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 third time. This bill amends the Arms Act 1983 to clarify the definition of military-style semi-automatic firearms, known as MSSAs, and to place controls on the importation of airguns that look like real pistols, military-style semi-automatic firearms, or restricted weapons.

The bill does not radically change the status quo in respect of what constitutes a military-style semi-automatic firearm. A change in the definition was needed as a result of a 2010 High Court decision in Lincoln v New Zealand Police. This created a degree of uncertainty around the definition of military-style semi-automatic firearms and hence the police’s ability to determine which firearms would come under that definition. The bill returns the situation to a classification regime very similar to that administered between 1992 and 2009, but with added clarity. That regime was generally understood and accepted by the firearms community.

A military-style semi-automatic firearm will now be defined in a positive, straightforward manner as a semi-automatic firearm that has one or more specified features, rather than, as with the present definition in the Arms Act, in the negative as a semi-automatic firearm that is not in sporting configuration.

The bill introduces a right of appeal to the District Court for a person who is affected by a determination that a particular airgun is a military-style semi-automatic firearm. Controls on the importation of airguns that look like real pistols, military-style semi-automatic firearms, or restricted weapons are needed because these airguns are being used for criminal purposes. These airguns are now classified as restricted airguns. Police estimate that there is at least one incident a week where an airgun that looks like a real pistol, a restricted weapon, or a military-style semi-automatic firearm has been presented, requiring an armed police response. Sometimes these involve a call-out of the armed offenders squad. This is a drain on police resources and creates risks for staff and the public.

The import controls in the bill for restricted airguns are the same import permit controls that apply to real pistols, military-style semi-automatic firearms, or restricted weapons. 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 be issued to allow for the legitimate importation of airguns for sporting and collection purposes, and the like.

The bill includes an amendment to eliminate the unnecessary regulation of fully automatic airguns used for airsoft and paintball sports. Fully automatic airguns used for these sports are currently declared as restricted weapons by the Arms (Restricted Weapons and Specially Dangerous Airguns) Order 1984. This does not accurately reflect their reduced ability to cause harm, and so the bill removes them from being classified as restricted weapons. They will still, however, be subject to the import controls applying to restricted airguns where they look like pistols, military-style semi-automatic firearms, or firearms capable of full automatic fire.

The bill was amended following its consideration by the Law and Order Committee. I once again would like to thank the Law and Order Committee for its careful consideration of the bill and for the refinements it made to the bill. The amended bill addresses the main concerns that the committee heard from submitters. In particular, the bill now includes an additional layer of parliamentary scrutiny of regulations that declare particular makes and models of firearms, or firearms of a stated description, to be military-style semi-automatic firearms or declare particular features of firearms to be features of a military-style semi-automatic firearm. Any regulations made by Order in Council under new section 74A(b) to (d) of the principal Act are to be confirmed by statute within a specified period. Such confirmation, which will usually be through a Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill, will provide Parliament with an opportunity to consider the policy behind the regulations. If Parliament does not confirm these regulations, they will be revoked.

In conclusion, the Arms (Military Style Semi-automatic Firearms and Import Controls) Amendment Bill improves the Arms Act 1983 by addressing two issues that need to be resolved with some urgency. Clarifying the definition of military-style semi-automatic firearms is in the interest of gun owners as it removes uncertainties around which of their firearms will have 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-automatic firearms. Placing controls on the importation of airguns that can be mistaken for real pistols, military-style semi-automatic firearms, or restricted weapons will limit their availability for criminal use and improve public safety. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to the third reading of the Arms (Military Style Semi-automatic Firearms and Import Controls) Amendment Bill. Yesterday in the general debate the Minister of Police took an opportunity to disagree with me on a number of things that were police portfolio related, and I respect her right to do that in this House. I look forward to continuing to disagree with her on a number of issues around police-related matters over the next couple of years. But I think one thing that we will agree on is the safety of our front-line police officers.

One issue in this piece of legislation that we are debating today will, I think, take some serious steps towards ensuring the safety of our front-line police officers, and that is the provision that will restrict the importation of airguns that have the appearance of the real thing. As the Minister of Police said in her contribution to the debate earlier on, there is at least one incident a week where an imitation of a military-style semi-automatic or a pistol is presented and police officers are forced to escalate that incident. Usually it means the calling out of our armed offenders squad—serious resources—and, of course, they have to take those call-outs very seriously because they do not know whether the firearm that has been presented is the real thing and could cause harm to members of the public, the people who are brandishing the weapon, or, of course, the police officers involved.

Our police officers hold an occupation—and it is not just a job—that very few in our country have. They go to work every day fully knowing that they could put themselves in serious danger and that—as was the case for, I think, at least 81 police officers here in New Zealand—they could pay the ultimate price. In terms of restricting the importation of these lookalike weapons, these weapons that look like military-style weapons and pistols, I think that this legislation is very good in terms of protecting our front-line officers. In that respect we will have one point in this piece of legislation that the Minister and I can agree on. As I say, 81 officers in New Zealand have paid the ultimate price serving their communities, and on 1 October this year we did commemorate those fallen officers.

This bill defines what a military-style semi-automatic firearm is. I am not a firearm enthusiast just by nature of not being around them when I was growing up. Essentially, the definition of a military-style semi-automatic is a firearm that has a magazine, ejects a cartridge and then loads another cartridge into the chamber, has 10 or 15 cartridges in that magazine, and has a pistol grip—that is now a military-style semi-automatic rifle.

I am sure that Richard Prosser, being a gun enthusiast, will have something more to say, in much greater detail, and he will elucidate to the rest of the House exactly what this means. For those at home that is the new definition of what a military-style semi-automatic is under the legislation. As the Minister said, it does clarify for the many gun enthusiasts out there in the community what a military-style semi-automatic is now.

We also did want to point to the regulation-making power in the legislation that we are debating today, because there was some concern at the Law and Order Committee—and this went through the Law and Order Committee that I sat on in a previous Parliament—from those who submitted on the bill that the regulation-making power gave police too much power in defining what these military-style semi-automatics are. I think it is good that the bill has been amended to make sure that there is a time frame in which subordinate legislation has to be passed through this House, for making any new regulations that come under actual legislation within this House.

This legislation was of great interest at the select committee. I understand there were over 250 submissions, and 71 people were heard in person. I guess when you think there are nearly a quarter of a million people holding firearms licences out there, it does not really surprise us as to the level of interest that this bill has created.

Another aspect of this bill that we think is a positive thing is that if there is a dispute around the classification of a firearm—if someone has brought something in and they think it passes the test, and the police force, or those who are looking at the firearm, disagree—that firearm owner can go to the District Court and launch an appeal to question whether or not that classification of that firearm is valid. I think that is a positive move given the serious concerns that the firearm owners had during the select committee process. I actually did sit on one select committee meeting on this bill in the last Parliament and it was full of gun enthusiasts who were very, very concerned about that point indeed.

I am not a firearm owner, but, as I said before, there are nearly a quarter of a million licensed firearm owners in New Zealand, so we know that the responsible ownership of firearms is very, very important to many Kiwis. I think that through the select committee process some changes have been made to, I hope, allay the fears of a lot of the gun enthusiasts out there who thought that they may get caught up in this and thought that their sporting use of firearms, or their hunting with firearms, may be affected by this. But I do hope that through the select committee process we have had the ability to allay the fears of those people who were worried about what this Parliament was doing.

There was one bone of contention from the Labour Party perspective at the select committee, and that was around the establishment of an independent reference group. It was something that we offered up as a bit of a safeguard against some of the concerns the firearms owners had at the time. But we understand that the view of the committee was that it was out of the scope of the bill and that the police are actually doing some of their own work to establish an arms advisory group. One thing that we mentioned in the second reading debate, I believe, was that we are hoping to keep a close eye on whether the police follow through on that work, because we do think there needs to be some expert advice given to the Minister and also to the police around some of the changes to the technology. It is rapidly changing, especially when you are looking at introducing regulations swiftly around the changes in technology around the police

I just wanted to finish by saying that the aspect of the bill around the restriction on the importation of lookalike weapons is, I think, very, very important to our front-line police officers and also to resourcing. As the Minister said, having one incident a week where a lookalike weapon has been presented and the police are escalating that into a serious issue is one too many, and we definitely support the part of the bill that restricts the importation of those lookalike weapons. So we do support this bill.

I get the feeling that Labour’s police spokesman might have stolen my debate notes on this bill, the Arms (Military Style Semi-automatic Firearms and Import Controls) Amendment Bill, because I am in the rare, but not unheard of, situation of agreeing almost word for word with the contribution that Mr Faafoi has made.

💬 Sue Moroney: Including what he said about Anne Tolley?

Well, I will come on to that, actually. I am about to do that, as well, because one thing that the Minister of Police and Mr Faafoi both said and referred to was the fact that this is a significant drain on police resources. We all want to know that these bills, when they are passed into law, are going to make a meaningful difference. I think it would be appropriate for some members to have thought whether or not spending House time on replica pistols was actually best use, but when one looks at the amount of police resources for the average of one incident a week where these weapons are involved, that is a not inconsiderable drain on police resources, and I am sure the police and the armed offenders squad would rather be doing other things.

But I think we need to add to that the impact of these incidents on innocent members of the public, whether they are store owners, bank officers, or other bystanders, when these replica ordnance are presented. They are most terrifying in their appearance. They are becoming increasingly similar and familiar to the real thing, and certainly those on the other end of the barrel would have no idea whether the ordnance was loaded or not, and I think we do need to acknowledge that that would be a terrifying experience for anyone who was on the end of it.

I also think there is real merit in the nimble nature of the regulation-making power that is being brought in by this bill, and I acknowledge that. Generally the House is a little sceptical of giving the executive, by Order in Council, these sorts of regulation-making powers, but we do have the safety net, as both the Minister and Mr Faafoi have articulated, of then requiring those regulations to be built into primary legislation, lest they lapse over time. That will certainly give the House and the select committee the opportunity to scrutinise—and confirm, I hope—that that was a sensible regulation to have made.

So with those few comments—there is no point in replicating the excellent contributions by both Minister Tolley and Mr Faafoi—I commend the bill.

I am happy to take a call on this particular bill, the Arms (Military Style Semi-automatic Firearms and Import Controls) Amendment Bill, and I just note that this bill makes clear the definition of what a military-style semi-automatic firearm is. I also note that it will allow regulations to be made that will declare what is a military-style semi-automatic firearm and what its distinctive features are. I also note that it provides for appeal rights for those firearms owners to the District Court, particularly firearms owners who may disagree with the definition given to their firearm—whether it is classified as a military-style semi-automatic firearm or not—and it places restrictions on the importation of airguns that may look like real pistols or military-style semi-automatic firearms.

I think it would be disturbing for most New Zealanders when they hear of the background to this. As a result of a court case in the High Court in Palmerston North in 2010, the police had difficulty in trying to determine with certainty which firearms would be classified as military-style semi-automatic firearms. Although these definitions in the legislation are important from a legal perspective, especially to ensure that those using illegal firearms or those holding a firearm without a permit are appropriately prosecuted, I think most New Zealanders may not appreciate that. I say that because I think most New Zealanders would be surprised by the numbers that the Minister of Police has articulated about the high levels of illegal firearms or the high levels of military-style semi-automatic firearms. After all, most New Zealanders would say that a gun is a gun, and the sole purpose of a gun, for most of us who are not enthusiasts, is that it releases a projectile at high speed and it will cause harm. It will kill, it will maim, and those bullets from that gun do not discriminate. It will kill, maim, or snuff out a life whether it is an animal or a human being.

I have not had the privilege of sitting on the select committee, so I did not get the opportunity to hear the submissions from the public, and I wish I had because it appears that the committee had some very difficult issues to try to cope with. There were 257 submissions and 71 people made personal submissions, and I think those submissions are quite valuable, as those of us who do not have the experience of firearms look to those who do have the expertise in this particular field.

I have got some personal experiences that I would like to share with the House. I do not know how many people have been shot at. I do not know whether you have sat next to a person who has accidentally shot themselves in the arm. Certainly, closer to home, in 2009 we had a young man aged 17 years old who was accidentally shot, by mistake. So those points really show how I personally feel about the issue of firearms.

Some years ago I visited some relatives in the United States. During that visit I happened to be in a car that was driving one way, and there was another car coming towards us. As we stopped, the other car would not move, so the driver of our car went to confront the car and they backed up and pulled out what appeared to be an automatic pistol and starting shooting at the car I was in. That was scary. It did not hurt anybody but certainly my aunt, sitting in the back, was scared stiff. I was oblivious. I did not know what had just happened but there were certainly three bullet holes in the car we were sitting in. In that same trip I had a relative who was so gung-ho about showing off that he had purchased a pistol. I was not paying attention but sitting next to me as he pushed the clip in he accidentally released the safety latch and shot himself clean in the arm. It did not hit any bones, but again that was quite scary.

I suppose the matter that weighs heavily on our community is when a young man of 17 years was shot and killed, leaving a partner and a young child behind. Although that was, admittedly, a mistake by the police, it does bring home the fact that these firearms, semi-automatic or not, cause harm to our society. They kill. No one should be in a situation where they are either harmed or die from a gun, whether they are police or a member of the public. I think it is right that the Labour Party supports this bill, because I think it is right that the police have the powers to be able to prosecute anyone who brings firearms to this country illegally or who has a gun without a permit.

Although it is outside the scope of this bill, my colleague Kris Faafoi said that Labour did seek to have an independent arms advisory group. I think the police ought to look into that. Given the increased powers we give to the police, and given the need for the police themselves to arm, I think there would be some serious concerns throughout this country about where we are heading as a country, particularly in terms of the amount of power that police have with regard to firearms but also in terms of what we do about illegal firearms.

I think it is disturbing for people that we allow for the sake of sport semi-automatic firearms. This is not my area, but I am not sure how safe it is and whether those who receive permits to hold such firearms do get the training and are in a situation where they know how to handle a firearm. So I think there is room for the Minister and for the police to consider that independent arms advisory group and perhaps look at extending the scope of it by extending it beyond just classifying what the features of a certain firearm are.

I note that the Minister said in her second reading speech that the bill does not seek to “radically alter the status quo”, and that may be so for military-style semi-automatic firearms, but I think there has been radical alteration to the foundation of our country as a result of some of the other legislation that this Government has put up. We have moved from an economy that once upon a time valued progressive taxation where everyone was paying their fair share based on their ability to pay. Now we are in an economy where those on the highest incomes pay less and those on low incomes pay more. As a result of this Government’s austerity measures throughout, the public sector has been under constant attack.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order!

The point I am making is that it is about symbolism. We have talked about this bill not radically altering the status quo, but I am making a comparison to what is happening to our economy. I think there has been radical change in that.

The Minister also said that the bill provides for the meaning of the term “pistol grip” to be spelt out clearly in the regulation with the assistance of illustration. I would say that there have been numerous illustrations of incompetency by this Government in its 4-year term. There has been debate as to whether a pistol grip is a feature of a military-style semi-automatic firearm or not, and this is similar to the debate we currently have as to whether this Government has a firm grip on this economy or not. I would say that this Government has preferred not to have a grip on this economy and that is why we are in the mess we are in. Only today we hear that this year we will mark the 50,000th New Zealander leaving our shores for Australia. That is another example of this Government not having a firm grip on where this country is heading.

I am pleased to speak to this bill, the Arms (Military Style Semi-automatic Firearms and Import Controls) Amendment Bill, and to confirm the Greens’ support for this legislation, as we have supported a raft of gun control legislation over quite a number of years. It is worth recalling in this context that this bill is evolutionary. Placing controls on military-style weapons actually dates from relatively recently. Of course, there was the tragedy in Aramoana in 1990, when 13 people lost their lives and several others were wounded through the actions of a deranged individual who was in possession of a number of military-style weapons. At that time, in 1990, the police had no knowledge of the existence or the ownership of those weapons. There was no legislative framework or requirement that the police ought to know, and clearly that was an entirely unsatisfactory situation. We have moved on considerably from that point, and that is a good thing.

More recent case law has been referred to, of course. In 2009, I believe, it was discovered that a member of the public appealed against the classification of a weapon he owned as being a military-style weapon, and he won that case in the High Court. Clearly, it highlighted the fact that there was a lack of clarity in the law. The police position, relying on the legislation, was weakened by that. So this amendment is intended to plug that gap, just to create some clarity around the legislation. That is a useful and positive thing for a Parliament to be doing.

I must say I was very pleased—I was genuinely pleased—yesterday in the Law and Order Committee when the Commissioner of Police, Peter Marshall, unprovoked, just on his own initiative, expressed his very, very strong belief that our police ought not to be routinely armed. He expressed a strong preference. He does not want to see our police routinely carrying weapons on their hip, and we are 100 percent in support of the commissioner. Given that support, I think our responsibility in the House is to provide the strongest possible legislative framework to put good controls around weapons, around guns, so that the commissioner’s aspiration and our aspirations to not see our police routinely armed can be perpetuated, can be fulfilled.

Guns, of course, have a legitimate use. They are routinely used by farmers to destroy injured animals, they are used for pest control, and of course there is a very large recreational lobby. I think the figure is now something close to 250,000 New Zealanders who hold gun licences, and that is as it should be. Given that, and the prevalence of these, as I say, it is important we get the legislative framework right not only to enable legitimate use but also to put the strongest possible constraints on the illegitimate or malicious use of these weapons.

We think it appropriate that airguns are captured in this legislation. They do bear a resemblance to the military-style weapons. They could be used for malicious purposes, clearly, but even to protect. Anyone who is foolish enough to own such a thing and wave it about publicly would very quickly find themselves on the wrong end of an armed offenders squad call-out. Those call-outs always carry an element of risk, and obviously we want to avoid that wherever possible. Airguns also are quite powerful weapons in their own right in this day and age, and just getting sufficient control on those is an important thing to do.

It is inevitable that there will be ongoing objections to the legislation. People will seek to find loopholes or will legitimately believe that a situation arises where they are—as has happened in the case of the gentleman Richard Lincoln. He filed a legitimate claim against the legislation. That will continue, no doubt, so again it is appropriate that this legislation does allow for recourse to a District Court, to an appeal, if any challenge to the legislation does arise.

Further to that, I would like to support Mr Faafoi and William Sio in their appeal to the Minister of Police to advance this idea of having a reference group, an advisory group. I was not on the Law and Order Committee at the time this bill went through the select committee process, but reading back it is clear that there was a conversation that perhaps there ought to be a statutory body. The outcome of that decision making was that that was not appropriate, but there is a strong call for some sort of an advisory group, and I think that is actually a very good idea.

The police clearly have a lot of knowledge and in-house, if you like, expertise about weaponry. But I think people in the community who are legitimate gun owners and gun users also would be reassured if there was an open standing committee, some sort of a conduit between the public and what I will call the gun lobby—and I do not mean that in a derogatory sense—interested parties around gun use. I think it would be helpful if there was a conduit in the form of something like an advisory group or a standing reference committee, so that those people could have a forum to have dialogue with the police and other interested parties. I think that could help to avoid situations where there is recourse to the courts, to legislation.

We know that taking an appeal, or indeed going to the High Court, is an expensive business, both for the claimant and for the police, in the instance that they defend it, so I would encourage the Minister to look very hard at establishing some sort of a reference group, an advisory group, that would enable interested parties to have that ongoing dialogue. Hopefully that would resolve any issues and give parties an opportunity to talk these things through, without recourse to the courts necessarily.

I do not need to say any more than that. Again, I simply say that we believe this is good legislation. We are happy to support it. Kia ora.

It is a great pleasure to rise in support of the third reading of the Arms (Military Style Semi-automatic Firearms and Import Controls) Amendment Bill. I feel a bit like my senior whip, Michael Woodhouse, who said that Mr Faafoi stole his thunder. I feel like Mr Clendon has actually stolen my thunder by talking about the Aramoana incident. At the time I was a journalist and I did actually report on that case. I felt strongly about what had happened there and how the people concerned with the classification of military-style semi-automatic weapons were very, very concerned about how certain people could get hold of these kinds of automatic weapons without them having any knowledge of where they got them or when they got them, and about having a licence regime.

The purpose of the bill, obviously, is to amend the Arms Act to amend the definition of military-style semi-automatic firearms and place restrictions on the importation of airguns that look like restricted weapons. I know that Mr Clendon and other speakers have talked about the case of Lincoln v New Zealand Police, where the classification was disputed and the police actually lost the case, hence we are trying to define what a military-style semi-automatic weapon is.

But I wanted to talk about the replica firearms issue. In the past, on different bills, I have spoken about being a victim of a home invasion. I had a pistol placed to my forehead. I had no idea whether it was real or it was a replica. Standing there, you have to think that it was real. When you are a victim you want to know that you are safe. At the time when that pistol was placed to my head I did not feel safe. We need to make sure that these replica firearms are not imported into this country, and that there are certain restrictions placed on them to make sure that people actually feel safe.

Police estimate that there is one incident a week when a member of the public presents an airgun that looks like a real pistol, military-style semi-automatic firearm, or restricted weapon, requiring an armed police response. That is too many—too many responses by the police, and often it is a waste of time. I have heard of a situation where an armed robber held up a replica firearm in order to hold up a TAB. He ended up getting shot and killed. They eventually found out that it was actually a replica and was not a real gun, but the people were actually threatened, and everybody believed that it was real, including the police.

We need clarification on this, to make sure that people—the public, the police, and even the offenders themselves—are safe, so that they are not shot and killed. This is a good bill, making sure that there are clear restrictions on military-style semi-automatic firearms, and it will keep police and everyone safe. It is a good bill. I commend it to the House.

I am pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a call on this third reading of the Arms (Military Style Semi-automatic Firearms and Import Controls) Amendment Bill, but I find, as is too often the case with many bills brought by this Government, that I am also a little disappointed.

This bill has come about because of the case of Lincoln v New Zealand Police. The essence of this case is that the police sought to reclassify a particular semi-automatic rifle, the Heckler and Koch SL8, held lawfully by an A category firearms licence owner as a rifle of sporting configuration, as being a military-style semi-automatic firearm, which requires an E category licence. The owner took the police to court, wherein the learned judge decreed that the police had no authority to make such a reclassification. The classification issue centred on the stock of the rifle, which incorporates a thumbhole.

The present Act, the Arms Act, specifies that military-style semi-automatics must incorporate a free-standing military-pattern pistol grip, which a thumbhole is not. The difference between a pistol grip and a thumbhole is as plain as daylight, and, frankly, anybody who cannot tell the difference between them should not be making decisions or laws about such matters.

Mr Lincoln won his case, and the police were sorely aggrieved about that. They went to the then Minister of Police seeking redress, and this bill is the result. The bill addresses the issue of changing rifle configurations due to the evolution of design and manufacturing techniques, which the police contend they must be able to respond to, and it makes some other changes to the importation of firearms, airguns, and their various parts, and also some changes to the records that licensed dealers must keep. These we generally agree with. We are pleased to see that airsoft and paintball guns have been removed from the restricted list, but disappointed that realistic replicas will still be available to unlicensed 18-year-olds. My Supplementary Order Paper 36 would have addressed this. Various members have made mention of the fact that we have one incident a week of people presenting replica firearms to the police. This bill, without the Supplementary Order Paper in place, does not address the fact that 18 and 19-year-olds can go out and buy a realistic replica airgun.

The single most significant element of the bill concerns regulation-making powers that allow the Governor-General by Order in Council to declare makes, models, descriptions, and parts of semi-automatic firearms to be military-style for the purposes of the Act, with the potential that some firearms that were previously classified as being sporting configuration may subsequently be reclassified as military-style. The Minister of Police and other speakers have claimed that the bill makes the definition of a military-style semi-automatic more clear. It does not. It makes it less so.

The E category licence that is required for ownership of military-style semi-automatics is more difficult to obtain than an A category licence. It is more expensive, and it demands a higher level of security. E category gun safes are more expensive than A category safes, and security inspections are more frequent.

When the changes are brought in, some firearms owners will be put in the position of owning firearms for which they no longer hold the appropriate licence. Their options then will be limited to two choices. They will either upgrade their licence, or dispose of the firearms in question. Some will upgrade. I will do so myself, because I can afford to, and because I make the presumption that I will pass the character test. Those who are forced, by circumstances, to dispose of their reclassified firearms will be faced with the reality that only E category licence holders will be able to buy them, so they will be selling into a restricted market, with limited demand. Their only other option will be to sell them for cash to any buyer who is not asking questions. The consequence of this is that an indeterminate number of very powerful semi-automatic weapons will find their way into the hands of criminals who do not currently possess them. These firearms will be used in the commission of crime, and innocent people will be killed and maimed by them.

The reality is that 79 percent of firearms deaths in New Zealand are suicides, and about half of the rest are hunting accidents. Of all death and injury incidents with firearms, fully half involve .22 rifles, 20 percent involve shotguns, and another 15 percent involve pistols, despite this latter class already being the most heavily restricted type of firearm in this country. The remaining 15 percent includes every other type of firearm. Military-style semi-automatic rifles owned legally by E category licence holders do not feature in the crime statistics in this country.

This bill has come about because the police are seeking to gain control over an aspect of firearms law that they do not currently control, and to address a problem that does not exist. The direct consequence of that will be that New Zealand will become a less safe place than it currently is, criminals will gain access to firearms that they do not currently possess, and innocent people will die as a result.

I have to question the motivation of a certain few individuals within the New Zealand Police who are seeking to have this change to our law brought about. New Zealand’s firearms law is widely regarded internationally as being the best in the world, and this change will diminish it. It will detract from it, and it will make less good law, with which more people will feel disinclined to comply.

When the Australian Government instigated its buy-back scheme for certain types of firearms a few years back, following the Port Arthur massacre, more long guns disappeared underground than ever went into the Government’s incinerators—and I mean “underground” in a literal sense as much as a criminal one. Thousands upon thousands of rifles and shotguns went into the ground inside lengths of PVC pipe, there to await a change of Government and a return to sensible law.

Bad laws are ignored by good people. It is human nature and an inherent part of the Anglo-Saxon character to ignore bad laws. Firearms licence holders in this country are a careful, responsible tribe. Today in New Zealand 1.1 million firearms owned legally by firearms licence holders killed no one at all. So those owners do not take kindly to the Government treating them unfairly or breaking its word in the social contract with them.

When a previous Government reneged on its contract to make firearms licences last a lifetime and replaced those licences with 10-year licences, a very large number of previously law-abiding firearms owners and users felt disenfranchised and disgruntled, to the point that they opted for civil disobedience in the form of not bothering to renew their licences when the new agreement-breaking 10-year period expired. They became lawbreakers.

This is bad law, and people will ignore it. They will not meekly sell their prized and valuable firearms at a loss to reluctant dealers or carpetbagging collectors. They will bury them in the ground instead, or sell them to gang members for cash. Buried in the ground, these firearms will be less secure than locked in a safe. In the hands of criminals they pose a danger to innocent citizens that they do not currently pose. My Supplementary Order Paper would have addressed this very real probability in a very tangible manner, but this Government has chosen to ignore it. That is a great shame.

I look across the Chamber and I see that there are a number of honourable members who have served in the blue uniform, who have given service to the nation as police officers, and I wonder whether they are happy to have blood on their hands as a result of giving blind party-whip support to this fatally flawed bill. Mr Mitchell, Mr Sabin, and Mr Borrows are all former police officers who do know about firearms, who do know about criminal behaviour, and who do know, I would suggest, that some of the consequences I foretell here will indeed come to pass. Any one of them could stop this bill, or the Minister could withdraw it. I implore the Government to do just that. Withdraw this bill, take it away, ruminate on it over the summer adjournment, consider what I have said, and listen to the experts it does have within its own caucus—the former police officers and the Deputy Speaker, whose knowledge of firearms probably exceeds the combined total of most of the rest of the House. This bill could easily be pushed on to the back-burner for another few months, because there is not any pressing issue that demands a solution by way of its passing into law that cannot already be addressed by regulation.

This bill, as I said earlier, seeks to solve a problem that does not exist. This bill does not address the functionality of firearms, as I alluded to earlier in this debate; rather, it concerns appearance. Functionality has long since been addressed through the regulations on magazine capacity in 1992. The matters of appearance that this bill addresses relate to a certain appearance, giving the appearance of menace. I ask the question: if a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? By the same token, if a firearm is out in the bush and there is no one there to see it, can it still appear menacing? Because that is the reality.

These firearms are not used by criminals, and they are not used in the commission of crime. There is no purpose identified or served in reclassifying them, and thereby removing them from legitimate owners and users on the basis of some misplaced perception of a menacing appearance. The police do not have the power to make that distinction under current law, which is working well, as it has done these past 20 years. It is widely regarded as being the best in the world. That power rests here in this House, and I would contend that altering the law in this way will make the country a less safe place and will result in innocent citizens being killed by criminals. That will happen. Call it the law of unintended consequences, if you wish, but that is what will happen.

Lastly, the bill as proposed, with the Minister’s amendments, which were passed during the Committee stage, against my advice, contains yet another technical fault, which I identified but very deliberately did not mention during the Committee stage. In their fruitless attempts to find an alternative wording to my own Supplementary Order Paper, Supplementary Order Paper 36, in terms of describing a .22 calibre, the Minister’s advisers have succeeded in eliminating yet another calibre, this being the .17 calibre, from the bill’s ambit. I now invite the Government members to pass this bill into law with this technical fault in place, knowing that an entire class of firearm has been left out of it. They have missed the target. They have shot themselves in the foot.

I ask the Government members opposite to withdraw this bill and to bring a successor to it back to the select committee next year, where it can be examined by people who do know what they are talking about. New Zealand First does not support this bill.

The problem is not with those who legitimately and lawfully use these types of firearms; the problem we have is with those who do not. I want to say to the last speaker, Richard Prosser, whom I do have a lot of respect for—and, incidentally, I enjoyed your speech on my gang bill, the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill, so very much more so than this speech, but it is good to know that in many areas of law and order we have much in common. What I did want to say to Mr Prosser was that we accept that we must have rules around firearms. I think nobody would say we should go back and get rid of licences and let there be a free-for-all. For legitimate users of firearms I think there is wide acceptance that there is a need to balance public safety and restrictions on controls around these weapons—so that, where others would misuse them, we can give guarantees and certainty, through our police, to the public—against unreasonable impositions on legitimate users and the rules around that.

I know that to the Law and Order Committee so very many people—hunters, firearms users, and enthusiasts—came who had concerns with this legislation, the Arms (Military Style Semi-automatic Firearms and Import Controls) Amendment Bill. But as a hunter and a firearm licence holder myself, I do say to the Minister of Police that I think she has the balance about right. It is never easy when you need to change the settings, from a policy point of view. But I do believe that in this instance we have been able to balance the need for public safety with the concern that is raised—legitimate concern—by our police around the misuse of firearms, and therefore the need for additional regulation upon legitimate firearms licence holders and people who own these guns, and do so lawfully within the bound of the law, so that we can have some common sense out there.

Mr Prosser said that there are lots of bad laws that good people do not adhere to. Actually, I would challenge that. There are a lot of bad laws in this country. There was 9 years of lawmaking before we came to Government, and a hell of a lot of that was quite bad, but the vast majority of good people adhere to those laws. Indeed, whether you agree with a law or not, if this Parliament has passed it, even if others would say it is a bad law, if you are a responsible citizen, you must adhere to that law and you must be law abiding. If you disagree with it, you have the ability to come to this Parliament and keep making the case. The challenge we have today is that there are so many good laws that are ignored by bad people, and that is where we have the problem.

To my knowledge, I am not sure that there are many cases where these weapons that we are talking about have been used to commit a crime by the lawfully licensed owner. There will be some, I am sure, but very, very few. So our challenge is not around those who are adhering to the law at the moment and who are doing everything that this Parliament says they must; it is about those who have complete disregard for the law and put the lives of our police officers, our ambulance officers, and the general public at risk. As a hunter I say that although I might, if I was to own one of these weapons, have to go and upgrade some of my security and so on, actually I take my responsibility seriously. I do not believe that I have an absolute right to hold a firearms licence. I accept the rules that this Parliament has put in place. And if, therefore, that means there is an additional cost to me because of the type of recreation I choose, if that means that the public is safer, then I will spend that little bit of extra money. I will go and get that licence upgraded as I need to, so that I can be assured and more secure in the knowledge that when I do not have that weapon in my control, nobody else can easily take it and misuse it, and that as a result of my inaction there could be a horrible loss of life.

I will finish just by saying that I am a great advocate for all those who legitimately and lawfully own firearms in this country, and I will continue to come to this Parliament to fight for their rights. But they must realise that if they want to have the ability to continue with their recreational pursuits, they have a greater obligation to other New Zealanders than most other people have to make sure that they continue to act lawfully and that their firearms are secure. Therefore, I say again to the Minister that I think she has found a very good balance in the legislation.

Actually, there was one thing I wanted to recognise—a change that was asked for by representatives of the New Zealand firearms community, so that they could have an ongoing say in relation to the use of firearms and restrictions and the way they are being controlled. The select committee actually recognised this and said it was a good idea, and I know that the police have already started to actively explore the establishment of an arms advisory forum. That is the place to continue that debate, not to take the legislation away and think about it a bit more deeply over Christmas. We should bring in the legitimate users, sit them down with the police, and find a way that we can continue this debate, to make sure that we do not put unfair restraint upon what they are trying to do, but continue to allow the police to target the scumbags who are out there causing grief for everybody, harming so many New Zealanders, and therefore getting in the way of those who have legitimate reasons to use these guns. Thank you.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Arms (Military Style Semi-automatic Firearms and Import Controls) Amendment Bill. By amending the definition of “military style semi-automatic firearm” and by placing a restriction on the importation of airguns that look like restricted weapons, this bill will make New Zealanders feel safer. The new definition adds clarity to the classification process. With regard to the proposed controls, they are necessary because at the moment there are virtually no import controls on replica firearms. This is a concern, because replica firearms are frequently being used for criminal offending.

So National is delivering on its promise to take action on violent crime. We have the lowest crime rate in 30 years. National has a comprehensive plan to build a safer New Zealand, and this bill is yet another example. I recommend the bill to the House. Thank you.