The Justice Committee has examined the Land Transport (Road Safety) Amendment Bill and recommends that it be passed. We recommend all amendments unanimously except for those in clauses 28 and 31A, which we recommend by majority.

The Land Transport (Road Safety) Amendment Bill seeks to reduce unsafe behaviour on New Zealand’s roads by increasing the speed and severity of enforcement. The bill has two main objectives: to improve the legislative response to fleeing drivers and to improve safety within the land transport system.

The bill would target fleeing drivers by amending the Land Transport Act 1998 to:

• lengthen from 28 days to 6 months the period for which an enforcement officer may seize and impound a vehicle, if the driver has failed to stop or remain stopped when required

• create a new power to enable an enforcement officer to seize and impound a vehicle for 28 days if the driver, owner, or registered person fails to provide information about a fleeing driver, and impounding the vehicle is necessary to prevent a serious threat to road safety

• increase the licence disqualification period after a second conviction for a failing-to-stop offence, from 1 year to 1–2 years.

The bill would also amend the Sentencing Act 2002 to create a new sentencing option enabling the courts to order that a vehicle be forfeited on conviction for a failing-to-stop offence.

The bill would further amend the Land Transport Act to improve general road safety and speed enforcement. These amendments include:

• providing for the electronic service of notices and the automated issuing of certain infringement notices

• enabling point-to-point safety cameras to be used as an enforcement tool for speeding offences.

The bill would also make amendments to the Summary Proceedings Act 1957, the Land Transport (Offences and Penalties) Regulations 1999, and the Land Transport (Storage and Towage of Impounded Vehicles) Regulations 1999.

As part of our consideration of the bill, we have examined its consistency with principles of legislative quality. We have no issues regarding the legislation’s design to bring to the attention of the House.

This commentary covers the main amendments we recommend to the bill as introduced. We do not discuss minor or technical amendments.

As introduced, clause 2 of the bill establishes that it would come into force the day after it received Royal assent. However, we recommend that clause 2 be amended so that the bill would come into force 6 weeks after it received Royal assent.

Extending the commencement date would allow sufficient time for the changes proposed by this bill to be implemented and communicated to the public. Implementation activities would include the New Zealand Police amending the impoundment notices, preparing guidance on the appeals process, training staff, and putting in place mechanisms to monitor and report on the outcomes of appeals. This 6-week extension would also allow Waka Kotahi New Zealand Transport Agency (Waka Kotahi) to develop guidance for towage and storage operators about the new impoundment regime and create a new financial assurance regime for 6-month impoundments.

Section 96AAA, inserted into the Land Transport Act by clause 10, would give an enforcement officer the power to seize and impound a vehicle for 6 months. The officer would have to be satisfied that the person driving the vehicle had failed to stop (or remain stopped) as signalled, requested, or required, and that the vehicle:

We consider that the use of the word “converted”, which is not defined in the bill, could be confusing and open to interpretation.

Section 226 of the Crimes Act 1961 defines the conversion of a vehicle in the following way:

We consider that the definition of conversion found in the Crimes Act should be replicated in section 2 (the interpretation section) of the Land Transport Act. We think this would provide clarity and remove the potential for different interpretations of the law. We recommend amending clause 4 accordingly.

Clause 9 would amend section 96 of the Land Transport Act, and clause 10 would insert new sections 96AAA and 96AAB. These sections would set out criteria for the seizure and impoundment of a vehicle as part of an expanded seizure and impoundment regime.

Under the expanded 6-month impoundment regime proposed by the bill, Waka Kotahi would be responsible for financially guaranteeing the costs involved in towing and storing an impounded vehicle. However, as introduced, the bill does not provide for Waka Kotahi to be notified when a vehicle is seized or impounded.

We consider that, as Waka Kotahi would be financially responsible for the vehicle while it was impounded, there should be provision in the bill requiring it to be notified upon impoundment. We recommend amending clause 10 of the bill to insert new section 96AAA(2A) into the Act. New section 96AAA(2A) would introduce a requirement for the Police to send a copy of the impoundment notice when a vehicle is impounded under new section 96AAA.

The expanded seizure and impoundment regime established in amended section 96 and new sections 96AAA and 96AAB would, in some cases, make the registered person liable for actions taken using their vehicle. The vehicle could be released to the registered person if the Police chose not to take further enforcement action or the “registered person” had met certain criteria.

For the purposes of the Land Transport Act, a “registered person” is an individual who has registered a vehicle against their name in the motor vehicle register. We gave thought to what would happen to vehicles that are unregistered. We consider that, when a vehicle is not registered, the vehicle’s owner should have the same rights and obligations for payment as a registered person would. We therefore recommend amending clauses 9 and 10, and associated consequential clauses (including regulations) to expand references to the “registered person” to include the legal owner of the vehicle, if the vehicle is not registered.

New section 96AAB, introduced by clause 10, would establish criteria for the impoundment of a vehicle used in a fleeing driver offence if the owner or hirer fails or refuses to provide information to an enforcement officer. In these circumstances, a vehicle could be impounded if necessary to prevent a serious threat to road safety.

New section 96AAB(3)(a) states that if a vehicle were seized and impounded under this section, then provisions set out in sections 96(2) to (4A) and 96(6) to (8) of the Land Transport Act would apply.

Section 96(6) of the Land Transport Act sets out criteria for when an impounded vehicle must be returned. However, we consider that it should be made clear in the bill that if the Police choose not to prosecute, the vehicle must be returned to the owner or hirer.

Therefore, we recommend removing the reference to section 96(6) from clause 10. Instead, we recommend inserting new sections 96AAB(4) and 96AAB(5) to introduce a clear requirement for the Police to return an impounded vehicle to the relevant person if they chose not to prosecute. This change would also align section 96AAB with section 96AAA, which includes a clear requirement for the Police to return a vehicle impounded on suspicion of being used in a fleeing driver event if they do not prosecute the owner.

We acknowledge that there are likely to be many financial stakeholders involved in the seizure, impoundment, and storage of a vehicle. Stakeholders in this process can include the registered person, the towage operator, the storage provider, and any financial services providers who have an interest in the vehicle.

Section 97A, as inserted by clause 13 of the bill, would establish that Waka Kotahi is responsible for providing financial assurance to the towage and storage companies for 6-month impoundments. In practice, this means that Waka Kotahi would be responsible for paying these companies to cover the cost of towing and storing the impounded vehicles. The registered person, who is ultimately liable for these expenses, would then pay Waka Kotahi to reimburse these fees.

We recommend amending clause 13 to insert new section 97B into the bill. New section 97B would give Waka Kotahi the power to enter into an arrangement with the registered person to recover the fees incurred through the towage and storage of an impounded vehicle.

We also recommend amending the Land Transport (Storage and Towage Fees for Impounded Vehicles) Regulations 1999 through clause 51 to ensure that the payment of fees by the registered person would be made to Waka Kotahi instead of the towage operator for 6-month impoundments.

We acknowledge that a financial services provider may have a financial interest in an impounded vehicle. We believe the bill should be amended to allow the financial services provider to repossess an impounded vehicle without accepting the financial liabilities associated with the seizure and impoundment.

We recommend amending section 97A, to clarify that when a vehicle that has been impounded is repossessed by a financial services provider, they would not be liable for fees incurred through the towing and impoundment of the vehicle. Under new section 97A(2A), the provider would be liable to cover costs incurred by Waka Kotahi in locating the vehicle.

We also recommend amending new section 98AAA, introduced by clause 15. Our amendment would see an impounded vehicle released if the financial services provider became the registered person of the vehicle.

A number of submitters raised concerns with us that a financial services provider would not be aware if a vehicle had been impounded. Due to privacy concerns, it would not be appropriate to have Waka Kotahi or the Police notify a financial services provider if a vehicle it had a financial interest in had been impounded. Instead we think the onus should be on the finance provider’s client to notify their finance provider of a change in circumstances, such as the vehicle being impounded.

We suggest that finance providers consider clarifying within their contracts that a requirement sits with the client to notify them of such a change in circumstances.

It is intended that the point-to-point speed camera system would include an automated enforcement system. In the bill as introduced, this system would take data from the speed camera network and automatically issue an infringement notice if the camera had detected an offence. We recommend several changes to the bill relating to this system.

We recommend inserting new clause 26A into the bill to amend section 140 of the Land Transport Act. Amended section 140 would detail the criteria for the issue of an infringement notice for speeding detected by a point-to-point camera system. Amended section 140(1A) would clarify the criteria for point-to-point cameras when more than one speed limit applies between the detection points. This section would make it clear that in cases like this, the average weighted speed of the car applies.

We also recommend clarifying that in the case of a speeding offence where the average speed is relied on, the location of the offence is between the two detection points. Our amendment would also make clear that the time of the offending was the whole time the vehicle was between these points.

We think that any point-to-point speed cameras should be well signposted. We recommend amending clause 28 to insert new section 146E. New section 146E would require the road controlling authority to install and maintain signage advising motorists of the presence of a point-to-point camera system.

The validity of proceedings for average speed offences would not be affected if the sign was obscured, defaced, damaged, or removed by any person.

Clause 39 would amend section 129 of the Sentencing Act. Section 129 requires that a Court order the confiscation of a vehicle used in the commission of a second specified offence if it was committed within four years of an initial specified offence.

We recommend amending clause 39 to clarify that, if the second specified offence is a fleeing driver offence, the court must either order confiscation, or use the power in section 142AAB to apply a forfeiture order.

This amendment would ensure that the Court retains the power to order forfeiture, regardless of whether it is a first or subsequent offence. In the case of a subsequent offence that would fall within section 129, the amendment would create a requirement of confiscation if forfeiture is not ordered.

Section 199 of the Land Transport Act requires Waka Kotahi to maintain the national register of all driver licences. The register must contain a licence holder’s full name, address, gender, date of birth, place of birth (if known to the Agency), and signature. We believe this requirement should be updated to require the register to also contain a licence holder’s electronic address (email) if it is known.

We recommend amending section 199(2) through clause 29 to implement this recommendation.

We recommend inserting clauses 49C to 49J to update Schedules 1, 1A, and 2 to 8 of the Land Transport (Infringement and Reminder Notices) Regulations 2012. These regulations establish the form that infringement notices must take. At present the regulations do not allow for an infringement notice to be sent electronically. Our proposed amendments would update the regulations to allow for an infringement notice to be sent electronically.

Section 208A of the Land Transport Act establishes that Waka Kotahi is an enforcement officer for certain infringement offences for the purposes of issuing an infringement notice under section 139. We consider that section 208A should be expanded to make it clear that the Agency is an enforcement officer where the infringement is verified by an automated infringement system. We recommend inserting new clause 31A accordingly.

The Privacy Act enables agencies to access law enforcement information held by another agency if such access is authorised by the provisions of Schedule 4.

The Police, who currently operate the traffic safety camera network, are at present able to share information gathered by these cameras with Waka Kotahi, the Ministry of Justice, and the Legal Services Commissioner. If the traffic safety camera network transfers to Waka Kotahi, we recommend enabling Waka Kotahi to share information from traffic safety cameras with the Police, the Ministry of Justice, and the Legal Services Commissioner.

We therefore recommend inserting new clause 45I into the bill. Clause 45I would amend Schedule 4 of the Privacy Act to enable this.

This bill seeks to confiscate vehicles of fleeing drivers regardless of whether the owner was driving the vehicle or not. ACT opposes the Government punishing property owners for the alleged criminal acts of others.

The cost of six months of vehicle storage and towage could also ultimately be borne by the taxpayer. If the vehicle is not claimed by the owner, Waka Kotahi will pay all related fees. We estimate that taxpayer burden to start at $2,500 per vehicle.

ACT acknowledges the challenges our front-line Police face in apprehending fleeing driver. The recent change to Police pursuit policy should assist greatly, without the need to confiscate the property of others.

The National Party supports the primary purpose of this bill to provide Police with more power against fleeing drivers. This will help in a small way to deal with an issue which has got out of control in the past few years. On that basis we will support the bill.

We do not support another policy included in the legislation, however, to allow for point-to-point speed cameras. Figures shown to the select committee showed that speed was the cause in less than 10 percent of crashes resulting in death or injury. Instead of putting more focus on all the other factors such as drink driving, drugged driving, not wearing seatbelts, the quality of the roads, the Government continues to look for ways to slow drivers down. We do not believe this should be a priority that is rushed through as part of this legislation.