up on Mr Burns’ comment about finance companies, I believe that one of those written warnings, delivered by a member of the New Zealand Police, will make a very strong statement about the security of the asset. I believe that they will have it stated in their finance agreements, if they do not already, that if their asset is being used illegally, then they will take action.

Make it one warning. Why make it three warnings?

The member calls out and asks why we should give them three warnings. Well—

Two warnings.

—two warnings, now he says. It is three warnings, rather than two warnings. I think it is very important that the member understands that it will take only one letter to make the message very plain to these finance companies, because, as Mr Burns rightly says, they do not want to lose their security. But at the moment they do not even know what is going on. They do not understand that the car is being confiscated or sold off. They do not understand what is going on, because, frankly, nobody tells them. How are they supposed to suddenly know that that is happening, unless we tell them? That is one of the very important provisions that we have in the bill. This is not about taking cars off people; it is not about any of that. It is about the behaviours, and the people most likely to influence behaviour are the people who have the right to take the car. In most cases we will find that finance companies can do that, if they know that their car is being used illegally.

I commend this part to the Committee. This part has amendments to the Privacy Act, but I think it is important that I correct some of the misstatements made both today and yesterday, and actually for the last 6 or 7 months, by the Labour Party.

Tisch The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) Link to this

I call Carol Beaumont but before I do, I just want to bring members back to Part 3. This part is very narrow, and I ask members to concentrate on that part.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) Link to this

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I think there is quite a bit of precedent, and it happened in Part 2 when the Minister was the first to initiate comments that ranged far wider than the part. The Minister brought other material into the debate, and we must be able to address that.

Tisch The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) Link to this

I thank the member. I have allowed a pretty wide-ranging debate on Parts 1 and 2, and there has been a good exchange. But Part 3 has only two clauses. It is very narrow.

Quinn Paul Quinn Link to this

She didn’t have to say that.

Tisch The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) Link to this

The Minister was responding to the previous speaker, who had canvassed other areas, and she did say that, but she also identified that Part 3 was about privacy provisions. I am asking future speakers please to concentrate on the two clauses in Part 3.

CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) Link to this

I rise to speak on Part 3 of the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill, “Amendment to Privacy Act 1993”. Clause 29 states that Part 3 amends the Privacy Act. Clause 30 and the schedule amend schedule 5 of the Privacy Act, which authorises Government agencies to access law enforcement information held by other specified Government agencies. The amendment serves the purpose of giving the Ministry of Justice access to police records relating to vehicles impounded for 28 days and access to personal information on the drivers and registered owners of these vehicles. Labour members support these provisions. As a number of us have been saying throughout this process, we support a significant number of the provisions in this bill as part of a further strengthening of legal options around the issue of illegal street racing and boy racers. The reason we support it is that we understand the seriousness of the problem. Again, to set the record straight, I say that the previous Labour Government put in place very strong legislation, which still sits on the statute book and is stronger than what applies in Australia, for example. I acknowledge that work. The Minister has previously acknowledged that work, and I recognise that fact.

This is an attempt to close some loopholes and, in that regard, we fully support that work. That is not what this part of the bill is referring to, however, and I have taken on board the Chair’s comments. We are talking about amendments to the Privacy Act. We have no difficulty with these provisions at all, but in relation to the comments made previously by the Minister, I say that some elements of the select committee process worked a lot better than others. Certainly, the submission process worked very well. I think that everybody got a great deal of benefit from the process, both from the submissions of individuals affected by the issue of illegal street racing, which was particularly profound in Christchurch, and from the submissions made by various organisations, such as the Automobile Association, the New Zealand Police, and the Police Association.

In speaking to Part 3, I have to note that no submissions were made on this part. But I noticed that the select committee worked less well in some other areas, particularly around the deliberation and consideration stage, where quite complicated matters were being rushed through, with the officials being put under unreasonable time constraints to produce documentation and deal with the questions being raised. I note that point.

In concluding, I say that Labour’s view is that we support much of this bill. Our sole purpose has been to ensure that where it needs to be tightened, it should be. We say—and, in fact, members across the Chamber say—that we are serious about this issue. If we are serious about this issue and if we can toughen up on some of the provisions, then we should. Thank you.

Part 3 agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) Link to this

The title of this bill is the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill. Without labouring the point that has been made by others—and that is despite a lack of generosity from the Minister, but that is what we have come to expect—I say that Labour members support the bill. As my colleague has said previously, we support many of the clauses and the ideas contained in this bill. Why would we not? We have raised a number of issues, especially in relation to the level of warnings and the level of powers that courts are given, or are not given. The title of this bill could be perceived to be a bit of a misnomer, because it could be the “Vehicle Confiscation (Maybe if a Court Thinks So) Bill”, the “Discretionary Vehicle Confiscation the Minister has Given to the Court if One is a Third Party Bill”, or the “After Two Warnings and Two Letters a Court Might Choose to Seize and Confiscate the Vehicle Permanently Bill”. I do not think that is what New Zealanders signed up for when they supported this legislation, and they do support it. They signed up so that some balanced but tough legislation would be put in place.

The issue has been canvassed in respect of finance companies, in respect of parents, and in respect of the vast majority of boy racers, who are the ones who change the ownership to a third party—they flick the ownership into each other’s names. The Minister has chosen to give two written warnings and then to leave it up to a court. Maybe I would have bought the idea of the legislation having two written warnings and then saying to the court that it must act. I do not particularly agree with that but I would probably have had a bit more goodwill towards it. But in relation to the third party issue and the confiscation of vehicles, when we are looking at the title of this bill we might call it the “One Letter, Two Letters, and Maybe a Court Might Do Something Bill”. We are saying to a third party: “We are going to extend so much goodwill to you that we will write to you once and say somebody has run amok, then write to you again and say somebody has run amok.” I would have thought we would conclude that if it takes three occasions for the third party owner to sort out his or her own arrangements to stop a car going out of his or her control into the hands of somebody else, then that person does not deserve to have that vehicle, at all. The Minister said that we should give owners a warning, and I agree with that; that is fair.

If we are worried about dad and mum, who might be in Sydney when Johnnie takes the car and goes nuts, then, fair enough, a warning should be given. There are provisions in the legislation to protect people’s rights, of course. We should give them a warning, then let those parents sort it out. Then, if on a second occasion they refuse to take responsibility for the control of their own vehicle and they let their same son or daughter run amok again, I say that the courts should act and they should act deliberately, as they do if a person is both the owner and the offender: the courts can act deliberately on a first offence and take the vehicle, and it is mandatory that they act deliberately on a second offence and take the vehicle. I do not think that most people would buy the argument: “I didn’t quite know Johnnie had taken the car for a second time. I didn’t take any measures to sort him out and take the keys off him, or whatever.” I think people would say: “Well, you got a warning, you didn’t control your son or daughter, so it’s out.”

But even putting that matter aside in respect of the title, this bill is not about kids taking their parents’ car and going nuts in it. This, as the police have told us before, is about boy and girl racers who change the ownership of their respective cars, as time and time again over months the Minister has quite rightly pointed out. They change the ownership arrangements of their own vehicles amongst themselves. In that case, I do not think we should be giving them one “naughty” letter, two “naughty” letters, then saying to a judge: “It’s over to you, judge. It’s up to you. We wash our hands of it.” I would have thought, if the Minister’s intentions were pure, that she would say: “All right, things can go wrong. It is possible that the young person may not have known that their mate took the car and went crazy, so let’s send them a short, sharp shock.”, as she terms it. But she is guaranteeing to Parliament that the behaviour will change absolutely once a person gets a letter, hand-delivered, apparently, by a New Zealand police officer.

Well, that is great; it is another job that the New Zealand Police have to do. They will now be courier drivers. They will have to take the letters around personally, rather than freeing up those same police staff to deal with serious crime. A squadron of them in a blue uniform will now probably be employed to hand-deliver letters to people. That is interesting, is it not? What happened to back office, front office, and front line, and to getting rid of bureaucracy? It is an interesting point.

I would have thought there should be one letter that states that if it happens again there will be a consequence. As I say, for a young person it may have been unintended; somebody else may have taken the young person’s car for a joyride. When the young person gets the letter, that young person should say: “Hang on—I’m not letting this happen again.”, and he or she should take control of the keys. The keys should stay in the pocket and should not be left around the kitchen table, perhaps. But if it happens again, the judge must take the car. I think that is a reasonable proposition. To be honest, I have gone around and talked to a lot of parents and folks, listened to what they have said, and I have not had anybody who disagrees with me.

People are shocked, though, when we explain to them the content of this legislation, say that the Minister has differentiated between third party and owner-offender, and tell them how she has actually weakened the bill. The Minister talks about a couple of warnings—“Let’s be fair.”, she says. “Let’s not be Draconian. Let’s find some balance.”, she says. Maybe this bill should be called the “Judith Collins (Fairness, Balance, and Non-Draconian Measures) Bill”. Of course, that was not what Judith Collins was saying months ago when she was firing from the lip before officials got to her and said: “Hang on, Minister; there are a couple of other things you should know about this. Before you go out and raise expectations, we need to look at how this will work practically on the ground.”

I hope these measures work, because people have had a gutsful of this problem. What we have tried to do in this debate, and what we are trying to do in respect of clause 1, the title debate, is to point out to the Minister—and she has this permanent smile on her face, has she not; this permanently humble smile—

Because she’s happy!

Carol Beaumont Link to this

Well, I wonder. I challenge the Minister to go around the country, and I wonder whether she will have the same smile on her face if this legislation does not work. We have offered some suggestions, some amendments, and some assistance. Our good will is pure, because we are backing this bill. As I have said before, this will be the “Judith Collins (Accountability Measures) Bill”. The Minister in the chair, Judith Collins, is laughing and gesticulating in her humble way, but this legislation will give us the opportunity to hold the Minister to account when this legislation does not work, and when the boy racers thumb their noses not only at the Minister, and not only at Parliament, but at the police.

It is interesting that we had the revelation by chance this morning that we will have uniformed front-line officers going around delivering letters because the Minister said—

There are fewer cars.