Sitting date: 12 Aug 2025

First Reading

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport): I present a legislative statement on the Antisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I move, That the Antisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill and, at the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by the end of December 2025 and that the Justice Committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, on any evening after the House is convened and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196.

This bill amends the Land Transport Act 1998, the Sentencing Act 2002, the Policing Act 2008, and in Schedule 1 Land Transport (Offences and Penalties) Regulations 1999, to target and deter antisocial behaviour on our roads. The type of behaviour I'm talking about is fleeing police, illegal street racing, burnouts, disorderly dirt bike gatherings, intimidating vehicle convoys, and siren battles. These behaviours are not only disruptive, but they can be incredibly dangerous for participants and bystanders.

Members of the House, I think, will be familiar with recent events reported in the media that show just how dangerous these behaviours can be. Just last month, in Levin—normally a very law-abiding and God-fearing place, according to my good friend and colleague Mr Costley, who I thought behind me—he was here. I'm not going to say he's left, but he was here. Just last month in Levin, an antisocial road user gathering resulted in seven injuries, including to two police officers. These types of events, sadly, are becoming more common—

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Fast and furious.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: —and increasingly sophisticated. Well, the member says, "The Fast and the Furious". I mean, it's a fun movie, but actually too many people—and I think that actually proves the point: too many people are trying to replicate The Fast and the Furious out there on streets that are not made for The Fast and the Furious - type behaviour. So it's an interesting little insight already from the Greens. They're obviously going to oppose this bill and they'll have to account for New Zealanders as to why they are in favour of people doing The Fast and the Furious - style burnouts and siren battles and illegal street racing, not on the side of law abiding New Zealanders who actually just want to go about their daily business and might have to be subject to that kind of stupid behaviour.

From mid-2019 to mid-24, the Police emergency communications centre received—this is an astonishing number—65,738 calls about illegal street racing; 65,000. Now, a call is a call; it's not an indication of offence or illegality, but that's an astonishing number of calls in a five-year period. That's a 34 percent increase, and there has been a 34 percent increase in the number of people charged with unauthorised street racing since 2019.

Some of the behaviours I've talked about already constitute criminal conduct, but the problem is our current suite of offences and penalties are clearly not enough to deter those people. Our view is police need the right tools, especially at large events where they may be dealing with hundreds of people and hundreds of vehicles, and they need to enforce the law effectively. So this bill strengthens existing offences, introduces some new ones and gives police and the courts greater powers to respond to antisocial road use. The goal of the bill is simple: to deter dangerous behaviour, make our roads safer.

The legislative statement sets out the key policy changes, and I do want to highlight them for the House. I also want to acknowledge the good work of my colleagues, Mark Mitchell, Minister of Police, and Paul Goldsmith, Minister of Justice, who I've been working with on this bill to get it to this stage. The heart of the bill is a presumptive sentence of vehicle forfeiture or forfeiture and destruction, when offenders commit certain antisocial road use offences.

Right now, the law usually only allows this after someone's been caught three times in four years for behaviours like street racing, burnouts, or fleeing police; it's basically a three strikes regime. This legislation changes that. In most cases, courts will be required to order the vehicle be forfeited or destroyed after just one offence. This sends a really powerful message: if you use your car to intimidate and endanger others, you risk losing it.

Dana Kirkpatrick: Don't be a dick.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: By taking vehicles that are used for dangerous activities off the road, it will protect the safety and wellbeing of New Zealanders. Yeah, and as my colleague, the member for the East Coast says, don't be dick; it pretty much sums it up. Don't be a dick with your car, and if you do, expect the law will come after you. Because New Zealanders are sick and tired of idiotic street racers putting themselves ahead of other law-abiding New Zealanders and the safety and neighbourliness of our communities.

There are safeguards to help ensure consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. For the presumptive sentence to apply, offenders must own or have an interest in the vehicle used in the offence, or be the registered person. This ensures that vehicle owners are not punished for others' poor behaviour, particularly when their vehicle has been stolen. We have also provided some discretion for the courts not to order vehicle forfeiture if they consider it to be manifestly unjust or cause undue hardship, or if the vehicle was stolen at the time an offence was committed.

There are also new or strengthened antisocial road use offences. The presumptive sentence will not only apply to street racing, burnout activity, and fleeing police, but also to a new offence for participating in an intimidating convoy. People can be charged with the intimidating convoy offence if they participate in antisocial road use behaviour or otherwise drive recklessly or dangerously as part of a group of two or more vehicles, with the intent to intimidate or frighten road users.

Police report these events are not frequent, but they do have serious consequences. For example, you may recall the violent assault of a motorist on the Waikato Expressway. Three members of the Tribesmen were arrested and charged with wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. This new offence sends a clear message: the Government has no tolerance for dangerous and intimidating drivers, and those drivers will face serious consequences. The bill also establishes a presumptive sentence for the offence where registered owners of vehicles withhold information from police that could help identify a driver that flees police. We're broadening the existing offence so it applies to the full spectrum of antisocial road use offences, not only fleeing drivers. We expect that, in effect, the strengthened offence will disincentivise owners from lending their vehicle when they suspect it could be used for antisocial road use activities.

I also want to draw the House's attention to a further amendment that will raise the infringement penalty for creating excessive vehicle noise, which is currently just 50 bucks to $300, and the court fined from $1,000 to $3,000. This is not just harmless fun; loud vehicle noise is a nuisance, and there are people around this country who are fed up with sleepless nights, feeling unsafe.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: And it shouldn't be criminal law; it's public law for a reason.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: What's that?

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: It's public law for a reason.

Tamatha Paul: It shouldn't be in criminal law.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Oh, it shouldn't be criminal law? Ok, well. You're entitled to that view, and I look forward to you explaining that view. I think members of the public will be intrigued to learn that the Greens don't think that excessive noise in a public place should be subject to the criminal law. Because there are plenty of people, as I've just said round the country, who are kept up all night by stupid boy racers engaging in siren battles and residential neighbourhoods, who have done a hard day at work and have come home and want to have a quiet beer on the deck and then go to bed at a reasonable hour and do not wish to be staying up till 3:00 a.m. in the morning, listening to sirens going back and forwards by gangs of street racers engaging in what they consider to be fun behaviour. That's fine; people are entitled to their fun. Apart from when that "fun" impacts on the quiet, peace, and enjoyment of other people in residential neighbourhoods. So we make no apologies for cracking down on this behaviour, and the Greens can explain to the New Zealand public why they're OK with that kind of behaviour, if they would like. I'm looking forward to having that debate.

The number of people charged with having noisy equipment in a vehicle has increased from 38 in 2013 to 59 in 2023. We think the limits and the penalties need to be higher. People need to think twice before—

Tamatha Paul: What a nanny State.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Nanny State—goodness gracious me—nanny State. OK, good luck with that one. You don't even believe in the police, so I'm not even sure how you'd—the enforcement of this law would be difficult in a Green Party world, and they don't even believe in the police.

So one of the things the Minister of Police has said to me is that one of the biggest challenges is dealing with events where multiple vehicles are involved in antisocial behaviour, and people will have seen these events with hundreds of people watching. They need the right powers to manage these situations safely and effectively. So the bill introduces new powers for police to temporarily close roads or public spaces to vehicles when these events happen, or when there's good reason to believe one is about to happen.

The bill establishes a $1,000 infringement fine for failing to leave when directed by the police. Court-ordered fines can be up to $3,000. Fines apply whether you're a participant or a bystander. It's about giving the police practical tools to intervene and disperse gatherings before they escalate. These are targeted, proportionate, and focused on a very specific type of behaviour.

We are not targeting legal road events or responsible car enthusiasts. I acknowledge and respect the rich car culture that exists across New Zealand, but what this legislation does is target the small number of idiots who've treated our roads like a playground for disruptive, dangerous, and intimidating behaviour. I commend this bill to the House.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Labour Party will be supporting this bill through to select committee, and that's because it is a bill that does seek to address what is a real issue in communities all around New Zealand. But at the same time, we do have a responsibility to ensure that the legislation is fair, that it's effective, and that it's proportionate as well.

I am surprised to hear from the Minister, who is the transport Minister, that this is going to the Justice Committee. I think most members of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee here assumed, because he is the transport Minister, that it was going to that particular committee, but we'll get to that particular point in a moment. I'm also concerned, though, that what appears to be a shortened report-back period for what are some pretty serious considerations that the select committee will need to turn its mind to around impinging on the rights and responsibilities of others as well.

Communities all around New Zealand are increasingly affected by a number of issues but, in particular, around illegal street racing, dirt bike gatherings, and what could be perceived as intimidation in the form of vehicle convoys. Quite simply, "boy racers" and what is illegal street racing cannot simply hold communities to ransom. I know that the Minister has referred to and referenced Horowhenua, and I know Mayor Bernie Wanden down there has been very vocal about the real disruption and concern that that has meant for his local community. But talking with the police in that community as well, what is clear is that they do need some tools in the toolkit to be able to deliver exactly that.

This is a bill that will seek to deliver some tools, but whether they're able to be deployed effectively or not will be one of the issues that the select committee will need to turn its mind to. Just one example is the power that would be given to police to basically clear and temporarily close a public space. Now, everyone in this country has an ability to use public spaces and so the limitation that the police would be imposing has a very clear impact on the ability of an individual to gather in a particular space. So one of the issues I think that will be very important is where that threshold lies, what evidence the police need to have before they exercise that judgment and basically enact that piece of legislation.

I do hope that the Attorney-General—who actually seems to be adopting a fairly consistent approach to legislation, identifying what some of the issues are—does turn her mind to some of those aspects so that would inform the conversations that the select committee will have.

One of the aspects of this particular bill will also require those who own a registered vehicle to assist the police in identifying drivers who might be involved in what are perceived as anti-social offences. Now, there needs to be some very tight framework around which that would be actually initiated to ensure that it was fair and reasonable in terms of the expectations that would be placed on someone. We all have circumstances and situations where a registered owner of a motor vehicle perhaps is asked to provide the identity of someone and they're not able to. Now, there are other offences in legislation that provide a statutory defence or a statutory "out" for registered owners in that circumstance. So getting some consistency I think would be very, very important there.

Some of the aspects that this bill will need to tease out are, for example, the potential disproportionate impacts on Māori, Pacific, and low-income communities. I mean, this is something that the Transport and Infrastructure Committee turned its mind to when it came to drug driving instances, how we could consider what that might look like for Māori and Pacific communities and others as well. So there is some consistency there, but I do hope that the select committee will turn its mind to it.

This is a bill that, as I say, the Labour Party will be supporting through to select committee. There are a number of issues that do need to be ironed out as part of that process, but fundamentally what we want is to ensure that the police have the right tools, that they're able to deploy them where they're able to, and also that the community is protected from this ongoing sense of nonsense and anti-socialness that does pervade some aspects of the community. So on this basis, we commend the bill to the House.

TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. I want to begin by acknowledging that it is really important for people to drive responsibly, and that cars, when they are being controlled by people who have negative and bad intentions, can be deadly, and that cars can be used as weapons. I won't be the only one in this room that has seen videos on social media of people using cars as weapons on the streets, as well. So I can understand that it is reasonable for the public to want to see action on making sure that dangerous and reckless driving is under control.

But there was actually something that the Minister said in his speech introducing this bill, which was "the problem is our current suite of offences and penalties are clearly not enough to deter those people." We oppose this bill on the basis that we don't believe that this bill will increase people's knowledge or adherence to these new laws, because it relies on the assumption that people understand that these things are against the law or what penalties they carry. It's the myth of deterrence; it's existed for a long time, and we think that it's not the basis of good lawmaking.

So obviously, antisocial driving does impact road safety. It's a tricky one, because there isn't a heap of data on how often this happens in relation to the way it is defined in this bill, and there is no clear evidence that these laws are, in fact, needed. Police already have the power to impound vehicles, to fine people for excessive noise, and to close roads. They already have those powers. They exist. These crimes are already outlined within our law. The problem that the Minister himself identified is that people aren't aware of them and people aren't adhering to them. So we're quick to rush to a criminal response to behaviour that fairly and reasonably makes people feel unsafe. However, we're not sure that this is the best way to go about achieving roads and streets that are safe for everybody, at all times of the day.

One of the challenges, too, that this bill identifies is that some of the tools that exist can't be quickly or effectively accessed, and that's an issue that this bill actually does nothing to fix. Instead, it reaches for heavy-handed measures that limit judicial discretion, which we have consistently been opposed to across criminal bills. It expands police powers to close public areas and to potentially breach human rights, around the rights of association, freedom of assembly, and other rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—and that is a bottom line for us when it comes to laws and bills that affect people.

But most importantly: who does this bill affect? There was a really awesome article that I found from Joel McManus when he was writing for Stuff, and it was called "The faces of fatal police chases", which showed that teenagers make up half of all victims of fatal police pursuits in New Zealand. That is the consequences of adopting an approach like this to curbing this behaviour, is that it is one that escalates situations rather than de-escalating situations, and the consequences of it is that rangatahi are harmed and also lose their lives. I mean, we have all seen the stories of 12-year-olds, 13-year-olds, 15-year-olds who are killed in pursuit by police. That is a fact; that is not an opinion.

The people who will be impacted by this bill, make no mistakes, are young Māori men. In 2023, Māori made-up around half of those charged with fleeing police. And it's not about the behaviour; it's about systemic bias, and the fact that the Understanding Police Delivery report identified that when there is too much discretion—our police and their behaviour and their discharging of that discretion—disproportionately negatively impacts Māori. That is the systemic bias and systemic racism that exists in our police force, that both the Minister and the Police Commissioner refuse to acknowledge its existence, despite the fact that it is grounded in facts and evidence. So we are concerned that this bill will escalate heightened and dangerous situations rather than achieving what New Zealanders deserve, which is safe streets and to be free to navigate your cities and towns without fear of dangerous and reckless driving.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to speak in support of the Antisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Bill. I'd first like to make the observation that it's quite interesting to see the Green Party voting against a bill that'll crush more internal combustion cars. It's quite a bit of a surprise there.

This bill addresses the issues with unsafe and, basically, disruptive and not really good, neighbourly actions by people on our roads, but it goes beyond that. At night, we have the noise. If you go out into the country, you see blackened intersections, and sometimes you see the aftermath of a car in a ditch. You hear the sirens following those loud cars around town. That's the kind of antisocial, disruptive behaviour that this bill is seeking to target. These actions put the community not just in a situation where their wellbeing is being impacted but also it risks their safety.

I have heard too many times from people talking about police chases from one side of an opinion, saying they should happen more and some saying they should happen less. Really, they should not be needing to happen. There should be a consequence for fleeing drivers. There should be a state of affairs in New Zealand where police can follow those drivers and bring it to an end, and not abandon pursuit to later find a car on its roof with a 14-year-old inside. That is not what we need to be doing in New Zealand.

This bill goes about standardising some of the impoundment fees, to make sure that cars are taken off people who have proven they are unable to drive them. Yes, people who are being pulled over should know the rules, in reply to the previous speaker Tamatha Paul's speech. If you're going to be on the road, you must have a licence, you must demonstrate you know what the rules are. This is not about education. This is about punishing antisocial behaviour, just going about and disturbing the communities. These are sensible steps.

I'd like to acknowledge that this bill is bringing in some more enforcement powers, and some members of our community might feel uncomfortable with that. Well, we are going to the select committee. The Minister has given some assurances on this bill and said that some of the measures guard our property rights and civil liberties, but members of the public might want to talk about the effectiveness of this law at select committee, and whether it's proportionate and whether it's fair. I would think that anybody with an experience that they'd like to share should be coming to the select committee and helping us shape this law so that law-abiding people can have their rights protected.

People who are going about making New Zealand a less attractive place to let your family out on the street at night should be held to account. I endorse this bill.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the bill, which is all about keeping law-abiding New Zealanders safe. It's also about being clear that there are some antisocial behaviours—and this is the title that's about antisocial behaviour—that are wrong, and when behaviours are wrong, there have got to be some consequences. This Government has been saying that we want to see consequences for a range of behaviours, and you might think about this bill but also, say, for example, Kāinga Ora tenants who are terrorising their neighbours. There has to be a consequence from that to look after the law-abiding neighbours, and we, as a Government, are on the side of the people who are law-abiding, not on the side of the people who are causing problems, who are behaving in an antisocial way, and who are breaking the law.

It was interesting to listen to the Green Party's opposition to this bill—very sad. They seem to be allying themselves with the people who misbehave, rather than the people who just want to get on and live their lives in peace and security.

Look, let's be clear: we don't want antisocial behaviour. Society works best where everybody behaves and where everybody obeys that second commandment, which is to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If people look after each other, people respect each other, we are a much better society, but when people step out of line, when people behave in a way which is calculatedly antisocial, and when they break the law, there have to be consequences, and this is what this bill is about.

It creates some new offences, particularly that one of a taking part in a "frightening or intimidating convoy". You can imagine there being 100 cars or 200 cars, a lot of noise, a lot of people—that is going to be quite intimidating and quite scary for any community that it goes through. It gives the police some more tools to be able to deal with these situations. It means that there is a much easier path. The onus is on the owner of a car to have to identify to the police who is driving the car if it is not them, and that helps the police in getting on with their job.

Also, we heard some concerns from the Greens about this temporarily closing areas from the public, and, generally speaking, that's not something you would want to do. But I want you to consider the example of the situation which occurred in Levin less than two months ago, where the article here talks about saying there were "Twelve further arrests"—this was TVNZ—which "have been made following a boy racer event in Levin on King's Birthday Weekend that injured police … members of the public and damaged police vehicles. It brings the total number of arrests to 22 from the May 30 event, where an estimated crowd of 1,000"—1,000 people—"gathered in the town — performing skids, burnouts, and other driving offences while spectators threw fireworks."

Now, that is not socially acceptable behaviour. That is what this bill is about. We're trying to make sure we can get on top of and deal with that so that we look after communities like the community of Levin, and I am looking forward to the submission which I'm sure will be made on this on behalf of the Horowhenua District Council to say, "Good stuff. We want this bill passed."

New Zealand First believes in those basic conservative values: law and order, community safety, community standards, and respect for our fellow people. I commend this bill to the House.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It's a pleasure to rise and take a call on this bill. This is a law-and-order Government, and our goal is to make our streets and our communities safer. That is why we have this law, the "boy racer legislation", looking at cracking down on boy racers. Boy racers are not a new phenomenon; they have been around for many decades. In fact, I remember, growing up in working-class East Auckland, being able to actually see for myself these events—not actually driving them, but I've known a few boy racers, and I've seen how unsafe these events are up close. Can I tell you, these events are dangerous, but they are also a nuisance to the public of New Zealand. That's why we've got this bill to crack down on those activities. This is a good bill. Simply put, our message to those who engage in this is: don't be a dick. As my colleague Dana Kirkpatrick said, don't be a dick, drive lawfully, respect each other, respect the roads. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Look, Labour will be supporting this bill, and I look forward to it coming to the Justice Committee. That was a bit of a surprise, I thought it would go to transport. But the Justice Committee will look forward to hearing the submissions from many New Zealanders who all want our streets to be safer, who all want to be able to sleep through the night without someone doing a doughnut at the end of your road in those same areas. We know that there are hot spots across New Zealand that, because of the way that the road is laid out, lend themselves to street racing or boy racer gatherings, and those areas are the ones that suffer the most. I know where they are in the Hutt Valley, and the residents around those areas are consistently wanting more to be done in this space.

We look forward to seeing if this bill works any better than the last one National did, which was back in about 2009 or 2010, and back then that was the legislation that got Minister Judith Collins her name: "Crusher Collins". I think the mark or the challenge for this bill is can it beat that previous bill, and it won't be hard because I think there were two cars crushed under that previous legislation. There were a number of reasons why the promise of crushing cars was not delivered, and some of those were around the ownership of the vehicle and who the vehicle was registered to. It was also around having clauses in there such as hardship, which meant that in court the result was that the car was not confiscated or crushed as promised at the time. So we'll be looking closely at the details of this legislation to understand whether or not it will meet the same pitfalls as the previous attempt to get on top of illegal street racing.

The interesting point when speaking to police officers who are involved in this space is that they will always say it's great to have more tools in the kit, but the most effective way of getting on top of illegal street racing is being able to have the front-line resource to consistently police those hotspots, to be able to have the personnel to go into those areas at those times and consistently enforce the law. Police will tell you there are many ways you can use the law right now to do that effectively, but the main reason that that's not occurring in parts of New Zealand is because there is an incredible strain on the front line to respond to crime.

When you see our police around the country being asked to go to Northland—90 police officers being put up into Northland to get on top of what is a methamphetamine crime wave happening in those areas—it is a real concern that there is insufficient front-line capacity to be able to implement the existing legislation we have around illegal street racing. That is why this Government's promise for 500 additional police officers has not yet been met, and that failure to deliver on 500 will make this legislation even more difficult to be able to have the results so desired.

November is rolling around very quickly. That is the date that National promised they would have 500 additional police officers. I think we have about 13 to track. It goes up and down depending on attrition. But the key way of getting on top of illegal street racing is having regular, consistent application of the law and having police officers able to do that. So when we see it at select committee, we will be asking those questions to make sure—it's well and good to be expanding the tool kit, but if you do not have the workforce in place to be able to implement the law and be able to enforce the law, then you're wasting your time.

So this sounds good. We're encouraged that it might be better than the last one they tried under Judith Collins. We look forward to hearing submitters from right across New Zealand as to how this law can work effectively to keep our streets safe, and also make sure that those communities that get kept up at night, have children awake at night, and have unsafe streets—that we can actually get a piece of legislation that is going to work.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): New Zealanders are proud of what Liam Lawson is achieving on the world stage in Formula One: a young Kiwi representing us with skills, discipline, and professionalism. We celebrate his success and the example he sets. But, back home, we are sick of boy racers and illegal dirt bike riders, who are doing the opposite: putting life at risk, damaging public properties, and terrorising communities.

In Mt Roskill, I've received complaints from constituents about illegal dirt bike riders, and I've seen them myself: dangerous riding through streets, across Keith Hay Park, and even over the cricket pitch. These actions are a serious danger to our public safety.

This bill gives police the power to shut down the illegal convoys, close roads, issue fines, and introduce a presumptive court order sentence of vehicle forfeiture and destruction.

If you choose to abuse the road, you may lose your vehicle. Let's support those who race with respect, not those who endanger our communities. I commend this bill to the House.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Antisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Bill—we will be supporting it as has previously been noted. I just want to acknowledge it from local perspective as well, because the communities in Banks Peninsula electorate have had enough of dangerous, selfish, and, quite frankly, idiotic behaviour on the roads in that particular area. I sympathise with them, particularly the people around Governors Bay, for example, who—it's a very popular circuit for antisocial road use, and it's quite distressing to be inside your house and wondering if the noise of those cars is going to come crashing through. People should be able to feel safe on their properties, in their own homes, whether they're walking on their streets or driving on their roads, without the fear of being targeted by antisocial drivers. Boy racers, fleeing drivers, intimidating convoys—all of these things—are not harmless fun; they're incredibly serious. It's reckless. It is, in fact, antisocial, and it puts people at risk, and it puts lives at risk.

As has been stated, we will be supporting this bill. We think it's a step forward. It's not a perfect bill. There's plenty of things for the Justice Committee to take into account when it is their turn to look at it. But, here and now, today, we do support the bill. I do want to say that with one big caveat, because passing laws is, obviously, only half the job. If we want these powers to work and if we want the tools proposed in this bill to be effective, then we have to make sure that the police are actually there to enforce them. That's where I have some serious concerns, because while this Government is turning up the penalties, as it is with this bill, it's also turning down local policing resources—in particular, in areas that are affected by antisocial drivers, like Lyttelton and the Whakaraupō area. Right now, there is a proposal to cut police officers in Lyttelton, leaving just one single point of contact for that whole area. This isn't an abstract policy change; from August last year to August this year, there were 125 victimisation incidents in Lyttelton alone: break ins, graffiti, vehicle thefts—dozens more across both Diamond Harbour and Governor's Bay. When I've spoken to people about this issue, locals said that when they call for help, they deserve to know that someone is close by and can respond quickly, noting, of course, that those police officers that are currently based in Lyttelton are first responders.

Local policing matters, and as my colleague Hon Ginny Andersen has just said, the proof of this bill will be in the pudding, as so far as the resourcing that's available to actually make it work. It's about relationships with local policing, and when you remove that—when you remove those relationships because you've cut local policing—you lose a critical line in the defence of local policy.

So, yes, Labour will support the bill. We think that it certainly seeks to address something that is a real problem, and it gives police the tools that we assume that they will need. There will be some interesting conversations to be had at the select committee process. But I do want to reiterate that you can't just pass a bill, take the proverbial photo op, and then strip out the very officers who are supposed to be the ones to enforce it. Certainly, in Banks Peninsula, people don't just want stronger laws, and they don't just want extra tools; they also want to know that those laws are enforced, and that means a strong local police presence and a Government that's actually willing to back it with not just words but with resources.

Quite frankly, if this Government was, in fact, serious about protecting communities from antisocial drivers, Christopher Luxon would be focusing on delivering those 500 new police officers that he's promised and has so far failed to deliver.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm just going to cut to the chase here. It really is a pleasure to rise and speak on this bill. For many years, with my doorknocking around South Auckland, East Auckland, and Takanini, so many people and so many of our gentlemen have said, "So what are you going to do about these boy racers?", and to them, I say that the National-led Government is cracking down on this reckless, dangerous, antisocial behaviour. I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Antisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 102

New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 20

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Justice Committee.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Bill and the Local Government (Water Services) Bill.

© Scoop Media