Arms (Military Style Semi-automatic Firearms and Import Controls) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Arms (Military Style Semi-automatic Firearms and Import Controls) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. This bill amends the Arms Act 1983 to clarify the definition of military-style semi-automatic firearms—MSSAs—and places controls on the importation of airguns that look like real pistols, military-style semi-automatic firearms, or restricted weapons. I would like to thank the members of the Law and Order Committee and, in particular, the chair of the committee, Jacqui Dean, for returning this bill to the House in good time. I would also like to thank all those members of the public who took time to submit on the bill. Committee members have commented on the high quality of a number of the written and oral submissions that were received. The concerns of submitters were listened to by the committee, and many of these concerns have been reflected in the changes that the committee recommended.

The bill does not seek to radically alter the status quo. What it will do is enhance the clarity of some provisions that relate to military-style semi-automatic firearms, and enhance public safety by reducing the availability of airguns that look like real pistols, military-style semi-automatic firearms, or restricted weapons. The bill will create clarity around the definition of a military-style semi-automatic firearm by wording the definition in positive terms as a semi-automatic firearm that has one or more specified features, rather than in negative terms with a list of features that a firearm in sporting configuration that is not a military-style semi-automatic firearm must be without.

It also provides for the meaning of the term “pistol grip” to be spelt out clearly in regulations with the assistance of illustrations. The revised definition will return the interpretation of what is and is not a military-style semi-automatic firearm based on the style of stock back to what was generally understood and accepted by the firearms community between the passing of the 1992 Arms Amendment Act and 2008. The bill also provides for the use of regulations to provide a mechanism for establishing an authoritative position on the status of particular firearms, types of firearms, and firearm characteristics that are creating confusion or are subject to dispute. The bill will require those who import airguns that can be mistaken for real pistols, restricted weapons, or military-style semi-automatics to have a permit from police that allows their importation. A permit will be granted only if the Commissioner of Police is satisfied that there are special reasons why the airgun should be imported. Permits would also be issued to allow for legitimate importation of airguns for sporting and collection purposes and the like. This will reduce the ready availability of these types of airguns for criminal purposes. The bill’s restrictions on the importation of airguns will not apply to airguns that are clearly designed to be used for airsoft and paintball sports, and could not be mistaken for real pistols, military-style semi-automatics, or restricted weapons. It is also intended that these provisions would not restrict the importation of airguns that are clearly manufactured solely as toys. These tend to not look anything like real pistols, military-style semi-automatics, or restricted weapons.

The Law and Order Committee recommended a number of amendments, which will clarify the intentions of the bill. Firstly, the definition of the term “military style semi-automatic firearm” has been modified to provide greater technical accuracy and legal clarity, and to make it clear as to the scope of the regulation-making powers. A definition of the term “semi-automatic firearm” has also been included that more accurately reflects the operation of a semi-automatic firearm. Secondly, a change to the wording of the bill to clarify the provisions relating to magazine capacity has been made. Thirdly, the committee recommended amendments to the bill to make it clear that the new description of restricted airguns, which will require a permit to import, is intended to include those that have the appearance, whether with attachments or without attachments, of being a pistol, restricted weapon, or military-style semi-automatic, and that it is not necessary for such airguns to have the appearance of any particular model of pistol, restricted weapon, military-style semi-automatic, or firearm capable of full automatic fire.

Amendments were also made to make it clear that permits would not be required to import parts of restricted airguns, but only the airguns themselves. A number of submitters expressed a range of concerns about the proposal in clause 11 of the bill to extend the regulation-making powers in section 74 of the principal Act. The committee listened carefully to these concerns and recommended that an additional layer of parliamentary scrutiny should apply to three of the four proposed regulation-making powers. This is to apply to regulations declaring particular makes and models of firearms, or firearms of a stated description to be military-style semi-automatics, and regulations declaring particular features of firearms to be features of a military-style semi-automatic. The committee has recommended that any regulations made by Order in Council under new section 74A(b) to (d) of the principal Act be confirmed by statute within the specified period. Such confirmation, usually through a Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill, would provide Parliament with an opportunity to consider the policy behind the regulations that need to be confirmed. If Parliament did not confirm the regulations, they would become invalid.

The committee recommended that a consequential amendment be made to the Arms Regulations 1992, to ensure that licensed dealers kept records of restricted airguns received for sale, repair, or modification, or that are manufactured by the dealer, in the same manner they record those particulars for firearms, pistols, military-style semi-automatics, and restricted weapons. The committee heard from a number of submitters who indicated that they would like representatives from the New Zealand firearms community to have formal input when regulations relating to firearms use or restrictions are being considered. The committee agreed that improving the level and quality of consultation between police and members of the firearms community would be a positive step that would assist with the development of practical firearms policies. As a result of this, I am informed that police have started actively exploring the establishment of an arms advisory forum. The intention is that this group would provide a forum for input to the police from the firearms community on legal and policy issues relating to firearms, and would be convened whenever a relevant issue arose.

In conclusion, the Arms (Military Style Semi-automatic Firearms and Import Controls) Amendment Bill improves the ability of the Arms Act 1983 to continue to take into account the interests of legitimate firearms users, whilst at the same time protecting the public from the harmful use of firearms. Clarifying the definition of military-style semi-automatics is in the interests of gun owners, as it removes uncertainties around which of their firearms will involve additional requirements for their possession. At the same time, it improves the ability of the Arms Act to apply controls on the possession of military-style semi-automatics. I am confident that restricting the importation of airguns that can be mistaken for real pistols, restricted weapons, or military-style semi-automatics will limit their availability for criminal use and improve public safety. The bill has emerged from the Law and Order Committee with a number of changes as a result of the committee’s careful consideration of points raised by submitters. This has strengthened the bill, and I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to be the first speaker for Labour in the second reading of the Arms (Military Style Semi-automatic Firearms and Import Controls) Amendment Bill. It will be of some joy to the members opposite that Labour is going to continue its support for this bill. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the members of the previous Law and Order Committee. I understand that it was chaired by Jacqui Dean, the current chair of the Law and Order Committee, and I thank it for—and the Minister has alluded to this—the work that it did to look closely at this bill. I believe that through a lot of cooperation the bill has emerged as a better bill.

We are talking about further restrictions or further clarification of issues around firearms. It is a polarising matter. It is a matter of trying to weigh up the rights of those who are firearms enthusiasts, who enjoy their sport, and who, because of the restrictions that are placed on them because of the nature of their sport, know those restrictions very well, protect them, and will fight to make sure that they are protected. That was seen by the nearly 250 submissions that were made to the Law and Order Committee in the last session of Parliament. On the other side of the equation, making sure that the duty of this Parliament to protect our community, and also to protect our law and order officers in our communities, has to be weighed up as well. I think that the Law and Order Committee of the previous Parliament pretty much got the balance right in making sure that the objectives of this bill could be met, while making sure that the rights of firearms enthusiasts were protected.

The objective of this bill is to amend the Arms Act to bring clarity to the definition of “military style semi-automatic firearm” so that the police can correctly identify those firearms that should be categorised as such, and that would essentially be subject to greater control. It also, as the Minister pointed out, will put greater restrictions on lookalike airguns that look like military-style semi-automatics, that look like pistols, and that look like other restricted weapons. I think that in terms of our duty as parliamentarians to make sure that our communities are safe and that our law and order officers are safe out in the community, imposing that restriction on those lookalike firearms is a very good thing to do.

Labour, of course, will support any measures that prevent and mitigate the harm of military-style semi-automatic firearms to our communities, and that lower the costs of law enforcement as a result of the importation of these weapons that are lookalike. As we are seeing from the police evidence, these airguns that look like a thing that should be on the front line, or pistols, or other restricted weapons, are increasingly being used out in our streets.

This law has come about because of a High Court decision that I understand came from Palmerston North and created some uncertainties around the definition of what a military-style semi-automatic firearm was. It is also a mechanism with which the Government hopes to reduce the number of incidents due to these lookalike weapons. I think all of us in this Parliament would give that protection to our law enforcement officers, especially our police. If there is an incident, our police officers are the ones who, when most of us would be heading in the opposite direction, head into harm’s way. They have a very unique role in the fact that sometimes they are putting themselves in physical danger, sometimes they are finding themselves staring down the barrel of a gun—or what seems to be a gun. We have had too many instances recently where—and I am thinking about the Napier incident and one in the Manawatū about 6 or 7 years ago—police officers have been killed in the line of duty. We need to make sure that we can put restrictions on these lookalike firearms in order to reduce the incidence of these call-outs where our police are actually going to places and dealing with things where we have got idiots—I must use that word—who are using pretend firearms and the police are thinking they are the real thing. We need to make sure we are cracking down on that so our police are not finding themselves in that situation. We are finding that our police are in situations like this and are having to arm themselves, and it can escalate to a situation where the elite officers get involved, where we have to call out our armed offenders squad to deal with idiots—again, we are using that word—who think it is a bit of fun to use some of these weapons.

I am not a gun enthusiast; I am not a firearm enthusiast. That comes about because I have not had any exposure to it, but I do think there is a place for responsible firearm ownership, in that those law-abiding citizens who adhere to the rules should be able to continue their legal activity, to make sure that they can enjoy their sport. I know two examples in my own electorate: firstly, the former principal of Papakōwhai Primary School Kevin Win, who made a submission to the Law and Order Committee on the day that I subbed in on the select committee, because he is a member of the local gun club; and, secondly, John Wilson from the Tītahi Bay Volunteer Fire Brigade, who I believe is out now trying to hunt himself down some venison. Those are two people who responsibly use firearms in the community and who were very concerned about what rights may have been taken away by this bill. But I think, as I have said before, the Law and Order Committee has got the balance right in trying to manage the rights of gun owners and enthusiasts with public safety and the safety of our law enforcement officers.

As the Minister suggested, there were some concerns from a number of gun enthusiasts around clause 11, I believe, in respect of the regulation-making powers that are contained in this bill. I will just run through some of these. There were concerns that the regulation-making powers were too broad, that the regulations would be unconstitutional, that there would be a lack of parliamentary and public scrutiny, that in some instances regulations might be abused, and that the use of regulations gave too much power to police and could cause more confusion in what was already a confused situation. But I believe, as the Minister said, that this bill will address that in the fact that any regulations of this nature that are made have to be statuted. So those firearms enthusiasts will have the opportunity to have more scrutiny of any changes that are made via regulations if they think they are of concern enough to make another submission to the select committee.

There was one other area that the Minister alluded to, which the Labour members on the previous Law and Order Committee also alluded to, and that is around what the Minister of Police referred to as an arms advisory forum. It was the contention of the Labour members of the select committee that an independent reference group be formed to provide “contestable”—I think that is the word—advice to the Minister, because it would be the police who would be offering other advice to the Minister. So it was our contention that there should be an independent reference group to make sure that there was contestable evidence, especially around concerns that some firearms owners may have. Unfortunately, that did not get support from the select committee, and, as the Minister said, an arms advisory forum will be set up to help advise the police if they are looking at any issues, especially around regulation. As we have said in the select committee minority report from Labour, we will be watching that issue very, very closely.

But Labour will support this bill to the House. We believe that it does strike the right balance in terms of this Parliament’s duty to protect our public and also protect the rights of gun enthusiasts around the country who made their voice heard because of the sheer number of submissions that were made to the Law and Order Committee. We are happy to support this bill. We are happy with the outcome of the select committee process, and we look forward to supporting this further.

The Arms (Military Style Semi-automatic Firearms and Import Controls) Amendment Bill sought to address—and I believe has gone a long way towards addressing—some problems that we face. The vast majority of category C licence holders who have military-style semi-automatic firearms are responsible enthusiasts of firearms, and they take great pride and enjoyment in their sport, which involves using their firearms mostly on a shooting range under very controlled conditions. Indeed, the conditions of their firearms licence, which I think is a category C—and I can be corrected—if I do recall, is quite a stringent category of firearms licence that requires the military-style semi-automatic to be locked securely in a secured, locked box.

One of the problems is that although the vast majority of military-style semi-automatic owners have the required licence and the required storage for military-style semi-automatics, that is not the problem; the problem is the military-style semi-automatics that the police do not know about. And when those military-style semi-automatics are used and put into effect, it can be with devastating consequences for all of those involved, involving death and fear. It is those military-style semi-automatics that the police cannot track that are the problem, which is why this bill has come to the House, because there is also a problem with the definition of what constitutes a military-style semi-automatic.

The other problem that this bill addresses is that of the fake pistol being presented. It happens on an almost weekly basis in New Zealand. The police are called out to what appears to be an armed robbery or an armed incident, and it ends up that a fake pistol has been used. The news of this happening in dairies appears on a very frequent basis, and we read about it in the news. This bill addresses both those two issues.

The Law and Order Committee gave this bill a good deal of consideration, and it was a good process, in my view. We made a number of amendments to the bill. I am going to start more or less where the previous speaker, Kris Faafoi, left off, and that is community input into firearms policy. We had a very robust process of people coming into the select committee. We met in Christchurch, Auckland, and Wellington, and a number of the submitters expressed a frustration, saying that they would like to have input into the arms licensing regime and that order of activity. The committee did look very closely at the request expressed by the firearms community of establishing a statutory advisory group. That group would include representatives from the New Zealand firearms community, whom the police would consult before recommending regulations relating to the designation of military-style semi-automatics. The problem with that was that doing that would limit the scope of the consultation and engagement with the sector, and it was felt that perhaps that was a little narrow in scope and that it would be of limited use. So I was very pleased to hear the Minister of Police earlier this evening confirm that the police are actively looking at the establishment of a consultation group that would work on a full range of firearms policy issues. That was indicated to us at the time that we were working with the police on the select committee stage of this bill, and it is very encouraging to me to hear that the police are indeed continuing their work on this issue.

The select committee made a number of changes. We modified the definition of “military style semi-automatic firearm” to provide greater technical accuracy and also legal clarity. It was determined that a very accurate definition of “military style semi-automatic firearm” should be included in the bill, not only so that it makes it very clear to police and firearms users what constitutes a military-style semi-automatic but also to futureproof the regulations so that changes in design of military-style semi-automatics could be taken into account under the bill.

We made clarifications to the provisions relating to that magazine capacity. Hitherto, magazines could be the Rambo-style, banana-shaped magazine. This committee is recommending that changes be made to that. Importantly, and as I mentioned when I started my speech, amendments to the bill make it clear that the new description of “restricted airgun”, which will require a permit to import, will hopefully tighten up on the incidence of fake airguns being presented to dairy owners and others. Under this bill a permit is not required to import parts for airguns, but merely the airguns themselves.

A number of submitters expressed concerns about changes to clause 11 of the bill to extend the regulation-making powers in section 74 of the principal Act. What the committee has recommended is another layer of parliamentary scrutiny to apply to three of the four proposed regulation-making powers. These are for regulations declaring particular makes and models of firearms or firearms of a stated description to be military-style semi-automatic firearms, and regulations declaring particular features of firearms to be features of military-style semi-automatic firearms. An amendment was also recommended to the Arms Regulations 1992 to ensure that licensed dealers keep records of restricted airguns received for sale, tightening up on the requirements about airguns.

The provisions in this bill have been gone through, and it was pleasing to see that the Law and Order Committee worked very hard and cooperatively on this bill. I think we have returned to the House an improved bill. It is a bill in good shape, and I recommend it to the House.

Kia ora tātou. Nō reira, Mr Speaker, and greetings to you in that fine office that you have there. Can I first of all acknowledge the work of both the Law and Order Committee of this Parliament and the last one for the work that they did on this piece of legislation, the Arms (Military Style Semi-automatic Firearms and Import Controls) Amendment Bill. I think that they have managed to get the rights of gun owners and distributors about right.

I am a strong advocate of disarmament issues and have become actively involved around the world in support of a treaty that seeks to ensure the more responsible control and transfer of conventional weapons. I know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you—and I should not bring you into it, Mr Deputy Speaker—are a responsible firearms owner and probably know more about firearms than many of us inside this Chamber. We will have a talk about that later on. As the Labour spokesperson on disarmament, small arms, and light weapons, I am aware of the issues locally and internationally. As legislators I believe that it is important for us to remember that there are constituents—not all of us will have these constituents—who have been directly impacted by the irresponsible transfer and control of arms, which has resulted in the loss of life.

This bill that we are debating tonight, and which we in the Labour Party support, amends the Arms Act of 1983 to change the definitions and regulations about what constitutes military-style semi-automatic weapons. It places restrictions on the importation of airguns that look like real pistols, military-style semi-automatics, or restricted weapons. It links with what is proposed through an arms trade treaty to prevent weapons from being exported to Governments or countries around the world where they should not go, such as Governments with poor records in terms of how they treat their own people.

As we here seek to control the importation of armaments, the world and those who are concerned enough seek an arms trade treaty in a diplomatic conference to be held in New York in July, which has the objective of ensuring that the international arms trade industry is cleaned up. As a nation State we need in this country to continue to play a constructive role on armaments, and to lead, and as a Labour Party we support any measures to prevent and mitigate the harm that military-style semi-automatic weapons cause to society. In this country we support the need to mitigate the costs of law enforcement as a result of the importations of weapons that look like military-style semi-automatics.

We do it for a reason, and there has to be a reason why this legislation is necessary. It is necessary because of a court case here in 2010, and it is necessary due to the uncertainties of the definition of military-style semi-automatics as a result of that High Court case. I think it was Lincoln v New Zealand Police. It is also a mechanism through which the Government hopes to reduce the number of incidents due to the weapons that look like military-style semi-automatics. We support the need for there to be greater import controls on imitation weapons—in fact, any weapons for that matter—given their increased use in the commission of crimes and the need for police resources.

I am sure that many of us who have close contact with the police through our own constituencies will have anecdotal evidence of where imitation weapons have been used for burglary, robbery, and the like. In New Zealand we are told that the Government asserts that the police estimates indicate that there could be up to one incident a week where a member of the public presents an airgun that looks like a real pistol, or a military-style semi-automatic, or restricted weapons requiring an armed police response, sometimes involving the call out of the armed offenders squad. Tightening import controls would reduce the easy availability of these replica firearms.

I think that is the reason why we in this House need to be responsible when it comes to the whole issue of firearms, because it is an area that requires controls to ensure that these particular types of weapons do not fall into the wrong hands. I have had a number of people write to me on this issue. One of the purposes of this bill is to ensure responsible ownership, but I want to say to those firearms owners who are concerned that it should be noted that the bill provides an appeal process to the District Court where an owner disagrees with a classification of a firearm as a military-style semi-automatic weapon. So there is the opportunity for gun owners who are concerned to have the ability to go to the District Court, and I am sure there will be responsible firearms owners in this country who will use that mechanism.

Can I draw to the House’s attention Labour’s minority view in the bill. In the select committee our members there proposed an initiative that was to aid in the consultation process, in the form of an independent reference group. We asked that it be established to provide contestable advice to the Minister. However, we were advised that a wide-ranging reference group was outside the scope of the bill. So we had to accept that, and we did.

We also understand, of course, that the police themselves also recognise the need to engage nationally with the New Zealand firearms community. They need to work together, like a community. I am reminded of the Māori saying: “Tātou, tātou.” It means: “Together, together.” And in that true sense of the word “community”, together we serve and together we prosper. If we have the police working alongside the firearms community, I am sure that we will have the opportunity, and we will witness that this piece of legislation can work.

It is the expectation of members on this side of the House that this exploration will lead to the formal establishment of this advisory group, and if it is not established, we would expect the police to provide a robust rationale as to their decision. We think that is important because there needs to be involvement of the community together. As my colleague Kris Faafoi, our spokesperson on police, said, Labour members will be monitoring the development of this issue closely—and we will, because we believe it is for the betterment of the community that those sorts of things occur. If we have the police and the firearms community working together, then that can only be good for our society.

Let me conclude by just saying that this legislation is necessary, and it is necessary because of the uncertainties created in the definition of military-style semi-automatic weapons as a result of the Lincoln v New Zealand Police case in 2010. We as responsible legislators have brought this legislation to the House in order for us to ensure that the right things are done, not only by gun owners but also by the police, for the betterment of the constituents in the communities that we represent here as legislators. For it is our job to serve our community, to represent the interests of those who elected us to this Parliament, so that we in turn can express their views and their concerns about issues that greatly affect them—issues that we can do something about. I endorse this bill to the House, and I hope that the rest of the House will do likewise.

Kia ora koutou. It probably comes as no surprise to anyone to know that the Greens will be supporting this legislation, the Arms (Military Style Semi-automatic Firearms and Import Controls) Amendment Bill. Given that we are a party of principle and that one of our four core principles is a commitment to non-violence, it would be odd in the extreme, I think, if we were to not support legislation that seems well intentioned towards creating more public safety and putting some further constraints on the use of a particular style of weapons.

Clearly, there is a legitimate place for firearms in our community. I believe there are in excess of 220,000 - odd New Zealanders who are licensed firearm users: hunters, of course; competitive shooters; people involved in pest management; farmers—these are all people who can legitimately use weapons, and routinely do in the course of their daily business or their recreation. That is as it should be, but we also need to balance that with a recognition that firearms are lethal. They can inflict lethal damage; they can kill people. For that reason they need to be carefully managed and regulated, and we think, on balance, that this bill takes us a few steps in a better direction.

Substantially, this bill seeks to provide greater clarity about the definition of what exactly constitutes a semi-automatic military-style weapon. It was evident from the case law that has been mentioned, the Lincoln case, that there was sufficient ambivalence in law, that there was too much grey between the black and white, and that the situation did need to be tidied up to ensure we are not constantly caught in these legal battles, which do not really serve anybody’s interests.

I think to the layperson, clearly, what defines these semi-automatic military-style weapons is simply their rate of fire—their ability to do a great deal of harm in a very short time, with a rate of fire much in excess of single shot or the old-style bolt-action weapons. And we know from experience that these are the most dangerous weapons when they are in the wrong hands.

We know that many of the tragedies that have occurred internationally with gun use have been as a result of military-style automatic weapons. In one horrific instance, I believe, something close to 20 people were killed in under 2 minutes by a person wielding one of these weapons. There is no legitimate use for that sort of firepower in private hands, and I think this bill is admirable to the extent that it seeks to ensure we do not have these weapons in the community.

It has been very interesting. I certainly was not on the Law and Order Committee. I am not sure that the Greens were routinely present on the committee, despite—as, no doubt, members will know—my friend and former parliamentary colleague Keith Locke having some very strong views about gun control, which he was never shy to express. But I know, despite not having been on the select committee, that there has been a great deal of lobbying around this bill, and some of it in quite recent times.

Advocates for a more relaxed, perhaps, approach to gun control and particularly to the importation and allowability of these weapons have been active. The usual complaint is that this will put up a lot of red tape and bureaucratic barriers to responsible owners without actually doing much to limit the criminal use of these weapons or the availability of them.

I have to say that some of the attitudes and some of the tactics of the lobbyists have actually done their cause no good. I am sure other MPs would have seen similar emails to the ones I have seen, where they begin with several paragraphs explaining why they know that politicians will be of limited intelligence or experience, such that we will not be able to make good gun law, but, nevertheless, these people will do their best to instil good sense into us. I would suggest to those people that that is not a very promising approach if you are trying to persuade anybody.

But more seriously, yes, I certainly read those emails, I took the trouble to inform and educate myself a little bit about some of the issues around these weapons and the features that define them, and on balance I think that this bill will add a layer of clarity and a layer of certainty to definitions and so on, and so for that reason we support it.

The bill—again, as has been commented on—does allow for the use of regulations to update and modify the legislation on gun control and gun management, and we think that is appropriate, not least of all because technology moves at an alarming rate. I am sure there are weapons available today that were only dreamt about a relatively short time ago. Technology can change, and so too can public tolerance for particular sorts of weapons wax and wane over time. I think allowing for the use of regulations to amend these definitions without the necessity of a legislative change is an appropriate mechanism, acknowledging also that there is the built-in backstop, if you like, of a degree of parliamentary scrutiny of those regulations after they are made.

Mr Ross Robertson, who just resumed his seat, also mentioned that there is a provision for a District Court appeal. If any person is determined that the police, or whoever, got it wrong in terms of defining that person’s particular weapon or the features of their weapon, there is that avenue of appeal to the District Court. I would actually hope that some of the people who have been quite vocal, advocating for a different or, arguably, a less constrained approach will take that opportunity. Clearly, for an individual to go to the District Court could be a costly venture, but one would think that some of the major gun clubs, some of the associations representing gun users, or, indeed, some of the industry—some of the dealers, stores, and gun shops—might see it as being in their interest to take these challenges to the court. It is appropriate that they have that avenue open to them.

The other aspect of the bill, of course, is that it does put some constraints on the importation of airguns that look like real pistols or military-style weapons. The old-style slug gun might not have done people harm, but modern airguns and air pistols are certainly capable of inflicting quite serious harm on people. Indeed, they are a danger to the people wielding them, to the extent that if the police are called to a situation and somebody is waving something around that looks like a real weapon, then the police are obliged to treat it as though it is. That is likely to end very badly for the individual foolish enough to be waving one of these things about. So I think we are identifying that these airguns in their own way can be almost as conducive to a threat to public safety as the real weapons could be.

The issue of an arms forum or some sort of standing consultative group has been brought up, and I have read the Labour minority report with interest, and also I have heard the comments of the Minister of Police and some of the Government speakers. It is important. Clearly, weapons and firearms will always be contentious, and the best way to deal with contentious issues is to create a platform where all sides of an argument can be heard. Clearly, the police will always have very strong views on these matters, and that is as it should be. But equally, community interests need to be represented, and they need to be assured that even if they do not win an argument, at least they have had the opportunity to have their points heard. So along with others we will be interested in seeing just what does evolve in terms of creating that public space, that forum for the ongoing discussion about what is always a contentious issue.

That is probably sufficient from me. I just, in closing, would say that the Greens have some views on other matters about gun use, gun ownership, and gun control, which we would like to see Parliament bend its mind to on occasion, but that is for another day. For the minute we believe this legislation is well intended and is likely to give good outcomes, and for those reasons we will be supporting it. Thank you.

It is good to see the Arms (Military Style Semi-automatic Firearms and Import Controls) Amendment Bill back in the House for a second reading. I wish to endorse many of the comments that have been made already this evening by a number of members of this House, including the Minister of Police, the Hon Anne Tolley. Can I also congratulate the Hon Judith Collins on bringing this bill to the House in the first place, and seeing it through a first reading and getting it into the Law and Order Committee.

Hon Tony Ryall: A fellow east Auckland MP.

JAMI-LEE ROSS: A fellow east Auckland MP. She is now a South Auckland MP in the electorate of Papakura.

I am not quite as passionate on disarmament as one of the previous speakers—Harold Valentine Ross Robertson, if I may use his full name—when he was talking about disarmament, but I do think he made some salient comments around the desire of New Zealanders not to see firearms normalised in New Zealand to the point where it becomes commonplace for people to carry arms and utilise them on a daily basis. I do accept that there are strong and passionate gun owners in New Zealand who do use guns in an appropriate manner, hunting being one of those. Mr Deputy Speaker, I know you are a passionate hunter yourself, and I have a number of friends who keep threatening to take me out hunting one day. I have not yet been game enough to do so. I may end up going one day.

Hon Member: Go duck hunting. It’s great fun.

JAMI-LEE ROSS: Duck hunting. Ha, ha! But on the point about military-style semi-automatic weapons I think it is appropriate that we legislate further in this area. There are virtually no import controls on replica firearms. This is a concern, because replica firearms are frequently being used for criminal offending. These replicas are easily mistaken for real firearms, which makes them attractive to criminals.

When this Government came into office in 2008, one of our key pledges in the law and order area was to give police greater powers to keep the community safe. We have done things like boosting police numbers, 600 new police on the beat. We have given them Tasers; we have given them powers around DNA testing and car crushing laws. This bill is an extension of that policy of giving police more powers to enforce law and order issues in New Zealand.

Police estimate that there could be up to one incident a week where a member of the public presents an airgun that looks like a real pistol, military-style semi-automatic, or restricted weapon, requiring an armed police response. Those of us who have been in office for a while, and certainly in my time on the council I do remember a number of instances, particularly in the South Auckland area, where there have been firearms presented, and where there have been issues to do with firearms that have actually led to death. Any issue to do with firearms that leads to death of an innocent individual is an issue that we must take seriously. Tightening import controls would reduce the easy availability of these replica firearms, and anyone planning to import these replicas would in future require an import permit. These are some of the changes in this bill that are welcome and we need to be supporting.

I wish to just touch on the point that has been raised by a number of members about community input into firearms policy. I do see in the minority report and in the comments made by the Minister here tonight that there is going to be greater community input into firearms policy. The police are looking to establish an arms advisory group. We know from the police’s history that the police work extremely well with local communities, extremely well with interested parties, and I am sure that the police will do very well in working with those with an interest in firearms policy through the arms advisory group.

Just finally I wish to touch on some further points raised in the select committee report. It is around the minority report from another party. It is not the Labour Party and not the Green Party. I will leave it to members to pick up the report and read it, but I have to say I found some of the comments a little distasteful. The arguments that were being made in this minority report were essentially arguing that we should have the US-style right to bear arms in our nation, and I just do not think that New Zealanders would wish to see our country go down that track.

Hon Member: Mr Crimp?

JAMI-LEE ROSS: It was not Mr Crimp. It was someone who knows Mr Crimp, though. Firearms in New Zealand are not at the point yet, and I hope they never get to the point, where New Zealanders fear on a regular basis firearms-wielding individuals. But the risk that we could have in New Zealand if firearms were to become normalised in local communities, in suburban areas, away from the hunting community—where firearms are held regularly and are carried regularly by individuals—is that it would be putting this country in a situation that I think many New Zealanders would be very, very concerned about.

Yes, there are rights of individuals to live their lives as they see fit, but the State must put in place restrictions on those rights and freedoms for the public benefit and for public safety, and I think that on the topic of firearms we must lean towards public safety. We must be cautious about policies that are put in place, and we must support legislation that sees the likes of military-style semi-automatic firearms having controls placed on them.

The question also of the general arming of the police is something that I think a lot of New Zealanders would have very strong views on, and the types of comments made in this minority report, which argues strongly for greater gun ownership, I think many New Zealanders would find distasteful and would disagree with.

This is a good piece of legislation. I am looking forward to debating it further in the Parliament and to its going through the Committee stage and third reading. I endorse the bill and ask the House to support it further.

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to this bill, the Arms (Military Style Semi-automatic Firearms and Import Controls) Amendment Bill. New Zealand First is pleased to have the opportunity to make our first input into this important bill, but we would strongly urge the House to re-examine several aspects of this bill with a view to amending certain of its provisions in order to bring the bill into line both with its stated intentions and with the intent of the principal Act.

New Zealand First is a firm advocate of the rights of responsible law-abiding firearms users, and we support any moves that will increase and improve the level of safety surrounding the availability and use of firearms in society without unnecessarily impinging on the rights of those law-abiding users. We would like to support this bill, but we cannot in all good conscience do so while it remains in its present form. There are certain aspects of the bill’s construction that we intend to address by way of a Supplementary Order Paper.

We are concerned, as are many correspondents from within the law-abiding firearms community, about the potential for any semi-automatic firearm to be declared a military-style semi-automatic firearm under the regulatory provisions of the Act, and we have doubts that the requirement for a separate Act of Parliament to validate any such regulations provides a sufficient safeguard against any such declaration being made counter to the intent of the primary Act, that being the Arms Act 1983. New Zealand First contends that the intent of the primary Act was very clear in its desire to draw a distinction between those firearms that were obviously of military style and those that were of obviously sporting configuration. To that end, we would prefer to see an additional clause inserted further to the provisions of new section 74A to the effect and with the intention of ensuring that no regulation shall be made in respect of the definition of “military style semi-automatic firearm” if that definition is contrary to the intent of the principal Act.

We are also concerned, as are many lawful firearms users, about the issue of pistol grips. We note from a reading of the background material to the bill that many submitters to the Law and Order Committee contended that even a fully free-standing military pattern pistol grip was not of material importance in terms of the potential danger to public safety purported to be posed by semi-automatic firearms. It is our belief and concern that the bill, in fact, makes the definition of “pistol grip” less clear and concise than is the case in the existing legislation, rather than more so. We are concerned that the regulatory provisions of the bill with regard to pistol grips may indicate a desire in certain quarters to restrict access by the law-abiding firearms community to semi-automatics generally on what we would describe as the contestable grounds that firearms that resemble those of a military pattern are somehow inherently more dangerous than those that do not or that have a more commonly recognised sporting configuration. It is our opinion that any such actual potential danger from semi-automatic firearms was addressed by the restrictions on magazine capacity for both rim fire and centre fire firearms in the 1992 regulations.

We are bound to accept at face value the bill’s contention that regulatory authorities must have the flexibility to respond to changes in manufacturing design, but it remains our belief that thumbholes and Dragunov stocks do not, of themselves, contain any real or potential threat to public safety. It is true that pistol grips allow for a better hold and for more accurate placing of shots, and it was for this reason that the manufacturers of military arms adopted this design feature from early sporting and hunting rifles, whose use of the pistol grip pre-dates its inclusion in military long guns. But it does not follow, in our estimation, that the availability of a pistol grip, even a fully free-standing one of the pattern commonly regarded as being military-style with regards to a semi-automatic rifle, provides for any greater inherent or potential danger to public safety. The inclusion of a fully free-standing pistol grip may allow an assault rifle to be fired with one hand or from the hip, but this is only of advantage if the weapon is capable of fully automatic fire, and all such firearms have long since been banned from civilian use in New Zealand.

In addition, genuine assault rifles that include a fully automatic function, those capable of what is more commonly known as machine-gun fire—for the benefit of members who may not be familiar with the difference—are in this modern day generally of short carbine construction and are not available. And even their civilianised, semi-automatic counterparts are not available to civilian holders of A and E category firearms licences, because the weapons themselves are physically too short to be owned on anything other than a licence that has a pistol endorsement. The length and weight of a long gun as it is defined in New Zealand law would preclude its accurate one-handed operation in any practical application, even with a free-standing pistol grip, and there is no advantage that I can see in firing any such weapon from the hip, given that the accurate placement of shots from this firing position is dependent on the visual tracing of rounds fired in very rapid succession at a rate far in excess of the rate of fire that it is possible to obtain from a semi-automatic firearm, which requires a separate pull of the trigger to facilitate the discharge of each subsequent round. Again, New Zealand First believes that even if a person were capable of rapid trigger-pulling at superhuman speed, the 1992 restrictions on magazine capacity would negate any advantage that this unlikely ability may provide.

In addition to this, there is the reality of the issue of the degree to which the pistol grip or thumbhole may be said to be incorporated into the stock of the firearm in question. It is this issue that is at the heart of the case of Lincoln v New Zealand Police. The firearm at the centre of the case in question was a Heckler and Koch SL8, which has a thumbhole stock. The stock in question quite clearly does not incorporate a free-standing pistol grip, as the learned judge correctly determined, and the police’s contention that it did forms the basis for the suspicion widely held in the firearms community that some of the police headquarters have a not very well hidden agenda to restrict or deny access to semi-automatic firearms by law-abiding firearms licence holders generally. One of the other firearms held up as an exhibit in the case was an AK-47 copy, which had a connecting rod fitted between the base of the pistol grip and the butt of the stock in what is equally clearly a blatant and, I may say, a rather crude attempt to circumvent the letter of the law, and which I believe that most reasonable firearms users would also agree breaches the spirit of the law. That spirit needs to be observed both ways, and if the police generally desire to uphold that spirit, then they should have no objection to the inclusion of the amendments to proposed section 74A, as I have suggested.

I would contend that the principal Act makes it very clear indeed what does and what does not constitute a free-standing military pattern pistol grip. It is not for the police to seek to rewrite the legislation as it is passed by this House; that is not the way democracy works in this country. I would also add that even in the case of the AK-47 copy with the rod between the base of the grip and the butt of the stock, as with the thumbhole or Dragunov stock, the presence of any physical barrier that impinges on the forearm of the user prevents the pistol grip from being held effectively in a one-handed fashion, because the hand is not able to be held directly behind the grip. This is a false concern.

New Zealand First is also not satisfied that the bill will sufficiently restrict access to powerful or realistic replica airguns by those purchasers who may have criminal intent. It is our belief that any airgun capable of generating a muzzle energy beyond a prescribed limit should be available only to firearms licence holders. At present only pre-charged pneumatic airguns are subject to this restriction. It is of concern to New Zealand First that these replica firearms and powerful airguns are all too often sought after by people who would not be granted firearms licences were they to apply for them, on the grounds that their reasons for wanting those firearms would not be proper and sufficient. We do not believe that people who would ordinarily be denied real firearms should be able to obtain the next best thing either.

We note a concern widely held throughout the firearms community that the bill focuses on extra restrictions on New Zealand’s 230,000 licensed firearms owners yet fails to implement a single regulation that will punish the misuse of firearms by the criminal fraternity. We agree with these sentiments entirely.

Finally, and of great importance to this House and to the validity of this bill, is the fact that it contains a basic error, which if left uncorrected will exclude a large number of .22 rifles from its ambit. In Part 1 clause 4(1)(a)(ii) and (iii) define a calibre of .22 inches or less. The word “calibre” is somewhat interchangeable in terms of firearms terminology. The actual diameter or calibre of a .22 bullet is 0.224 of an inch, which is obviously larger than the definition given. If this error is not corrected, no semi-automatic .22 rifle in New Zealand will be covered by the bill. I own three such rifles myself and under this bill as it stands there will be nothing stopping me from going online and buying 30-round banana mags or 50-round box mags, or indeed fitting them for belt feed if I so desire, in true Rambo fashion.

We would like to support this bill and we give notice to this House that we will be introducing a Supplementary Order Paper in order to address the areas of concern we have highlighted. We would urge the House to support this Supplementary Order Paper in order that we may reconsider giving our support to this bill. Thank you.

I learnt more about guns in the last 5 minutes than I knew in my lifetime. I am not sure whether it is right or wrong and I am totally confused by it. It was certainly a masterpiece of a speech on guns. I will not take a lot of time on this Arms (Military Style Semi-automatic Firearms and Import Controls) Amendment Bill, because I think we have pretty well summed it up tonight already, and it seems that pretty much around the House there is unanimous agreement on the necessity for it. I want to comment briefly on the eloquent introduction by Minister Tolley, and certainly by the chairman of the Law and Order Committee, Jacqui Dean, on this bill. It seeks to alter the Arms Act 1983 to define a military-style firearm versus a traditional hunting gun—and we have heard a lot about that from the last speaker, Richard Prosser—and to provide for an appeal process for those people bringing guns into the country who think they should not be included in this legislation. It also places restrictions on airguns that replicate real guns. There are currently no restrictions on the import of those types of guns.

If you go online and look at the type of airgun that you can import, it is quite staggering. The models of them replicate all sorts of real-life guns, and, certainly, I think, it creates quite a dangerous position in our community where anyone can get hold of these types of guns, and they are threatening to those around us. Police estimate that the type of event where people use these guns to threaten people takes place on average about once a week, which is pretty worrying when you think about it from that perspective, and the ramifications of that of course can be pretty serious as well.

The discussion regarding regulatory powers again reared its head in the course of debate on this bill. There was mention made in relation to section 74 earlier in the night. As a result of this the police will explore the formation of an arms advisory forum, which I think has got some great potential for both the police and the outcomes this bill provides for. Unfortunately, as with everything else in any country in the world, the vast majority of law-abiding citizens who deal with life in general without threatening anyone and without causing any problem are again being compromised by the activities of a very few people who use this type of armoury and this type of environment to create problems for the rest of us. It is a great shame that we have got to legislate to restrict the activities of a whole lot of people when, in fact, it is only a very few people who are causing that problem.

It would be amazing to display, as I said earlier, the pictures of these replica-type arms. They are quite extraordinary and they are so freely available. I guess the other challenge for us as a Parliament is to control the importation of those arms by any kind of a market, because in fact they can be brought into the country just by buying them on the internet—a challenge, I think, for all. Of course, I understand that these arms, or these types of replicas, are already banned in Australia.

The Rangitīkei electorate, the home of Linton, Ōhākea, and Waiōuru, has a special interest in this type of legislation as the firing ranges at all three of those locations are the recipients of some very real military weaponry, as it is tested. I think that we probably have more military-type guns owned by the military in the Rangitīkei than any other part of New Zealand. So it is pretty important to us that this legislation is managed through the House in a good fashion. I have no problem commending this bill to the House and wish it every success as it goes along. Thank you.

Labour supports the Arms (Military Style Semi-automatic Firearms and Import Controls) Amendment Bill, and it was interesting to see the real level of interest shown by the people wanting to make submissions on this issue. There were some 257 written submissions and, of those, 71 people were heard before the Law and Order Committee. I think this is pretty much a reflection of New Zealand as a country where traditionally a lot of people have been keen on hunting. We have got nearly 230,000 people who are licensed to own firearms. I declare my interest as being one of those persons. I use firearms for pest control on my farm, and when I get the chance I enjoy deerstalking.

I think that we do have a problem with firearms in this country, but it is not one that is being addressed by this bill. Actually, the worry that I have is not encompassed by this bill at all. It is the fact that this year we have seen, too often, the inadvertent shooting of one hunter by another hunter who has not followed the basic rule of firearm ownership, and that is: identify your target. I know when I hunt with professionals how seriously they take the issue of safety. There is no room for risk. If we were spending time in the House on anything tonight, perhaps it should be on how we can ensure that people who are licensed to be firearm owners actually understand the need to treat lethal weapons with the respect they deserve.

The debate at the select committee was pretty much about a balance of rights—the rights of New Zealanders to legitimately own firearms to use for pest control or hunting versus the right of the public to be protected from the proliferation of weapons in the hands of people who are improper people to hold those weapons. If we look at the history of this country, we see that we have not been without incidents of mass slaughter of people by individuals, sometimes for reasons of mental health or whatever. I think of the case of Stanley Graham, early in the last century. He did not have a military-style semi-automatic; he had a single-shot rifle. Nevertheless, he killed 10 people, including a number of policemen. We think of David Gray and of course, not in New Zealand but within our recent memory, we think of Anders Breivik. He did have military-style semi-automatic weapons and was able to engage in the mass slaughter of innocent people in a way that horrifies every member of this House. So the need for balance is very clear.

The bill does four things, and I endorse each of the purposes that are set out. First of all, it defines what a military-style semi-automatic weapon is. The definition had been thrown into some doubt by a High Court decision in, I think, Palmerston North, by Justice Mallon, which the police said created uncertainty as to how you define a military-style semi-automatic. Well, I think that the definition under this bill is pretty clear: a firearm that, after being loaded, fires and ejects a cartridge case and that chambers another cartridge with each pull of the trigger. That is the semi-automatic side of it. The military-style side of it is set out in other characteristics: a magazine that contains either 10 or 15 rounds, and a firearm that has a pistol grip. I support that definition.

I also support the allowing of regulations to be made to alter that definition. Regulations can be a useful tool of the Government to respond immediately and without the detailed process of the passage of legislation. But that in itself has some risks. When you make changes by regulation, you deprive the public of a chance to make submissions on the legislation. That is an important part of democracy. You also deprive this House of the ability to scrutinise whether those regulations are justified. I think the select committee did the right thing in saying that the power to make regulations was a restricted power and that there needed to be subordinate validating legislation brought in within a specified period of time. I think that finds the appropriate balance.

Thirdly, the bill allows an appeal to the District Court where a firearms owner believes that his or her firearm has been wrongly classified as a military-style semi-automatic.

Fourthly, but not the least of the provisions in this bill, the bill provides a restriction on the importation of airguns that have the appearance of a restricted weapon, a pistol, or a military-style semi-automatic. It was of concern to the select committee that the police, literally on a weekly basis, are dealing with cases where somebody brandishes a firearm that could be mistaken for a lethal weapon. This happens sometimes with people who are drunk or drugged. The police are cast in a hugely unfortunate situation of seeing somebody with a weapon that may be lethal. Their lives might be in danger, the lives of other innocent people might be in danger, and perhaps on rare occasions the individual with an imitation firearm can end up being shot.

I think it makes sense to prevent the importation of airguns that could be mistaken for real weapons. The police take these incidents very seriously. It is a priority response that involves armed police, and it sometimes involves the armed offenders squad. They believe that this is a change that is appropriate, and I agree with the position they have taken.

Another issue at the Law and Order Committee was the question of community input into the making of regulations and legislation. I know a lot of the leaders in the hunting community. I know them to be responsible people, and I know them to be people who have a detailed knowledge and expertise, which means that their input into the technical side of legislation and regulations could be really helpful. Labour supports the setting up of a statutory body where people can give advice on this sort of legislation. But we were told that making an amendment to the legislation was beyond the scope of this bill. It was also a matter of common sense that if you are going to set up a statutory advisory body, it is not just for the very narrow range of issues such as those we are addressing in the House tonight; it is on the wider area of proper legislation and regulation of firearms in the community. So we maintain our support for the idea of having a statutory advisory body, and we would certainly support the recommendation of the select committee that this is something that does need attention, albeit not in this bill as it is set out.

I want to finish by commenting on the ACT minority view on this bill. When I read it I thought it was a submission from the National Rifle Association in the United States, which takes the approach that it is an absolute right for any individual to control a lethal weapon and that the State has no role in interfering with that right. I beg to differ. I have seen the results, as has every member of this House, of such a policy in the United States. In many states you can go into a store, without a permit, and purchase a pistol that can be concealed, or purchase a military-style automatic weapon, and time and again we have seen the tragic consequences of such a policy.

I say to the ACT Party, get real. Make sure that in this country we can have legislation that applies proper restrictions without unduly restricting the legitimate right of responsible people in this country to use firearms. The fact that the ACT Party gets less than 1 percent in the polls—actually, zero percent at the moment—is a reflection of the fact that it takes such an extreme libertarian view. I believe that this legislation, by comparison, gets the balance right, which is why the Labour Party will be supporting this bill though to its third reading.

I would just like to support the comments that were made by my colleague Kris Faafoi earlier, who is also a member of the Law and Order Committee with me, in congratulating the chair of the committee, Jacqui Dean. I also congratulate the Minister the Hon Judith Collins, and the Hon Anne Tolley, on bringing this bill, the Arms (Military Style Semi-automatic Firearms and Import Controls) Amendment Bill, to the House. It is a very important bill, and it is important because it is focused on the safety of the general public. This amendment bill is in line with National’s programme to build a safer New Zealand with a focus on staying tough on criminals and protecting the rights of victims.

I would like to come back to Mr Richard Prosser’s speech, in which he made some very good points and went into a lot of detail about firearms. But only a very small percentage of New Zealanders would ever be involved in that sort of detail or would ever understand that sort of detail. With many of these imitation firearms, air rifles, and air pistols in circulation now in New Zealand, most members of the general public would never be able to tell the difference between a legitimate firearm and one that is an air rifle or an imitation. It is very, very difficult to tell the difference between them.

In terms of how dangerous they are, let us not forget that it was very, very sad to see the loss of Sergeant Don Wilkinson, who in the performance of his duties was chased down by, I think, two offenders. He was shot with an air rifle and killed. The reality now with these high-powered air rifles is that they are able to deliver a fatal shot. They are able to kill people.

That brings me to the tightening up of the import controls. I think it is so important that we have taken this positive step in terms of now giving the police a lot more control and oversight of who is responsible enough to import these types of weapons into the country. When an armed and dangerous offender walks into a bank carrying a military-style replica or PSP air rifle and shoves it in the face of a bank employee, the psychological stress and harm is no less diminished than had it been a high-powered rifle. People do not know the difference; they cannot tell the difference. There is no upside. Mr Clendon made a very good point. Even in relation to an offender, if an offender picks up a firearm, even if it is a replica, and walks into a bank, he is probably asking for what he gets. However, he is putting the police in a situation. When they confront him they have no choice but to treat that firearm as a proper high-powered weapon, even if it is a replica or an air rifle.

So it is with great pleasure that I am able to stand in support of this bill. I support the classification regime, which will be very similar to that administered between 1992 and 2008, and which was generally understood and accepted by the firearms community. But this bill will add a lot more clarity around that legislation. So it is with great pleasure that I do stand in support of this bill. Thank you.

I just intend to take a short call to reiterate Labour’s support for the Arms (Military Style Semi-automatic Firearms and Import Controls) Amendment Bill. Essentially what this bill sets out to achieve is to make the job of the police a little easier in terms of definitions of the weapons that they may find they are dealing with in their day-to-day jobs. Of course, the genesis of this legislation came from the decision made by Justice Mallon in the High Court in Palmerston North, which the police contend made it more difficult for them to define which firearms are military-style semi-automatic weapons. I have—and many colleagues will have done the same—spent some time out on the beat with the police. For those colleagues who have not had that experience yet, I wholeheartedly encourage them to undertake it.

It makes the job of the police easier when there are clear definitions in terms of their role, in terms of what they can and cannot do, and in terms of what the public can and cannot do. Then the police have very clear parameters about how to enforce the law. That, I think, is essentially what this bill is about. It ensures that the police have simple and clear parameters around the military-style weapons that they may encounter when carrying out their jobs. I understand that in this case, and in many cases, some people may feel that this bill in some way affects their civil liberties, or affects their right to do whatever they will. But that is the natural balance that we have in a democracy—the balance between people’s civil liberties and the community’s right to be able to ensure that people are safe, and that we give the police the tools to be able to carry out their role as best they can.

That, I suppose, is why I have very significant concerns about the minority report offered by the ACT Party. I think it is so far out of touch with where New Zealand is at. I must admit I probably would have completely missed it had Jami-Lee Ross not referred to it in a slightly obscure fashion by not naming the party attached to the report. But this is old-fashioned, United States Second Amendment right-to-bear-arms stuff. As my colleague Phil Goff pointed out, this has demonstrably failed in the United States. Its Second Amendment came about in 1791, and frankly that is where it belongs—many centuries ago. It is not, I think, an attitude or an approach to law and order that is relevant today or that should be tolerated in a country like New Zealand today.

I will be interested to see how the current member for the ACT Party, John Banks, will vote on this. I do not think that that minority report is the type of view that he would support personally. I hope that perhaps with his influence in the House the ACT Party’s view may change. The Labour Party does support this bill. It is a significant step in ensuring the good rule of law in our community and the safety of our community. For that reason we are more than happy to support it.

I am pleased to take a brief call in the second reading of the Arms (Military Style Semi-automatic Firearms and Import Controls) Amendment Bill. There has been quite a lot of discussion on the fact that some of those who follow the pursuit of hunting in this country would like to have more flexibility around the sorts of weapons that they are able to use for their sport. I guess it is about balancing the need to have greater safety and security in our community. I would have to say that I have had the unfortunate experience of seeing the damage that a firearm does to the human body. If there was one thing that I would like to see less of in our country, it is that.

One of my former colleagues talked about the fact that we actually have people in this country who train these sorts of weapons on others deliberately. That is why I am more in favour of anything we can do to control the use of firearms that would in any way—accidental or otherwise—damage those in our society. Thank you.