Arms Amendment Bill (No 3)

As the chair of the Law and Order Committee, which I understand from the Minister’s speech will have the task of considering this bill, I would like to take a relatively brief call. I also acknowledge the previous speaker, Simon Power, and his compliments to the former chairperson of the committee, Janet Mackey, and his description of her as a very, very good chair. I certainly would not disagree with that at all. I also compliment the previous members of the Law and Order Committee and the work they did on the No. 2 bill, and in particular the work of the chair of the committee at the time, Janet Mackey.

For the benefit of the House and the wider public, I will restate the fundamental tenets of this bill as I understand it in terms of my reading. This bill amends the Arms Act and it replaces the Arms Amendment Bill (No 2) that was introduced in July 1999. Unlike that bill, this bill will not include provision for the establishment of comprehensive firearms registration. However, the passage of this bill will enable New Zealand to become party to the firearms protocol. It is important to restate that that protocol is against the illicit manufacturing of, and trafficking in, firearms—their parts and components and ammunition—supplementing the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organised Crime. I have no problem with international agencies—including the United Nations, obviously, in the very critical work it has to do in our fight against highly organised transnational crime. I would say that anything that improves international cooperation and reinforces some of those protocols must by its nature be a very, very good thing. Obviously we are well aware that this is a very, very serious issue internationally.

The Arms Amendment Bill (No 3) also includes a number of amendments to enhance the effectiveness of the Arms Act, as I understand it from my first reading, and to assist the police in their enforcement role in respect of this legislation. For example, there will be new offences relating to the possession for illegal purposes of body armour designed for protection against firearm projectiles—as, again, was outlined in the Minister’s speech—and increases to some of the maximum penalties for offences under the Arms Act, as was also outlined very clearly in the Minister’s speech.

It seems to me, upon reading this bill, that it strikes a balance between strengthening New Zealand’s ability to prevent arms from being used in transnational crime and minimising the costs of complying with the firearms protocol. It is not, as has previously been stated, a vehicle to introduce a comprehensive domestic firearms registration system; rather, it will help to ensure that New Zealand has effective control systems and record-keeping on the export, import, and manufacture of firearms.

I am very sure that all members of the Law and Order Committee will undertake their very important task of considering this bill, and the submissions on it, with absolute goodwill and integrity. I am hopeful that the process will not be used for some sort of political grandstanding exercise. I am sure it will not be. There are some very important fundamental issues in this bill. I note from the explanatory note of the bill that a number of Government agencies were consulted. I also note that we are advised: “Police also sought the views of some representatives of firearms owner groups, in particular, the New Zealand Council of Licensed Firearms Owners, the New Zealand Pistol Association, the Sports Trade Industry, and the New Zealand Mountain Safety Council.” All those organisations do very, very positive work on issues of firearms safety. I absolutely agree with the previous speaker in anticipating that there will be quite a significant number of submissions on this bill, and I will look forward, as a member of the committee, to the very considered submissions from those organisations and, of course, from the professionals in the New Zealand Police as well.

I will not take any further time, because I am well aware that a number of speakers want to follow me with their input on this bill. As chair of the Law and Order Committee I think I can say that we look forward to our task. We will certainly be doing our very best to give the various submissions that we will receive on this bill very, very close and careful consideration. In the end, again, I guess from what I can see, this bill will attempt to strike the right balance. Obviously we will recognise New Zealand’s obligations in terms of international protocols, and do what we can to ensure the ongoing international fight against transnational organised crime when it comes to the illicit trade in, and supply of, firearms. We look forward to working on this bill, and the submissions that will come to us in the course of our hearings on it.

In the 6 minutes prior to the dinner break, let me say that I really do hate to shatter the illusion of cooperation and understanding that seemed to flow from the National and Labour Party speakers who preceded me. But let us not forget that the Arms Amendment Bill (No 2), which this bill replaces, was introduced by a National Government. It was a National bill to bring about gun registration and to require aspects of the Thorp report—erroneous, misguided, and flawed as they were—to be brought into legislation. The fact that the National Government, led by Jenny Shipley, sought to impose such laws upon the farming, rural, and hunting communities of New Zealand was absolutely astounding, but it happened to go hand in hand with a number of other liberal things that that National Government did, was party to, supported, and progressed, such as the lowering of the drinking age.

National has gone through a transformation since then in the Law and Order Committee, which was ably led by Janet Mackey. The one regret New Zealand First has is that after Janet Mackey’s sterling work, the great chairmanship she brought to that committee, and her presentation of a report that made it very clear to this Government that it was misguided in pursuing the agenda of registration and buy-back of military style semi-automatics and the like, the report embarrassed the Minister of Police and frightened him into not presenting it to the House and not allowing a debate on it—because, in the cosy little arrangement that exists within the old club, National and Labour, neither of them wanted to be embarrassed by the findings of that report. The tragedy is that Janet Mackey was never rewarded with an Associate Minister job or even made a senior private secretary to some insignificant Minister, let alone given a ministerial job.

There she sits, due to leave this House after many years of loyally serving the Labour Party, having not been given a ministerial portfolio. We ask ourselves why that is so. The only conclusion we can come to is that she was fair, firm, competent, and productive, and that she did a good job, and that that is not the sort of leadership the Labour Party wants anywhere near its Government benches, let alone in its ministerial portfolios. It would rather have someone like John Tamihere there. That is a sad indictment. Janet Mackey deserves some credit for doing a very difficult job. She produced a result that was very much disliked by many of her caucus colleagues, but it was a fair and accurate report, and that is why the Minister never allowed it to be debated in this House.

Let us get to the nuts and bolts. This bill is rubbish. New Zealand First will not be supporting it, because it seeks to enshrine in New Zealand legislation some toadyish behaviour by this Government to cede this country’s sovereignty and the Government’s responsibility to a bunch of knee-jerk United Nations representatives in some insignificant committee that purportedly wants to deal with illicit trading in small arms, ammunition, and spare parts. We have done a review of this—the Law and Order Committee reviewed this treaty. It concluded that it could not report back to the House one way or the other on whether the treaty was a good idea. So here we have a situation whereby the Law and Order Committee analysed the Protocol Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, their Parts and Components and Ammunition, supplementing the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime, and could not agree that it added one jot to the betterment of New Zealand law. All it did was to sign us up with a bunch of toady Third World countries of dubious reputation, such as Azerbaijan, Saudi Arabia, and a few others that are themselves steeped in such activities.

What we found in talking to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade officials and the police is that New Zealand does not have a problem in manufacturing firearms. Our manufacturing capability is minuscule. We do not have a problem in illicit trading. Indeed, all the officials could point to as justification for this bill was the illicit trading in Government-owned firearms in the Solomons. Excuse me? The only activity they could identify as being in any way reflected in this bill was not happening in New Zealand; it was happening in the Solomons. And it was not a trade in illicit firearms; those firearms were purchased and owned by the legitimate Government, which failed to secure them. It had corrupt police, and it could not control them—and now we have this bill! This is rubbish. The fact is, New Zealand First would support changes to the law that deal with the nonsense—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member, but the time has come for me to leave the Chair.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Debate interrupted.