Why Oppose the Antisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Bill
Principle good — mechanism harmful. Nobody supports dangerous street racing or intimidating behaviour. But this Bill overreaches: it embeds mandatory forfeiture, expands police closure powers, and compels disclosure on pain of forfeiture. It risks punishing bystanders, undermining judicial discretion, and disproportionately targeting Māori, Pasifika, rangatahi, and low-income people.
Here’s what the Bill actually does, why it is dangerous, and how it erodes rights, fairness, and trust.
Key Principles at Stake
- Proportionality: First-offence presumptive forfeiture/destruction removes judicial discretion and breaks sentencing balance.
- Clarity: The new convoy offence is vague and risks capturing cultural or community processions like tangihanga and weddings.
- Privacy: Owners are compelled to disclose information under threat of forfeiture, risking false attribution.
- Freedom: Closure powers chill movement, assembly, and expression — punishing residents and bystanders.
- Equity: Impacts will fall disproportionately on Māori and Pasifika, a breach of Te Tiriti obligations.
What This Bill Really Does
- Mandatory forfeiture (Sentencing Act s142AAH): Courts must forfeit or destroy vehicles on first offence, with only narrow exceptions.
- New convoy offence (LTA s39A): Defines a “convoy” as just 2+ vehicles — vague, subjective, and risks overreach.
- Owner compulsion (LTA ss118–118B; s52(3)): Registered owners face fines and forfeiture if they cannot identify a driver.
- Police closure powers (Policing Act ss35–35B; ss54–54E): Allow areas to be closed where offences “may reasonably be expected.” Bystanders can be fined $1,000 for not leaving.
- Noise penalties: Increase from $50 to $300 (infringement) and up to $3,000 (court) without objective standards.
Why This Threatens Rights and Trust
- Judicial discretion undermined: Courts forced into mandatory forfeiture, unable to weigh individual circumstances.
- Vague laws: “Convoy” and “intimidation” are subjective — leading to arbitrary enforcement.
- Rights chilled: Risks breaches of NZBORA: freedom of expression, assembly, movement, and protection from unreasonable seizure.
- Disproportionate impacts: Officials already flagged Māori are 50% of fleeing driver charges; this Bill deepens inequities.
- Operational failure: Impoundment expansion risks 10–15% abandonment, straining contractors and undermining delivery.
What Good Law Would Do Instead
- Preserve judicial discretion by repealing presumptive forfeiture (s142AAH).
- Define convoy narrowly (e.g., 5+ vehicles) and exclude cultural/community processions.
- Limit owner-identification duties to fail-to-stop, with strong reasonable-excuse defences.
- Tighten closure thresholds to imminent harm, protect residents, and require oversight.
- Tie noise penalties to objective decibel standards and evidence rules.
- Undertake genuine Māori and public consultation before passage.
If You Care About Safety, Rights, and Fairness
This Bill is not safety — it is overreach. It risks criminalising communities, eroding rights, and undermining trust in policing and law.
If you believe justice requires proportionate penalties…
If you believe cultural processions should not be at risk…
If you believe rights under NZBORA and Te Tiriti must be upheld…
Then now is the time to oppose this Bill.
“A law that punishes beyond its target ceases to protect — it erodes trust.” — Ukes Baha
Read the full submission: Formal Opposition to the Antisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Bill