Arms (Prohibited Firearms, Magazines, and Parts) Amendment Bill

Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. This is a bill that puts in place the Prime Minister’s promise made two days after the terror massacre on 15 March that killed 50 Kiwis and put another 50 Kiwis in hospital. At that point in time, the Prime Minister stood up and said to the nation, “Our gun laws will change.” That was 26 days ago. What happened during that time was Parliament came together. Every single MP except one acknowledged that things needed to change, and this is incredible. I read something from the Minister of Police in the 1990s, the Hon John Banks, after the Aramoana massacre, when he said he tried to get this form of legislation through and he couldn’t. He said it was the greatest political regret from the 1990s. The former Prime Minister Helen Clark said the same. So I’m so proud that as a Parliament, we can come together, put politics aside, and do the right thing for this country.

It is easy to stand up and say we are going to ban assault weapons and military-style semi-automatics, but putting this in place is, in fact, a lot more difficult. What we decided on when we looked at this was, basically, a risk-based approach. There were a number of models we could have looked at. We could have looked at the Australian model after Port Arthur. What they did was they banned all semi-automatics and then they put an exemption regime in place. We decided it was probably best to determine (a) where the risk lay but also (b) what are the sorts of weapons that are used as tools of the trade by men and women throughout our communities and (c) what the weapons are that are used for recreation by many, many men and women throughout our country.

That’s why we decided to exempt .22 rimfire semi-automatics that have a cartridge of 10 or fewer. The reason for this is we acknowledged that there are many farmers up and down this country that use .22s for pest control, for hunting, and for just doing what farmers do on their farms, so we decided to exempt that. In Australia, they didn’t exempt that, and let me give you an example: in New South Wales alone, there were over 16,000 exemptions granted for permits to procure a semi-automatic. We thought it was easier to go down the other way.

We looked at shotguns. We know that duck hunting is a sport undertaken by around about—well, I’m told—100,000 Kiwis. A substantial number of Kiwis go duck hunting, and the weapons they use are shotguns with internal magazines. The weapon that the terrorist used had an external magazine. So what we said—we took a pragmatic view of this—is we decided to exempt a shotgun with an internal tubular magazine with five shots or fewer, because this was a major tool for recreational duck hunters and we thought it was easier to exempt that. The police also said that when they’re facing guns, when they’re out there wearing their body armour and keeping us safe, those are not the guns that are presented to them. So we thought “Let’s exempt those.”, but everything else—every other semi-automatic—we thought was rid of this country.

Now, let me just put something into perspective. The weapon that the terrorist used was called an AR-15. The AR-15 is the civilian equivalent of the M16. The M16 is the weapon that the ground troops in Vietnam used. This is a weapon that was specifically designed to kill people. It’s not for deer hunting. You don’t shoot ducks with it, you don’t shoot rabbits with it; you kill people with it. We don’t need these guns in our communities. There are a number of other AK weapons that you used to be able to buy—you can’t now—with your stock standard licence, but then the glaring loophole was you could go out without any licence and buy a magazine that took 30 shots. Then what you could do is you could put that into your AR-15—by the way, you contravened the Arms Act at the point you did that. You put it in there and you had a killing machine—you had a weapon that was designed to kill a lot of people quickly.

This was a massive loophole in our arms legislation. We know we needed to close this down, and everyone came behind us—thank you to the National Party, New Zealand First, the Greens, and, of course, Labour. This is the right thing to do. It’s the right thing to do and I’m very proud to be part of it.

Members, before I give the next call, I want to make the following ruling. Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 202 in the name of Chris Bishop, to amend SOP 201, is out of order as the subject matter is outside the scope of the bill. Therefore, debate on the subject matter of that SOP is also out of order.

E Te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. I stand today, for the first time in this House, to directly address the terrorism targeted at our Muslim community while they were in prayer and peace at the Linwood Islamic Centre and Al Noor Mosque in Christchurch on Friday, 15 March.

Words cannot heal the utter devastation and loss of Muslim brothers, sisters, and children—devastation driven by hatred and racism and white supremacy. New Zealand cannot and should not accept thoughts and prayers alone; we need action. Today, that action is removing weapons that never should have been in general circulation, as was noted by the Minister of Police.

Yesterday, today, tomorrow, and for ever more, our action must be to investigate our national identity. We must do more than give nothing to racism. We must utterly reject intolerance in all of its forms. We must move beyond mere tolerance as a goal and move instead towards inclusion, towards acceptance, and towards love. These are the values that we have seen in response to this terrorism that saturate the majority of Aotearoa. They are the values that we need to win, but, today, we act quickly and decisively on guns.

It’s estimated that there are somewhere between 1.5 million to 2 million guns in Aotearoa New Zealand—that is almost a gun for every second person in this country. But we’re not sure exactly how many of these weapons are in New Zealand, because we do not have a comprehensive gun register. Presently, the only firearms that are registered are pistols, military-style semi-automatics (MSSAs), and other restricted weapons. Records show that there are 65,000 of these weapons, owned by nearly 10,000 licensed owners. That’s an average of 6.5 high-powered guns owned by each of these people. But, importantly, these 65,000 registered guns are barely a dent in that approximate 2 million or so in this country. That means that in the majority of cases we do not know where these guns are, who’s using them, or how they’re used.

Between 1990 and 1992, former Minister of Police, the Hon John Banks, tried to convince his caucus colleagues to get on with reforms to rid the country of semi-automatic weapons after 13 people were killed in an atrocity at Aramoana, but political will power faded.

Then, again, more than 20 years ago—in 1997—Parliament received a report commissioned by the Minister of Police, telling MPs to create a gun registry and remove MSSAs from general circulation. The Thorp report is a nearly 300-page document of how to fix the loopholes in our gun laws, but, again, Parliament failed. Then, two years ago—in 2017—this Parliament received a report, this time from the Justice Committee, telling us how to fix the problem of too many guns out there with far too little regulation. Again, Parliament did not sufficiently act.

Our Parliament has been presented with the opportunity to fix these loopholes time and again, and the politicians in this place have failed to do so. In the words of the Federation of Islamic Associations of New Zealand’s Rehanna Ali, who came before the select committee on this legislation: “Whatever reasons may be brought to bear for not supporting this legislation can never outweigh the 50 reasons we carry with us today.”

Parliament has been having this debate on these gun law changes since before I was born. In that time, weapons have become more deadly and more guns have come into our country. We owe it to our Muslim community to remove the weapons that took the lives of their whānau. We owe it to New Zealand.

But we must also act to uproot and remove the evil from our country that took up these deadly weapons. We must look in the mirror. We must use our positions in rooms—whether they are online or in person—that discuss other people’s existence as different, as not deserving, or as lesser, to change that behaviour. We are all responsible for change. It will not be delivered by a lone hero.

The fine detail of this legislation has been combed over by the Finance and Expenditure Committee, that I was fortunate to sit on, alongside my colleagues in Government and Opposition. The Greens provided a minority view—[Bell rung] Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Before I give the member another call, I’d like the member—the member has actually spent quite a bit of time speaking about things that are not in the bill, and she really needs now to come to what is in the bill.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: I’m to speak to the minority view now, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Chlöe Swarbrick.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: The Greens provided a minority view in support of the New Zealand Police Association’s submission that collector’s weapons should be rendered permanently inoperable. I note that the majority of the select committee came to a position to store the operable parts in another location. I accept that this is far better than the status quo, and the Greens accept that this is absolutely a step in the right direction, but because we would like to see these reforms go further, we provided our view in that select committee minority view. This reflects, of course, the pathway that Australia took in their reforms, and it would prevent a potential loophole for import and the increasing circulation of semi-automatic guns.

But, today, we applaud the coming together of the vast majority of this House to pass this first step in critical reform for public safety. There is more to come, and, indeed, more must come. Aroha mai, aroha nui e te whānau. Kia ora.

[Be loving, much love, family. Thank you.]

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. The National Party supports this bill, and we’ve been working constructively with the Government as we worked our way through the very quick select committee process. We also support the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that’s been lodged in the Minister’s name two or three hours ago—SOP 201. Due to the exigency of the select committee process, the Finance and Expenditure Committee was not able to actually recommend any potential changes, as would normally happen through the committee process, so the SOP largely implements those changes.

I want to speak to the SOP in my name that hasn’t been ruled out of order, which is Supplementary Order Paper 203, around people who are bona fide competitors in target-shooting sports governed by legitimate international sporting bodies. While we generally agree that it’s important to reduce the number of semi-automatic weapons in circulation in New Zealand, we on this side of the House do have some sympathy for people who are members of shooting organisations and shooting clubs who will be negatively affected by this, who compete in international target shooting competitions. We believe that there is scope in the bill to make sure that a very small number of people can continue to participate in the sport that in many cases is their great love and great passion.

We draw the committee’s attention to the regime in the Arms Act that already exists around pistol clubs, who have very strict regulations placed on them. Essentially, what this SOP tries to do is to replicate the same sort of regime for semi-automatics and for rifle-shooting competitions as for pistol clubs. We believe that it’s something that can be done. The Government has signalled that it is something that could be looked at as part of phase two of the reforms to our firearms regime. But if it is indeed the case that we, through phase two, provide an exemption for international sporting shooters, we’ll be in the slightly strange situation where those who do legitimately compete internationally will have to give up their weapons as part of the amnesty and the buy-back over the next few months because those weapons will be illegal upon passage of this bill.

Once it comes into force and receives the Royal assent, possession of those weapons will be illegal. They’ll have to give them up through the buy-back and receive compensation. Then, if it so happens that down the line, post-June, once the Government’s introduced its bill, maybe in the first part of, potentially, next year when the bill passes—if it does pass, then those sports may be essentially legal again, and those people will have to go out and buy the guns all over again. So it’s going to be a slightly strange situation and I think, frankly, pretty ridiculous that people will have to give up their weapons, receive compensation, receive a chunk of money, feel pretty bad about life generally as they’re not able to participate in their chosen sport for six to nine months, and then, if it is essentially legalised again, they’ll have to go out and get all the weapons again, and they’ll be allowed to compete.

We can short-circuit all that, basically, which I think everyone would agree is a pretty silly process. We can short-circuit all that by essentially moving the changes that might be done in phase two into phase one, which is this bill. Frankly, we’re a bit disappointed on this side of the House that the Government didn’t see fit to include an exemption for sporting shooters in the bill that’s before us, and that’s why we’re putting forward the SOP.

Frankly, the argument that they don’t compete in the Olympics or in the Commonwealth Games is, you know, true, as far as it goes, but it doesn’t really address anything. It’s just literally a statement of fact. It doesn’t deal with the fact that there are other sporting competitions—three-gun shooting competitions, for example—that are done internationally and that New Zealand competes very well at, actually. It’s something that New Zealand’s very good at, and there are lots of people around the country who receive enjoyment from doing that.

Frankly, we think that if you can construct a regime around pistol shooting that is highly regulated and highly safe and that allows for international competitions—and, actually, that the officials accepted during the select committee consideration; it worked very well, and that was what they told us—then I think—[Bell rung] Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Chris Bishop.

Thanks, Mr Chair. I’ll just finish off my remarks. If you can do it for pistol shooting, then we think it’s not beyond the competence and not beyond the wit of Parliament in order to do it for rifle shooting as well and for semi-automatic weapons.

It is true that the majority of shooting competitions don’t involve semi-automatic weapons. That is indeed true. It is true that they are not international Olympic sports. Those are other types of weapons. But it is also true that there are lots of people around New Zealand who enjoy these sports and participate in them, and, frankly, they are feeling pretty hurt about life. They quite rightly make the point—

💬 Alastair Scott: Law-abiding.

Exactly right, Mr Scott. They’re law-abiding citizens. To the best of my knowledge, there has never been a single death from a firearm on a shooting range in New Zealand ever. That’s where these guns are used, under very, very strict conditions, and that’s exactly what we’re trying to replicate in the regime.

So we fully accept, on this side of the House, the need to reduce the number of semi-automatics and military-styles in circulation, but there’s an exemption regime already in the bill. The headlines have been “This is a ban on military-style semi-automatics and other semi-automatics”, and that’s true so far as it goes, except there’s an exemption regime. There’s an exemption regime for the Department of Conservation to use semi-automatics when controlling pests. There’s an exemption regime which we’re now introducing through the Minister’s SOP, as recommended by the committee, for commercial use for farmers. It’s not a general exemption for farmers. You can’t just rock up and use a military-style semi-automatic (MSSA) on any old plot of land. You’ve got to get a commercial user to do it for you, and we had a bit of a debate in the committee about whether or not Federated Farmers’ submissions would be accepted. So we’ve got an exemption regime for that.

There’s an exemption regime for mementos and for heirlooms and for historical artefacts. There’s an exemption regime for museums and theatrical performances and things like that—all perfectly legitimate, safe, and good reasons to allow very limited use of MSSAs and semi-automatics.

We just make the point on this side of the House that we think if you can design an exemption regime for all of those things, you can do one as well for international sporting shooters. So we put forward that SOP, and we implore the committee to give that due consideration. Thank you, Mr Chair.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I think it’s probably wise that I stand up and address the honourable member’s Supplementary Order Paper and just give him a little bit of insight into why—well, the committee, obviously, voted it down, but I as a Minister didn’t think it was a good idea anyway.

There are two reasons. First of all, as Mr Bishop has highlighted, there are a number of exemptions in place at the moment, and we looked at those in terms of the ability for those with bona fide licensed and registered pest control businesses. We need to ensure that those who undertake pest control have the ability to do so with the best weapon possible. Now, in order to be able to get that exemption, they need to be able to prove that there is no other weapon better than one which we are prohibiting under this bill. If they can prove that, then they are allowed to do that.

In terms of bona fide collectors’ mementos, we are going to have a look at the collector regime in stage two, just to make sure we’ve got that right as well. We thought that at this stage, with the truncated select committee process, there was a lot there to consider. Keeping in mind this was about removing these guns from our community, we thought that’s best dealt with in stage two as well, and Mr Bishop mentioned a couple of other exemption regimes.

But the problem with any piece of legislation—whether it’s firearms, whether it’s tax, or whether it’s anything—is the more exemptions you put in place, the greater the number of loopholes that we provide for people to abuse the system. Now, what we do know, and what we learnt in the 2017 inquiry, is that gangs or organised crime tend to get the vast majority of their guns through theft—they’re stolen. Someone breaks into someone’s house and they break into their safe and they steal a gun. Now, the vast majority of the time it’s not because the person who owned the weapon has been irresponsible; it’s just because the thief knows the weapon is there or has fortuitously found this and got hold of the weapon. I feel that if we create an exemption for sports shooters, then we would create a whole lot more opportunity for people to own these weapons which we want to get out of our community.

The aim of this legislation is to remove as many of these guns as possible from our community. I acknowledge that if we were going to be pure about this, we would say, “Absolutely no exemptions whatsoever.” We would possibly follow the Australian model and say, “Nothing—every single semi-automatic is gone.” That would be the pure way to do it, but it would not be the pragmatic way to do it.

We looked at sporting competitions and we used the first test and we said, “OK, are there any Olympic or Commonwealth Games disciplines that require the sort of weapon that we are seeking to ban?” There are none. Then we dug a little deeper, and we found there is one discipline called three-gun discipline, and that’s one that’s brought up a lot. Then we found—and I understand that the select committee heard this—that a competitor can actually use a .22 to do this.

💬 Chris Bishop: No, that’s not right.

Well, that’s what I’m told the select committee heard—that you can actually use a .22 to do this. So we thought, “OK.” The other thing we’re not doing is we’re not banning people from going offshore and competing in competitions. So—

💬 Hon Member: How are they going to practise?

Absolutely—absolutely. But what we don’t want to do is we don’t want to have these weapons in our communities, and let’s be honest about this: if you get to the stage where you’re in the top 10 in the world, you’ve got to start down at the lowest level. No All Black starts playing rugby at the beginning of the season and ends up in the World Cup team. You start when you’re five. If you want to be a competitive three-gun shooter and you want to use a weapon that is not a .22—it’s one of these banned weapons—you’re going to have to start somewhere.

Chlöe Swarbrick: They’re not even the top 10; they’re the only 10.

Absolutely. That means that at some point in time you’re going to have to have access to these weapons. Now, where do we draw the line? Do we say, “OK, a 10-year-old whose father is an expert in this”—or no, let’s not be too glib. “A 16-year-old can have access to this because he or she wants to be a competitive three-gun shooter, and therefore we should allow it.”? Well, then, do we stagger it—do we say, “Well, if they pass a certain level then they can continue.”—or do we withdraw it?

The point I’m trying to make—and I’m not being glib in this—is the more exemptions we create, the more we water down the purpose of this legislation, and that is to remove these semi-automatic assault rifles and military-style semi-automatics from our community. I absolutely believe that a sporting exemption would be against the spirit of this legislation.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to just talk on the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 203 in the name of Chris Bishop. I listened very closely to the Minister of Police there, and I’ve got to say I’m very disappointed to hear what he’s just spoken, so I just think it’s worthwhile recapping on what is in the SOP. It’s a new clause 8, which says that “a person who is a bona fide competitor in a target shooting sport that is—(i) governed by a legitimate international sporting body; … (ii) where the rules of the discipline provide for the use of semi-automatic firearms or shotguns;”—and the third condition is—“(iii) the person is a member of a target shooting club recognised by the Commissioner as a club where such target shooting disciplines are practised.” That is the SOP—very tight, very clear.

So my personal view is that, actually, we are doing a disservice to a group of shooters who are not in your main type of shooters. These are very highly trained, professional target shooters, who go about their business—in some cases, it’s their profession. But, at the very least, they are absolutely dedicated to achieving good outcomes in target-shooting competitions.

I just listened to the arguments there, and the first thing said was “Look, we had enough to do in a truncated position without trying to do this bill over the last few days. We didn’t have time to take this into account.” I think you’re underestimating the capability of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, Minister, because I think we could have done this. I think we could have done it very easily, and I’ll come back to why.

The second thing I heard about was the storage: “Oh, because if you allow this, then there’s the opportunity for theft.” Well, I’ve got to say to you, Minister, that the rifles that these target shooters use are normally worth thousands. They are not your run-of-the-mill rifle that you go down to your local Hunting & Fishing store and buy. These are normally very highly specified - calibre rifles, and the last thing that those competition shooters will want is to see those weapons stolen, because the next time they go to a competition, they won’t be able to use them. They will have as much incentive as the police to make sure that they are stored and stored very securely.

The third thing was: “There are a lot of opportunities for people to become involved in this sport.” Well, one of the things in the report that we noted—and these are figures provided by the police—was that there are actually only 80 of these people. Actually, there was a countervailing argument given that because there is such a small number of them, basically, we shouldn’t worry about them. So that’s actually contrary to what you’ve just suggested.

There are a small number of people. We’re not suggesting that this should be opened up to everyone; this was to deal with a very specific professional group. This concept that “If you want to be a professional target shooter, we’re not going to trust you. What you’re going to have to do is get on a plane and fly overseas.”—well, actually, the Australians have been doing that since they brought into place their regulations. They are failing dismally overseas in competitions, and they all talk about the difficulty of being able to compete, because when you want to be a target shooter, you want to be doing it regularly.

This brings me back to the next point, which is the calibre. This concept that you can use a .22 rifle to do your practice—well, actually, that’s not the case. In terms of pistols, they use 9-millimetre pistols. That’s actually greater than a .22 calibre, which means it is outside the issue of this bill. Often they have 9-millimetre pistols converted to a rifle type, and also they use slightly higher - calibre .223s and other calibres. You cannot think that you’re going to practise with a .22 when you’re firing a higher calibre and think you’re going to be able to compete at an international standard and be as good as the world-standard target shooters, who will probably be out firing every day, like all professionals—doing their 10,000 hours before they become true professionals. This concept that you can do that—I don’t think that it was difficult.

The rules around pistol clubs are very, very tight. You have to belong to them for at least six months before you can get a licence. You have to attend a minimum of 12 times a year. We could have very easily imposed very secure arrangements for the storage, like for dealers. It was an easy thing to do, and it’s a travesty.

Thanks very much, Mr Chair. I would like to put this to bed once and for all, and there are a couple of points I’d like to make. First of all, as the previous member Andrew Bayly alluded to and the member introducing this Supplementary Order Paper 203, Chris Bishop, has articulated, if it was all about “All you need to do is join a club.”, then there is the great fear that these clubs would pop up everywhere—if you join a club, you can own a rifle. For me, that risk is too high.

The second thing is the National Rifle Association (NRA) could well become an international sporting organisation.

💬 Chris Bishop: Oh, come on.

No, no, seriously—the NRA competition sporting division offers a wide range of competitions. They are, by all accounts, a legitimate sporting organisation, so that opens that up. So that’s the second thing.

The third thing is that there is no club oversight regime—at present, there is no club oversight regime. What happens is you get 10, 20, 40 of these guys all saying, “You know what? We’ve lost our weapons. Let’s form a club. We can get these back—all we need to do is set up a club. Let’s go and get a little bit of land and away we go.” It could be that easy.

💬 Andrew Bayly: You think it’s that easy to get a permission, consent, to do a target range—really?

You set up the club and away you go. It is a loophole that you could drive a truck through, Mr Bayly.

The second thing is that international competitions need national and regional competitions. The reason the Australians come over here to compete is because the competitions were banned in Australia when they banned military-style semi-automatics and semi-automatics. That’s why they come here—because they’re not allowed to do it in their own country. Why are we the easybeat? Why should we allow those in Australia to come over here and compete when they don’t allow them to do it in Australia? There’s no reason—

💬 Andrew Bayly: So it’s fine for them to go around the world, but they can’t come here?

—whatsoever why we should allow them to do it. There are some other niche sports that you need to travel overseas for that you can’t do here. There are others, so there are precedents. So we’re not saying that you can’t compete overseas. We’re not saying that as a Kiwi and a Kiwi passport holder, you can’t go and train in the States, if this is your livelihood and that’s what you really want to do and this is your passion.

The last thing I would say is that the pistol club ranges are developed around risk management for short-range targets, not for the long-range targets that these prohibited weapons are designed for. Keep in mind that the weapons we are looking to ban, the weapons we are banning, are designed to kill people—that’s what they are for. The purpose of this legislation is to remove them from our communities; to get rid of as many of them as possible from our communities. If we have an exemption that you can drive a truck through, then we begin to defeat the purpose of the legislation. It’s the reason why I am so against the sporting exemption.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to take a brief call on a couple of things that, I guess, concern me about the unspoken, not the spoken, bit of this bill. One of these concerns is clause 49, new sections 50A to 50D, and the link of that to new sections 59A and 59B in clause 58, and that, of course, is the unlawful possession of a prohibited firearm. I guess the thing that worried me—and did at the time of the previous inquiry into firearms in New Zealand—was that there are numerous firearms owned throughout New Zealand by people who probably don’t even know they own them. I don’t want to use my mother, but my mother could easily own one of these and she wouldn’t even know she owned it. The problem with it is that they’re sitting in these houses and places around New Zealand, they’re now going to become illegally owned, and these people aren’t going to know they own them. They’re then going to hand them in—and I accept that there’s an amnesty on that and that the police will use their own prerogative as to whether they prosecute it or not. The issue is that everyone else who hands these guns in is going to get paid for them, and these people aren’t.

I guess the gun underworld in New Zealand is big enough now. I know the amnesty is part of this bill but I know the buy-back is not, but I need to link this discussion to that buy-back, because my concern is that if a legal gun owner is going to get paid for these guns and an ostensibly illegal gun owner is not, then those guns could very easily fall into the hands of those same people we’re trying to preclude from getting their hands on these guns. I guess the issue that I’ve got with this is that—and I think it also applies to parts, but I mentioned that last night and I won’t do it again today. I think the real concern is that there will be a large number of these guns around New Zealand, and they will be in the hands of people who probably don’t know that they own an illegal weapon and probably will do nothing about it initially. But, eventually, that will be discovered, and they could easily fall into the wrong hands.

The buy-back provisions of this amnesty need to be considered seriously, because I think it would be worth having a look at buying back illegally owned guns as well, just simply to get them out of the process, because we’re not going to get them out of the process unless we find some way of dealing with them that’s more widely spread than an amnesty. I accept that that won’t be part of this bill—it wouldn’t be possible to be part of this. But I think it needs to be seriously considered as we go forward, as to how we get these guns that are illegally owned in New Zealand—and there will be many more of them as a result of this—out of circulation. That’s my first concern.

My second one, I guess, goes back to the issue of the Federated Farmers submission and the issue they had with the destruction of pests. I’ve listened to the Minister, and I accept his view on this. I think the issue that I’ve got with this is that a lot of these pests—and, again, it’s something that needs to be considered later, not now—are very mobile. They’re only there for only a minute or two and gone the next. I think the challenge of having to deal with contractors and having to get contractors in means it will be very difficult to track these pests down. So I think, in the future, we need to revisit this piece of the law. I also listened to the Minister, and I agree with him that the less of these things we’ve got in the less hands in New Zealand the better off we are, but there might be a way in the future that we can find of enabling this type of thing to be used by a broader spread of people than perhaps just licensed contractors, or otherwise we need to license a broader spread of people to become licensed contractors. I think there needs to be a way of looking at that and how we might do that. I have no answer to that.

So those were the only two issues that I was really keen to bring to the attention of the Minister today. I do have, as I said, quite significant concerns about how we get those prohibited—or what will become prohibited on the passing of this law this afternoon—firearms out of the hands of people who are unlicensed who are inadvertently unlicensed because it won’t be intentional. There will be many people who have never had a gun licence in New Zealand who have owned guns all their lives, and I’d like to think that there’s a way that we could get those guns out of their hands. I think it’s much more likely we’ll get them out of their hands by including them in any buy-back scheme if it’s possible, and I realise there’s difficulties with that. But I do think we’re going to have to look at that, and I think if we don’t, we will end up with a larger black market than we currently have. So those were the two issues I wanted to talk about briefly, Mr Chair, so thank you for that.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I rise to speak to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 201, and I do this having chaired the Finance and Expenditure Committee—and acknowledging colleagues who participated in the deliberations of the committee—because, as has been noted, this has been a slightly unusual process. Effectively, what we have in SOP 201 are the recommendations of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, which were expressed in the report that was tabled at select committee yesterday and put into the legislation. So I’d just like to take a few minutes to touch on some of the key changes and how these are translated into the wording of the bill that we have before us.

The hearings that we held were very substantial hearings. We heard from a wide range of submitters both for and against the bill, but almost exclusively from people who wanted to assist the committee to make the bill as effective and as fair as possible. The changes that I want to speak to that are in SOP 201 are changes that have been made in response to those submissions.

As has been noted, one of the important areas of this bill is the tight set of exemptions that are in there. This is one of the areas that the committee did focus on, to make sure that the exemptions that do exist are appropriate and are managed as tightly as possible to meet the fundamental purpose of the bill, which is to remove these weapons from general circulation.

We considered very strongly the submissions we received from Federated Farmers and a couple of other groups about the issue of wild animal and pest control. The changes which have been brought into the legislation are captured in new section 4A(1)(h), in clause 8. In response to the submissions that we have received, we have made changes to the bill to ensure control of certain types of wild animal and pest species that can, in some cases, require the use of prohibited weapons. Whereas the original bill allowed for that control through the use of prohibited weapons to take place on Department of Conservation (DOC) land, we have clarified in new section 4A(1)(h) that this control may take place on private land. So this is a way that the committee has seen through this challenge that was identified by Federated Farmers and some submitters that there are certain types of species in quite limited situations, and most commonly these were described as being on high-country stations where the use of these weapons may be required.

There were some arguments put up to create a more general exemption which would allow for the exemption to apply to farmers themselves. The judgment of the committee was that this would be one of those steps that would take us beyond the intent of the bill and would allow general circulation, which is what we are trying to avoid. So it’s quite a tight exemption. It means that these weapons will be in the control either of DOC or of organisations or companies which are very highly regulated by police. That is a mechanism whereby certain species can be controlled, and, if you beg my indulgence, Part 2 does reference some of those species and some changes have been made there to ensure that those species—particularly Canada geese, that were referenced in submissions—are captured as well.

Carrying on with the exemptions section, one of the submissions we received from the Police Association raised the concern that in respect of the exemption for collectors—which was in the original bill, and I think most people understand the purpose of that—if the bill is going to take these weapons out of general circulation, then one of the largest stocks of the weapons will continue to be held by collectors. The submission of the Police Association was to draw our attention to the fact that this may create something of a risk that they would become the source of weapons which could be stolen for criminal activity.

So what the select committee has done in the bill to address that particular concern has been to strengthen the provision which removes what’s called a vital part of the weapon. This is captured in new section 4A(1)(ba) in clause 8. In the original bill, the vital part was to be stored at a separate location. The select committee has strengthened that to ensure that the vital part will now be kept, actually, at a fully separate address. We believe this substantially meets that objective, as identified by the Police Association.

One of the other key exemptions relates to heirlooms and mementoes. This is a very, very specific exemption, and, again, what the select committee has done is ensure that it is very, very tight also, with the provision in respect of a vital part being stored at a separate address. So while we’ve recognised that submission, we are ensuring that that weapon—while not being permanently disabled—effectively, cannot be used if it is simply picked up because the vital part is stored elsewhere.

I’ll just leave my comments there for the moment. That’s a summary of some of the key changes that were made at select committee, and I thank my colleagues on that select committee for that work.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I just want to respond to some of the Minister’s comments around my Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 203, around the exemptions for international sporting shooting competitions. The Minister’s comments ranged from the, I suppose, reasonable but wrong through to the stupid and ridiculous, and I want to go through some of those comments.

The first thing he said was that international three-gun competitors could just use .22s, and he said that that was the advice to the committee. I don’t remember that advice being given to the committee, and in the event that that advice was given—

💬 Michael Wood: Yes, it was given by police.

OK, well, the chair is saying that’s correct. The chair is saying that that advice was received. My point to the committee is that I’m advised by those in the international sporting shooting community that that is categorically wrong and that .22s are incapable of being used for the international competitions we are talking about. They’re not effective on the ranges, they’re not used internationally, and also you need shotguns with more than five rounds. So that’s the first point.

The second point the Minister made was that people could still use them overseas in competitions, which is true, I suppose, but of course neglects the fact that people are unable to practise with the very weapons they’re going to use overseas. So we get this silly scenario—which, actually, Australia is in as well, to be fair—where people would be able to travel overseas and use weapons in countries where the prohibited weapons we’re talking about are legal, but because they’re illegal in New Zealand, they’re not able to practise with them. I think that is a strange scenario.

Then we heard the third point—that there are very few people affected by this—and Chlöe Swarbrick yelled out, “It’s just 10 people.” Well, again, that’s wrong. My understanding is that there are about a thousand people affected—[Interruption] Well, I’m just responding to what your Government member said, Mr Nash. Chlöe says there are 10 people affected. Actually, it’s more like 1,000, and even if in the best case scenario it was 10 people affected by the provision, firstly—

💬 Andrew Bayly: Why should they be affected?

Exactly—the quantum, in some ways, is irrelevant. Ms Deborah Russell, during the select committee process, was very concerned about the quantum of people affected, as if the gravity of the harm done depends on the number of people—but, anyway.

So the number of people affected is in some ways irrelevant, but, secondly, even if it is relevant, 10 people being affected is an argument for my SOP, because it affects such a slim number of people. That’s actually an argument for the amendment. It’s for the SOP. It’s not an argument against it by simply saying “Oh, it’s just 10 people.”, as if these 10 people are the only people affected by it. Firstly, as I say, that is wrong—it’s far more than that. It’s actually 100 times that number. It’s 1,000 people, give or take a few, and, secondly, even if that is correct—if Ms Swarbrick is correct—that’s an argument for the SOP because the whole genesis of this bill and the whole genesis of the Government SOP towards the bill is to reduce the number of guns in circulation. If it’s true that it’s just 10 people, that’s certainly better than 1,000, so that’s an argument for my amendment, not against it.

The fourth point is to say that the Government went through some careful process around working out what competitions would be affected and what wouldn’t. The Commonwealth Games didn’t have these three-gun competitions, and neither did the Olympic Games. As I already made the rebuttal to that point in my contribution earlier on, that is true but irrelevant.

Then, the fifth point from the Minister was—and this is the really ridiculous one—that you could drive a truck through the regime proposed, and that the National Rifle Association are going to come down here and set up some fake sporting competition to allow all the American gun nuts to go around and use these military-style weapons.

💬 Hon Stuart Nash: That’s not what I said.

It’s literally—don’t frown your face at me. That’s literally what you said.

💬 Hon Stuart Nash: The NRA is—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The Minister in the chair does not interject from the chair. That is to cease.

Thank you, Mr Chair. The Minister can get upset about stupid remarks that he makes, but he shouldn’t be upset when members decide to call out Ministers on absurd things they say. So that’s not the regime, that’s not what we were proposing, and, actually, that’s rebutted by the official advice that was given to the committee around pistol clubs. What we’re seeking to do is, essentially, replicate the exact same regime that exists around pistol clubs, and if it is correct, as the Minister says, that you can drive a truck through all the exemption regimes around regulated sporting shooting clubs, if that is correct that any old Jo Schmo can come down and set up a shooting club and, essentially, get around—[Time expired]

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want really to talk about the principles underlying this major Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 201. In particular, there seems to be a suggestion there that, in fact, this is a licensing regime, and it’s not. We’ve changed direction entirely in respect of these weapons. In fact, what we have is a blanket prohibition on these semi-automatic weapons with some very narrow exemptions, which need to be thoroughly justified. Those exemptions, which are in the SOP, are justified—such as the pest control exemption—but a broad-ranging justification for sports in terms of economic benefit or in terms of personal welfare and enjoyment simply isn’t justified.

So that’s really all I wanted to say about that. This is a prohibition regime, not a licensing regime, and that’s how we need to approach this question.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. I’d just like to rise to take the opportunity to ask a very specific question of the Minister. I note, in new section 4A in clause 8, the exemptions. I actually commend you on the very pragmatic approach you’ve taken, particularly around the vintage weapons and the collectors category. This is history, and it could have been crushed if you had taken that heavy-handed attitude. You have been very pragmatic about that, but we also know that there is some risk with that. By taking all these other weapons out of circulation, we have actually made, potentially, the collectors’ weapons more of a target.

So within this select committee process, what we have done is be quite clear, and I refer, actually, to new section 33A(1)(c)(iii) in clause 31, where you say, “ensure that the removed vital part is kept at a separate address from the prohibited firearm;”. We have changed that wording from “location” to “address”, so you’ve actually got to have it on a separate property.

Now, my question is—and apologies if I drifted off for this part of the select committee—does the person for whom that address is have to have a special licence to hold that extra part? So you can’t just take it down to your neighbours and the appropriate safe and drop it off, or will it be specified that it has to go to a police station? What are the provisions? What are the technical provisions around storing those disabling parts at a separate address? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to pick up on a new issue which is related to shotguns. So we had quite a discussion about shotguns in the select committee and, if I recall correctly, the advice we got back was that the vast majority of shotguns could hold five cartridges or less. In fact, I think the figure of 10 percent was for those shotguns that could hold six or seven rounds in their tubular magazine. On the back of that, we came to a view as a committee that we would limit it to five cartridges—full-size cartridges, because there is obviously the complication of using smaller cartridges—or less. What appears to have come to light since then is, actually, that the number of shotguns with tubular magazines greater than five is actually closer to 30 percent, based on some information that I’ve been made aware of.

So my question to you—and this is one of the questions that arose in the committee—is can you confirm that if you have a seven- or six-round - capacity shotgun, you’ll be able to hand that shotgun back and the Government will pay for the shotgun to be converted so that it can have a maximum capacity of five? Therefore, would that weapon be able to be passed back to the owner of that and, therefore, would that do away with the unnecessary destruction of that weapon that, obviously, would be made safe and meet the requirements of the bill? So that’s the first thing I wanted to ask.

The second thing, I just want to ask a little bit more about the rights of pest control agencies. In Schedule 3, on Supplementary Order Paper 201—and I’m sorry, Mr Chair, for going to the back, but it was referenced earlier—we added “Canada goose” as one of the pests that should be on the list. But one of the other pests that farmers face a lot is, actually, increasing flocks of paradise ducks, who mob very substantially and, with the declining numbers of duck shooters, are actually becoming quite an issue. They are very crafty and cunning to shoot, and I just wanted to make sure in Schedule 3, new regulation 2C, whether or not paradise ducks are under that definition.

Just traversing back to new section 4A in clause 8, it brings me to the wider issue where we made the change that we would allow pest control agencies to undertake, effectively, the pest control work that many high-country farmers and many farmers in different areas—it doesn’t necessarily have to be high-country farmers, but those farmers who have land that is subject to a lot of pests. They have to go through a specialist regime—and, actually, we’ve created a specialist regime for them, so that’s amazing—to allow them to have access to semi-automatics for the specific purpose of killing and dealing with those pests. Now, that’s all covered under new section 4A(1)(h).

First of all, Minister, I’d like you to confirm that if farmers want to get together—and they may not be high-country farmers, but if a group of farmers wanted to get together—and create a business with the substantial purpose of that business being for dealing with and killing pests, they would they able to go through the process of forming such a company and, therefore, be in a situation where they could readily have access to pest control agencies at the time when they’re required, because often pests arrive at certain times and you don’t have people from agencies who are going to deal with them available on tap. They have to pre-plan it. This would give the capability to those farmers to work collaboratively and responsibly but still meet the requirements of this Act. I think it’s very important that some guidance to this is actually provided by you.

I think those are crucial parts of, I think, the changes we made around that. I think we should not underestimate the impact of pest control on non-conservation land, as we defined it, and private land. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll just take a very short call. I just want to address the Minister of Police and say that I think that the debate in the committee this evening has been good. But I think that Duncan Webb made a very good point: this legislation is about prohibition, and what we’re saying as a country is that we don’t want the general public having access to military-style weapons.

What I’m concerned about, with some of the language that I’ve heard in the Chamber tonight, is that we’re starting to demonise Kiwis that have got legitimate firearms licences for legitimate reasons. We should make sure that the debate remains fully focused on the fact that we’re saying as a nation that we don’t want military-style weapons readily available. I think that Chris Bishop’s Supplementary Order Paper was an important one, and I’d appeal to the Minister to pick that up in the second tranche of the work that’s being done.

Although we’re sending a very clear message as a Parliament and as a nation around what we think about military-style weapons, we also have to protect the rights of law-abiding Kiwis that are actually just wanting to participate in things that they’ve probably done for a long time. I don’t accept the argument that was put up around the fact that it’s very easy to form a gun club and a range. It’s actually extremely difficult in New Zealand. Even the police would tell you that sometimes they struggle to find places that they can get signed off as being used as a range. It’s very, very hard.

So I’d just appeal to the Minister and to the House—because I think we’ve got the third reading debate in the House tonight as well—to let’s stay focused on the prohibition side of the bill and let’s not start to demonise Kiwis that actually hold a firearms licence and have got very legitimate uses for having those firearms and using them. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

I just want to talk about some of the other issues in this bill around what we are trying to achieve. I think the point that Mr Mark Mitchell was making before is a very important one. As of right this moment, there are many, many—248,000—people who are legitimate owners of these types of weapons. Once we pass this bill, obviously, that becomes illegal. I think it’s very important that we don’t demonise them, and that’s why striking the right balance between what we are doing and what we’re seeking to achieve is very, very important.

I think the other issue that relates to this is the issue around compensation and amnesty, and we heard a very good submission from the chief of staff to the Minister in New South Wales who was responsible for the buy-back of guns in Australia. One of the most important things that came through in that discussion with him was the importance of having very fair and reasonable compensation provisions for these weapons. I know that there’s been discussion and a Supplementary Order Paper that you’ve talked about, Minister, regarding this, but I just think it’s absolutely very important that you, as the Minister sponsoring this bill, provide comfort to those legitimate gun owners who will be forced to return these weapons and hand them in that the compensation that they’re going to receive is fair.

I think that’s important because that will mean that people feel fairly treated by these changed circumstances, but I think it also strikes at the whole issue of whether this gun law that we’ve all been part of is actually going to work. The issue is around the number of people who choose—and I use that word advisedly—to comply with this voluntarily in the time that’s permitted. To do it quickly is of vital importance to Parliament, and I think what you do, what you propose around those terms, and how you go about addressing it is vitally important.

I think there is an assumption that we’re going to have an amnesty period for six months that ends on 30 September and that everything’s going to be fine and dandy. I don’t, unfortunately, think that’s going to be the case. When you look at the example in Australia, I don’t have the exact number, but I think that I saw quoted somewhere that they’ve had 30 amnesty periods.

We do not want to be in a situation where this country goes through multiple amnesty periods to try to get to the point where we actually achieve the outcome that all of Parliament is seeking to achieve, and a lot of that rests with you, as the Minister, being explicit about those terms. I urge you to do that as soon as possible, because every day you delay will create uncertainty in the minds of those gun owners but also will potentially put at risk the whole success of this. I just urge you because we all want to achieve a good outcome but also we will want to actually rely on the good nature of those gun owners who will voluntarily do what Parliament requests in this bill. I just say to you again, please act speedily to make sure that we achieve the outcome that Parliament wants.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 203 in the name of Chris Bishop to the proposed amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 201 in the name of the Hon Stuart Nash to Part 1 be agreed to.