Formal Opposition to
Antisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Bill
(Government Bill 189–1, Chris Bishop)
From: Ukes Baha | 29 September 2025
Submitted in response to the call for submissions on the Antisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Bill
Summary of Position
I ask the Committee to reject the Bill.
I oppose the Bill in its current form. Antisocial road use is a real problem, but this Bill is an overbroad, punitive, and rights-eroding response. It embeds mandatory vehicle forfeiture/destruction, widens pre-conviction seizure, compels owners to disclose identifying information under threat of forfeiture, and creates wide police closure powers—all with disproportionate impacts on Māori, Pasifika, rangatahi, and low-income communities.
Core stance:
- First-offence presumptive forfeiture/destruction is disproportionate and undermines judicial discretion (Sentencing Act ss142AAG–142AAN, esp. s142AAH; s142AAI narrow exceptions).
- The new convoy offence is vague/subjective and risks capturing cultural processions (LTA s39A, cl 10).
- Owner-liability/compulsion risks false attribution and privacy intrusions, yet is tied to forfeiture (LTA ss118, 118A, 118B; s52(3); cls 20 & 12).
- Closure powers chill assembly/movement and can penalise bystanders/residents (Policing Act ss35, 35A, 35B; new ss54–54E; cls 42–44).
- Operational risks (impound capacity, abandonment) and resource constraints undermine effectiveness (LTA s96, s96AAB; cls 14 & 16).
Recommendation: Reject the Bill. If Parliament proceeds, substantially amend to restore judicial discretion, narrow definitions, safeguard rights (including Te Tiriti obligations), and prioritise prevention and resourcing.
Constitutional & Democratic Framework
- NZBORA risks: Likely engagement of s14 (expression), s16 (assembly), s18 (movement), s21 (search/seizure), s23(4), s25(d). The combined effect of pre-conviction impoundment, closure powers, and compelled owner information heightens inconsistency risk.
- No public consultation pre-introduction: Confirmed in the departmental disclosure; scrutiny is back-loaded to select committee.
- Compressed scrutiny: First-reading speeches noted a tight report-back and referral to Justice rather than Transport, despite the scope of transport issues.
Clause-by-Clause Concerns
1. New “frightening or intimidating convoy” offence — LTA s39A (cl 10)
Problem: Breadth & subjectivity; convoy can be 2+ vehicles; risk of capturing cultural/community convoys. Stacked penalties via Sentencing Act s142AAH and LTA s96(1AB).
Position: Tighten “convoy” to 5+ vehicles, exclude cultural processions, remove automatic forfeiture link.
2. Owner-identification compulsion — LTA ss118, 118A, 118B; s52(3) (cls 20 & 12)
Problem: Duties on registered persons to provide information, backed by fines and forfeiture; risks false attribution and privacy intrusions.
Position: Limit to fail-to-stop only; decouple from forfeiture; reinforce reasonable-excuse defences.
3. Pre-conviction seizure/impoundment — LTA s96, s96AAB (cls 14 & 16)
Problem: Mandatory 28-day impoundment and extended grounds risk capacity strain and 10–15% abandonment.
Position: Make impoundment discretionary; raise thresholds; publish monitoring.
4. Presumptive forfeiture — Sentencing Act ss142AAG–142AAN (cl 36)
Problem: Mandatory forfeiture/destruction for first offences undermines proportionality and judicial discretion.
Position: Repeal s142AAH presumption; retain existing confiscation regime.
5. Police closure powers — Policing Act ss35, 35A, 35B; ss54–54E (cls 42–44)
Problem: Forward-looking thresholds, bystander penalties, chilling of movement and assembly.
Position: Tighten thresholds, sunset closures, add exemptions, require oversight.
6. Excessive-noise penalties — Regs Sch 1 (cl 48)
Problem: Fines raised without clear decibel standards; invites subjectivity.
Position: Tie enforcement to technical standards; adopt graduated penalties.
Evidence, Equity & Effectiveness
- Deterrence limits: Harsher penalties rarely deter thrill-seeking youth; resourcing is the real constraint.
- Disproportionate impacts: Officials and Te Puni Kōkiri flagged disproportionate Māori impacts, risks to tangihanga convoys.
- Te Tiriti: Requires genuine engagement; Bill falls short.
- Operational risks: Expanded impoundment worsens abandonment (10–15% already), undermining police operations.
Recommendations
- Reject the Bill.
- If proceeding, amend to:
- Remove Sentencing Act s142AAH presumption.
- Narrow LTA s39A with objective harm tests and cultural exemptions.
- Limit owner-identification duties; decouple from forfeiture; strengthen defences.
- Raise thresholds for closure powers; protect residents and lawful assemblies.
- Make impoundment discretionary; fund capacity; monitor impacts.
- Link noise penalties to objective standards.
- Undertake genuine Māori and public engagement.
References
- Bill text: Antisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Bill (Govt Bill 189–1).
- Departmental Disclosure Statement (MoT): no consultation; Māori impacts; abandonment rates.
- MoT “Anti-social road use” explainer: policy framing and key changes.
- Hansard (First Reading, 12 Aug 2025): scrutiny concerns, deterrence challenges, resourcing.
- MoJ NZBORA advice: rights engaged (s14, s16, s18, s21, s23(4), s25(d)).
Respectfully submitted,
Ukes Baha
Public Health Advocate | Counsellor | Policy Analyst
ukesbaha.com