Arms Amendment Bill (No 3)

, on behalf of the Minister of Police: I move, That the Arms Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a first time. I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Law and Order Committee. This bill amends the Arms Act, which has not been significantly amended since 1992. The bill is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It replaces the previous Arms Amendment Bill (No 2), which was introduced in July 1999, and reported back from the select committee in February 2001 without a recommendation as to whether the bill should proceed. After careful consideration of advice from the New Zealand Police, the Government has decided that unlike the previous bill, this bill will not include provision for the establishment of a comprehensive firearms registration regime—that is, a requirement for firearms owners to apply to the police for the registration of all firearms in their possession.

There is insignificant evidence to conclude that the benefits of such a registration regime would be justified through benefits to crime prevention and detection. It is not realistic to expect that it would be possible to register all, or nearly all, of the firearms in New Zealand, including those in the possession of the criminal community. Without being able to guarantee that, the effectiveness of the registration system is seriously compromised.

It is already the case that at the time of relicensing with police, firearms licence applicants voluntarily allow the recording of details of firearms they possess. This acts as a property-recording device, and provides a cross-reference when checking the security arrangements required for firearms. The Arms Amendment Bill (No 3) addresses the minimum legislative requirements for New Zealand compliance with the Protocol Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, their Parts and Components and Ammunition—the firearms protocol—which supplements the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime.

The passage of this bill, along with minor amendments to regulations, will enable New Zealand to become party to that firearms protocol. Cabinet has authorised New Zealand to deposit an instrument of accession to the protocol, subject to the completion of the parliamentary treaty examination process and the passage of implementing legislation.

The Law and Order Committee has reported back on the protocol. Although it did not reach agreement on whether New Zealand should become a party to the protocol, the Government is proceeding with the Bill, since the House will be in a better position to judge the matter, now that the legislative consequences are being set out in this bill.

Accession to the protocol is consistent with New Zealand’s involvement in multilateral initiatives against transnational organised crime, and its commitment to collective efforts to prevent the illicit trafficking of firearms and combating terrorism.

In addition to enabling New Zealand to meet international standards set out in the protocol, the bill will include a number of amendments to enhance the effectiveness of the Arms Act and to assist the police with their enforcement role in respect of this legislation. Part one of the bill amends definitions in the current Act, and extends the range of activities for which a dealer’s licence will be required—for example, the hiring out of firearms, or the manufacture of ammunition in the course of business. The bill amends provisions relating to the importation of firearms, parts of firearms, restricted weapons, starting pistols, and ammunition.

The current seizure provisions for illegally imported firearms are extended to include ammunition. In the main, these provisions relate to the minimum requirements of the firearms protocol. This part also provides that firearms licences will not be issued unless the police are satisfied that the applicant has, or has access to, secure facilities for the storage of firearms. This will also apply to when firearms owners are seeking the renewal of their licences.

There is a provision for the police to temporarily suspend a person’s firearms licence when they are considering the revocation of the licence. This is where there are grounds for deciding that a person is no longer a fit and proper person to be in possession of a firearm, where the person has not had his or her firearm securely stored, or the person has had his or her licence seized by police following a search of that person or that person’s property in relation to criminal activity or suspected criminal activity. This suspension is to prevent the person from acquiring new firearms during the time it takes to process the revocation.

Part 2 of the bill comprises amendments relating to criminal activity. It creates a new offence of manufacturing, by way of business, firearms, air guns, restricted weapons or their parts, or ammunition, without a dealer’s licence; a new offence of contravening the legal requirements for importing or exporting firearms, restricted weapons, starting pistols, or ammunition; and a new offence of altering, falsifying, obliterating, or removing an identifying mark on a firearm without lawful and sufficient purpose.

Offences will be punishable by up to 5 years’ imprisonment or by a fine of up to $10,000, or both. This will enable the Proceeds of Crime Act and the money-laundering offences in the Crimes Act to apply to these offences.

There are some new offences relating to the possession for illegal purposes of body armour designed for protection against firearm projectiles. There are increases to some of the maximum penalties under the Arms Act, and a new order of the court is established, applicable to many of the offences in the Arms Act, which is the suspension of a firearms licence, a dealer’s licence, or an endorsement on a firearms licence.

Suspensions are to be for a period of at least 3 months, as determined by the court. The prospect of losing their licences and firearms for such periods should further discourage firearms licence holders from contravening the Arms Act.

There is clarification of the current provisions in the Arms Act that relate to searches of property or people, and the seizure of firearms, air guns, imitation firearms, restricted weapons, ammunition, and body armour where the police have reason to suspect that an offence has been or is about to be committed. There is a provision for the seizure of a person’s firearms licence, pending suspension prior to revocation.

There are consequential amendments to the Extradition Act and the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act so that these Acts apply to the new offences of unlawful manufacturing, unlawful trafficking, and unlawful modification of firearms markings. A number of technical inconsistencies in the current Arms Act are also remedied.

The Arms Amendment Bill (No 3) strikes a balance between strengthening New Zealand’s ability to prevent arms being used in transnational crime, and minimising the cost of complying with the firearms protocol. It is not a vehicle to introduce a comprehensive domestic firearms registration system; rather, it will help ensure that New Zealand has effective control systems and record-keeping for the export, import, and manufacture of firearms. I expect that many people will make submissions to the committee, and this will enable the matters addressed in the bill to be thoroughly canvassed. I commend the bill to the House.

I am pleased to see my colleagues Ron Mark and Ken Shirley in the House to debate the Arms Amendment Bill (No 3), because those gentlemen were members of the Law and Order Committee along with myself during the last Parliament.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: A very good committee.

It was a good committee, I say to Mr Shirley. It was well chaired by Janet Mackey. It was that committee that had to deal with the submissions on the Arms Amendment Bill (No 2), and its report back to Parliament. From memory, there were some 6,000 submissions. I think that is correct, and I am sure a member to speak after me will correct me if I am wrong. This was the first select committee I had sat on during my time as a member of Parliament. Janet Mackey, Ken Shirley, and Ron Mark sat on that committee. Brian Neeson and Tony Steel might have been there as well. Judith Tizard—

💬 Georgina Beyer: I was on it.

Georgina Beyer was on that committee. That is right. The interesting thing is how the select committee process works. As the Minister rightly pointed out, this bill was originally sent to the select committee by the previous National Government, and it was well intentioned. But when members of the committee sat down to go through the bill, and listened to the submissions that were brought before the committee, it became apparent not only to myself and other National members on that committee, and not only to Mr Shirley and Mr Mark, but, more particularly and more interestingly, to the Government members on that committee that the Arms Amendment Bill (No 2) would not work, in a million years.

Even the police advisers to the select committee, towards the end were saying that it did not look that tidy. The reason was simple. If there were a registration system for every single firearm in New Zealand we would essentially be saying to the criminal element of New Zealand: “Look, would you mind coming in and registering your firearm?”. That was never going to happen, and that was essentially the fall-down position of this bill. The more we heard about how guns come into the hands of people who use them for ill means, the more we realised that, actually, a registration system for the firearm itself would penalise only those well-intentioned, law-abiding citizens who would bring their firearms forward to be registered. The last thing somebody who is going to rob a bank will do, is to say: “Before I rob that bank, I must dash in and get this firearm registered.”

That was never going to happen. So we travelled the country, Janet Mackey, Ken Shirley, Ron Mark, and myself. Stephen Franks was there a bit, and that other guy from the Alliance who was here for one term—Kevin Campbell. Kevin Campbell travelled with us from time to time, as well.

💬 Hon Harry Duynhoven: He was a good bloke.

He was a good bloke; he gave a good valedictory. It became clear that the legislation was never going to work. So we said to Janet Mackey, who did a fine job of chairing that select committee, that she had to go back to her caucus and tell George Hawkins that it was not a runner. I do not know whether she did, but what happened was that the bill was reported back with the committee being unable to reach a recommendation. It was reported back, actually, on 22 February 2001 and there it sat on the Order Paper until now. That was over 3 years ago. From time to time the shadow Leader of the House, Gerry Brownlee, and I have queried this. After the business statement on Thursday, Mr Brownlee would often ask how we were getting on with the Arms Amendment Bill (No 2). It was pretty obvious that Mr Hawkins’ office struggled with this—amongst other things—and in the end the Arms Amendment Bill (No 3) was born of that frustration and the legacy of the Law and Order Committee in the Parliament before this.

This bill is significant not for what it does, but what it does not do. Even Judith Tizard pointed out it was pointless trying to get people to register firearms who were not that way disposed. So we find ourselves now with a bill that does not register firearms, actually. What it does is try to drive our domestic legislative agenda to a point where it coincides with more UN protocols. Regardless of one’s view of the UN—and we could stand here all night talking about the UN—the fact is this legislation is designed to do two things. The first is to drive our domestic legislation closer to that protocol. I believe the Minister herself said during her contribution that she could not guarantee it would meet the protocol at that point if the bill was passed by this Parliament, but it would get legs to get partly there. So there is a protocol against the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, their parts, and components that supplements the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime. It creates offences around the illicit manufacture of firearms and their parts, and their trafficking. That seems fair enough. It is difficult to argue with that.

The National Party will not be opposing the passage of this legislation to the select committee; what it will be doing is saying that at this point we will support the bill to a select committee, but we will listen with interest to submissions. One thing is for sure—as Ken Shirley and Ron Mark know—this bill will attract large numbers of submissions. There is nothing surer than that. The gun lobby, as well as those around various other organisations, will definitely want to make submissions on the bill. At that point the other amendments will, no doubt, be addressed by those submitters—issues around body armour, search powers, seizure of licences, temporary suspension of licences, and, importantly, as pointed out by Judith Tizard, one positive and significant step in this bill relates to the storage and security of firearms and their components. That makes sense. It is a positive thing that the bill does, as opposed to it being more interesting for what it does not do, following on from the Arms Amendment Bill (No 2).

The other thing worth looking at is the air guns clauses. Those weapons, if one likes, are becoming more and more powerful. Some of them that have muzzle energy of a certain magnitude will be brought under the registration scheme, and that is a good thing. So we wait with interest to see whether the Arms Amendment Bill (No 3) draws as much attention as the Arms Amendment Bill (No 2), which as I said earlier, from recollection, had about 6,500 submissions. We sat through adjournments and goodness knows what else. It was very interesting. I learnt more about firearms in that 6 months than I ever had before.

The National Party will support the bill to select committee and we will listen with interest to what submitters say. The mistake of the Arms Amendment Bill (No 2) was that it was conceived, tabled, and sent to a select committee on the basis of the Thorp report without having had the benefit of submissions. This is one case where, even under an MMP environment, the select committee process between Government and Opposition members came to a sensible and rational conclusion, and we hope that the passage of the No. 3 bill allows us to have those same sorts of considerations.

Debate interrupted.