Arms Legislation Bill

I move, That the Arms Legislation Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Finance and Expenditure Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 10 February 2020.

There are tragedies or crimes or losses in our communities that have shaped all of us in this Parliament in our own way. Some have motivated us to come to this place in order to make change; to make our society a better place. We have heard some of these personal stories this year during the debate on the abortion law reform and the End of Life Choice Bill, but there are tragedies or crimes or losses that occur far from our personal circles. They have taken no one who was close to us; nevertheless, they have marked us. They haunt us. They haunt us as MPs because we know when we leave this place we are going to be asked to identify the high points, the low points, the regrets.

Gun crime and the terror attack on 15 March in particular haunt every one of us in this debating chamber. There is no better illustration of this to be found than in the words of former police Minister John Banks. In March, some 25 years after he ceased to be the Minister of Police, an act of terror took the lives of 51 Kiwi worshippers; another 40 were injured by gunshots. When the former Minister heard of the shootings at the mosques, a terrible image came back to him. He was instantly at Aramoana in 1990, walking amongst the dead: the 13 men, women, and children who lost their lives in another mass shooting. He told a reporter, “Since Christchurch, I haven’t been able to get out of my mind a small boy aged about eight … lying dead on the ground with his eyes wide open and a look of fear I’ve never forgotten. That young boy has haunted me these last couple of weeks … [This is] the greatest disappointment of my political life … not having the numbers … to rid this country of these killing machines.”

In April, almost this entire Parliament came together to change that. The former Minister said the prohibition on assault rifles and military-style semi-automatics will act as a tribute to that small dead boy he has not been able to forget. I do not want to be that Minister in 20 years’ time, expressing my regrets, yet again, that back in 2019 the gun lobby won out over the safety of our communities. I refuse to let this happen, and so should all of us.

I don’t know who that little boy was who haunts my predecessor. Two six-year-old boys were killed at Aramoana, called Leo and Dion. Also killed in Aramoana was a police officer, Stu Guthrie. I stand here today to say to all police officers: we have your back. This bill will make a difference to every front-line officer. They turn up at some call-outs with no knowledge of what they are walking into. Every month, police turn up to some 200 incidents where a firearm is involved. Every year, between 800 and 1,000 firearms are reported stolen—they disappear into the black market, and many into the hands of gangs. Around 11 percent of firearms offences are committed by gang members.

Police intelligence indicates that most illegally held firearms are stolen from legitimate owners through poor storage practices. We owe it to the police, who tirelessly work day in, day out so we can sleep soundly at night. We owe it to the victims and the survivors of the mosque terror attacks to make these changes. We owe it to members of our community, such as victims of family harm or aggravated robberies, to tighten our gun laws.

In April, we acted to take the most dangerous weapons out of circulation by prohibiting assault rifles and military-style semi-automatics. Now we are moving to stop other firearms from falling into the wrong hands.

The terror attacks at the mosques are not the first mass shooting this country has endured. Successive Governments have known since the Thorp review of 1997 that our gun laws were too weak. The terror attack on 15 March highlighted the flaws in our licensing system. Our gun laws date from 1983 and are dangerously out of date. Since 1983, the firearms manufacturing industry and the ability to buy and sell online has markedly changed the firearms environment. The changes announced today have been decades in the making. It is now up to this Parliament to deliver in the interests of public and personal safety.

Under the current law, we do not know how many guns are in circulation, who owns them, who is selling them, who is buying them, or how securely they are stored against the risk of theft or misuse. There are more than 260 shooting clubs and ranges which operate without any system of licensing. Police have very few options for intervening when they see concerning behaviour. Revoking a firearms licence can only happen for the most serious cases and can take weeks, during which time the guns can be given away or disappear without a trace. The administration of the system is also very outdated. There are higher penalties for unlawfully taking or selling fish than for many firearms offences. We need to modernise the system.

One of the biggest challenges facing police and public safety is the lack of information on what firearms are in New Zealand, where they are, and who is responsible for them. This bill lays the foundations for the development of a register to store information on all firearms and other items controlled by the Arms Act. The register will require and enable individuals and dealers to record every sale and transfer of a firearm, and will be able to be programmed to alert when the number of firearms held may exceed the capacity of the secure storage.

There are many benefits of introducing a register—for example, it helps licence holders meet the obligations that the Act places on them to only sell firearms to other licence holders. Within two years we can start to track and trace all licence holders and their firearms, as all firearms will be required to be uniquely marked and recorded in the register. This will also provide our fantastic police staff with the information that they need to effectively undertake some of their most dangerous tasks.

Owning a gun is a privilege, not a right. The proposed changes will spell out the duties and obligations for public safety that come with this privilege. The vast majority of our gun owners are law-abiding and responsible. The law changes will reinforce the positive behaviour that is required of all gun owners. The current response to the buy-back and amnesty shows how everyone can play a part to make our communities safer.

It is still early days but good progress is being made. As of last night more than 15,000 New Zealanders have turned up to more than 217 collection events. More than 24,000 firearms and 89,000 parts, such as high-capacity magazines, have been handed in. Compensation payments worth around $46 million have been processed. Firearms owners have spoken to media and police at these community collection events to share their views on the process. At the first event in Christchurch, a recreational hunter handed in his Ruger because, he said—and I quote—“It’s the right thing to do … we all need to play a part in making society a little bit safer. We give up something but we make each other safer.”

In the gun-owning community there is a change of mind-set around firearms, because the wider community agrees that it is the right thing to do to make each other safer. The terror attack on 15 March caused us to rethink many things, and that included our gun laws. This bill updates a number of offences and penalties in the Act to make them more fit for purpose and proportionate to the seriousness of the offending—an example of this is increasing the maximum penalty for possessing a firearm without a licence from the current $1,000 and/or three months’ imprisonment to a maximum penalty of $15,000 or one-year imprisonment.

In a summary of his 1997 Review of Firearms Control in New Zealand, Justice Thomas Thorp said—and I quote—“it is clear that there is a need for a totally new approach to firearms control.” But 22 years after the Thorp report, that broken firearms law remains on Parliament statute books. In the last 15 years over 170 people have had their lives cut short by gun violence, and many more families have been devastated by suicide which involved a firearm. This House will be haunted by the memory of these tragedies, crimes, and losses if we fail to act now. Thank you. I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. As has become all too often in this term of Parliament, the Government is delivering something other than what it says on the tin. And it is for that reason that the National Party will be opposing this bill in this, its first reading. The Minister of Police, along with the Prime Minister when they introduced this bill in the media, claimed that it would keep guns out of the hands of criminals. It isn’t focused on criminals at all; in fact, it has it, in our view, 180 degrees the wrong way around. Instead, the bill is imposing greater regulation, more responsibilities, and more costs on law-abiding New Zealanders who happen to own firearms, and is doing very little of any substance to address genuine criminal activity and, particularly, gangs.

Now, we should consider what it means to be classed as a law-abiding firearms owner. By its very definition it means that individual or the collection of individuals are following the laws as they are set down. They are following the rules, they are owning firearms appropriately, they are using them appropriately. The one thing we do agree with the Minister on is when he said that the overwhelming majority of firearms owners are law-abiding New Zealanders. We agree with that. It is for that very reason that they don’t need additional regulation and responsibility—because they follow the law. They use their firearms appropriately. The target should be those that don’t, and placing more onus and cost on firearms owners definitely affects the wrong people.

In 2016, with its report in 2017, the Law and Order Committee formulated an inquiry into the possession of firearms. Amongst the evidence that they heard in that inquiry was the example of Australia: 87 per cent of people who commit offences involving firearms are not licensed. Those people do not hold firearms licences. To create additional provisions or responsibilities around such licences simply does not—cannot—affect those people because they are not licensed in the first place.

The Minister made reference to how these licence changes would help police undertaking their duties. Well, we certainly on this side support the efforts of police and, particularly, on the front line. But here is the situation: if the police are aware that a resident of a property holds a firearms licence, they are going to automatically approach that incident or complaint on the basis that a firearm could potentially be involved. A register or tougher licensing conditions are not going to change the way that they react in those situations. They will always assume the danger could be present.

I’d also like to make a comment about the Christchurch situation and, particularly, the individual who, it is understood—who we believe, certainly—perpetrated those events, because it does relate very closely to law abiding and therefore what Parliament should or should not be looking to do. I’m not going to speculate on the depth of the facts around how he got a licence in the first place. I’m sure the royal commission of inquiry is looking into that and will report on it. But one thing is very pertinent to this debate. We understand that the individual purchased a rifle, a semi-automatic rifle, legally and—at least, technically—legally purchased a large capacity magazine. From the very first moment he bought those two items together he committed a criminal offence. He was not a law-abiding individual well before those tragic events of 15 March. To think that we could take actions that impinge upon the responsibilities of law-abiding firearms owners and would capture someone with that wilful intent is, in fact, if not to misunderstand, certainly not to accurately represent that situation and others that might follow.

So instead of focusing on genuine criminals such as through the provisions of the likes of firearms prohibition orders, which would enable the commissioner to set a higher threshold or barrier to possessing a firearm and create additional offences with very steep penalties, penalties that could be as long as 14 years in jail for people, particularly gang members, with serious convictions—that addresses a general criminal activity, that is real positive, real action to get firearms out of the wrong hands. Instead, the Government has provisions such as registration and certification of clubs and shooting ranges.

We should bear in mind that the people that are members of these clubs or operate at these ranges are, fundamentally, volunteers. They are small groups of people that come together to enjoy their pastime, whether it is a sporting event or more practice for other legitimate uses of firearms—perhaps their hunting activities. If we overburden those individuals with certification bureaucracy and insurances and the like, we risk a very real situation where those that can will simply leave those environments and, instead, undertake their shooting on private property such as farms well beyond any form of oversight. We could, in fact, end up with a situation which has less oversight than we have today.

In fact, the only ones that would be obliged to continue to operate under that regime are the likes of people shooting pistols and other sporting activities because they have to operate under those conditions, and, quite frankly, they are already the best-managed groups and ranges in New Zealand. That is why we have sought to be constructive while we are opposing this bill. We have returned and publicised some conditions around what would be appropriate ways of notifications around these clubs, and particularly ranges, so the police can be aware of the activities that are undertaken lawfully, but which would not apply the same level of bureaucracy and burden on to those groups of volunteers.

I’d like to now move on to the register, at least briefly. In public, at least, the Prime Minister and the Minister have claimed that a register would keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Well, I refer back again to that select committee report and the example of Australia. Their evidence there was that 90 percent of firearms used in criminal offences were not registered—were not registered. There is simply no way a claim can be given on the evidence we have that a register will keep guns out of the hands of criminals. It doesn’t. Now, there may be another reason that the Government might want a register and we may even be able to agree with that, but our call to the Government, therefore, is to place the details out there so that we can see them, put them into the legislation and set out, for the public and for the Opposition here, how it is that their register will be different to other registers around the world that have failed.

The first bill was rushed. We did want to respond quickly; however, the rushed select committee process created a number of issues; one or more of which have had to be fixed via regulation after the bill passed, such as the allowance to allow possession of prohibited ammunition in certain circumstances because it wasn’t included in the bill—clearly an error. Now we see errors in this bill too, and the one I’ll reference right now is to do with dealer licences. The Government has decided it wishes to include all commercial activities—supply, hiring, lending, along with the traditional selling and manufacturing—under a dealer’s licence requirement. Regrettably, section 7 of the Act states that a dealer can only be linked to a single physical premises and that must be where they undertake their business activities. Section 7A allows some temporary shift from those premises, but only for the purposes of gun shows. Now, an armourer came to see me in my Johnsonville office—a guy that goes out and provides firearms and services to movie producers on set—and pointed out that the legislation the Government has introduced means he can’t undertake his business, because the place of his business varies, potentially from day to day, but it certainly varies a great deal. Another oversight we believe brought about, probably more than anything else, because the Government, and perhaps their advisers, simply haven’t consulted broadly enough.

We have issued a list of 13 changes that we would like to see in order to support this bill. They would require a special instruction to the select committee, which I hope the Government will support. If it does not, we will oppose this bill.

We’re very familiar with the concept of licensing in New Zealand. We apply it in an extraordinary number of places. We are licensed to drive a car, second-hand dealers are licensed, electrical workers are licensed, you have to have a licence to go fishing, early childhood centres are licensed, building practitioners are licensed, sale of alcohol is licensed, immigration advisers are licensed. Running a casino—it’s a licensed activity. All sorts of activities where we think that, properly, it should be regulated and supervised. Why? Because of the harm that can be caused to other people. It’s a tricky thing with licensing, putting in place rules and regulations versus the freedom to act, and each time we must weigh up the concerns of the whole community; not just those who would engage in the activity but also the concerns of those who are affected by the activity.

There’s a reason why we license people to drive cars: driving 1.5 tonnes of metal down the road in an irresponsible manner can cause serious harm. And there is a reason why we license firearm ownership; it is because firearms cause death—firearms kill people. Yes, every shotgun and every rifle that can be used for hunting, for pest control, even for sports activities, is used for hunting, for pest control, for sports activities, but they can also be used to kill people. It is for that reason that we need to impose very strict and very careful controls on who is allowed to own firearms, what sorts of firearms can be owned, and where those firearms can be used.

Our legislation is 36 years old. It is out of date and it does not control firearms to the extent that ordinary, everyday New Zealanders want. March 15 was a shocking and terrible event, and one of the many deeply sad lessons that came out of it was that our gun laws did not actually control firearms to the extent that the great majority of New Zealanders want. So we need to do something about that. In the aftermath of 15 March we, quite properly, acted very, very quickly to take the worst weapons off the street. So far, we know that 25,000 weapons—firearms—have been handed back in the gun buy-back. We acted swiftly, and now we are taking the next step to ensure that those who have earned the privilege of owning firearms may continue to do so and to ensure that lethal weapons that can kill people are not just freely available in our society.

I want to address some of the concerns that have been brought up by Mr Brett Hudson in the first speech for the Opposition. Mr Hudson was concerned that, I guess, this new law is going to criminalise gun owners. It is not. I think one of the best examples of this in this proposed legislation is to do with where firearms are stored. Under the old regime police officers could check the security of weapons once every 10 years. Under the new regime—under the new rules which are proposed by this legislation—the storage of firearms can be checked at any time by police, with adequate notice; no surprise visits. But if someone does not have their firearms stored properly, the first step that police will take is an improvement notice. Police will give firearm owners an opportunity to improve the security of their weapons. There are no Draconian measures here; what there is is a concerted effort to improve the control of firearms in this society.

Let me have a look at some of the rules that this particular piece of legislation brings into place. What it does is it seeks to reassure New Zealanders that we are properly licensing firearms owners, firearms dealers, and shooting ranges.

Let’s look at clause 36 of the bill, and, of course, there will be time to debate this in select committee and to understand exactly how it works. But one of the things we will need to do, under the new rules, is see whether a person who holds a firearms licence is a fit and proper person to hold that licence. Police will be invited to assess a number of issues. Now, none of these will rule a person out from holding a firearm all by itself, but there are a number of issues which police ought to consider to holistically consider whether that person is fit and proper to hold a firearms licence—for example, whether or not a person is dependent on alcohol or a person is a habitual drug user; perhaps whether, sadly, they have significant mental health issues; or whether they have engaged in behaviour that promotes violence, hatred, or extremism. These are the sorts of issues that might suggest to police that perhaps the person is not a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence.

The same sort of principle applies under this proposed legislation about a fit and proper person to hold a dealer’s licence. Does that person have a firearms licence in the first place, but are they competent; do they have the resources to be a dealer; have they ever had any convictions; do they have a sound knowledge of firearms—all the sorts of issues which might demonstrate whether or not a person is fit and proper to engage in selling firearms to other people.

I want to talk a little bit about the new rules that are proposed for shooting clubs and shooting ranges. We’re actually proposing that these entities actually have to have a certificate of approval. Now, the previous speaker, Mr Hudson, thought that this would impose a fair amount of work on people who are, essentially, volunteers—and, in fact, I think the suggestion was possibly too much work. But it’s worth looking at people like the Deerstalkers Association, who already have a voluntary regime in place in terms of regulating their own membership. And why did they do this? Because they understand that owning a firearm is a privilege, that firearms have huge safety issues around them, and that they want all their members to be very, very careful about how they use those firearms. So they have a whole set of rules that they already administer themselves, and that is what responsible gun owners do.

As a member of the governing party, we have focused on the idea that gun ownership is a privilege not a right. If this bill goes through, then someone who has a firearms licence will know that she or he is truly trusted by their fellow citizens—truly trusted to hold a lethal weapon. That is a real mark of honour: that the rest of us would trust someone with a firearm that can kill. So I suggest that rather than criminalising people, what this legislation does is it gives an opportunity for a badge of honour—that anyone who owns a firearm under these rules is someone we trust. That is why this is good legislation.

As the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, it will be my privilege to work this legislation through the select committee process. I’m looking forward to working with the members of the Opposition on this. If I heard it correctly, I think I heard that the Opposition is willing to perhaps agree to this bill in due course if we can work through some of the issues that might be there in the select committee. May I assure the members of the Opposition and members of the public who may be listening that I will do my best to ensure that it is an open process where we truly engage with the issues, and I hope that we can come up with legislation that we can all agree with. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It certainly is no pleasure to stand and take a call on this the Arms Legislation Bill. I think that every member of this House would agree that the reason why we’re in this House debating this bill is, in large part, to the tragedy that we experienced as a nation in Christchurch. I would make an appeal to both the chair of the committee and also the Minister of Police to take a deep breath and to do a reset and to sit down with us in Opposition and work on this bill and stay true to the intent of what this Parliament did on the first tranche.

I was the first one to stand up and say that there’s no room in New Zealand for military-style high-capacity weapons. Most of our law-abiding firearm owners and users in New Zealand actually agree with that sentiment. But it’s somehow being distorted, and I would ask the Minister, quite simply, to do this: let’s remember that the alleged offender in this case was a foreign national. He came to New Zealand, he somehow was able to get a firearms licence—and we need to look at that and study that—he was able to get access to a gun club, and he lived amongst us. You will never convince me that there weren’t red flags and indicators there that we should have acted on. So what I would like to see—and we’ll work with you; we’ll work with the Minister on this; we’ll work with the select committee—is to reset and go back and look at what those red flags were, look at what those indicators were, and let’s address the real issues. Let’s address the issues that we know will give us confidence as a nation that we can do the best that we can do to ensure that we don’t have an individual, like we saw in Christchurch, being able to perpetrate another attack like that. I appeal to the Minister to take a deep breath and to sit down and work with us and get focused back on what the original intent of the legislation that was coming through this House was meant for—not targeting law-abiding Kiwis. They are going to continue to be law-abiding Kiwis.

The other point that I’d really like to make, which is critically important—and the Minister did allude to this in his opening speech, and I’m pleased that he did—is that we have been trying, in this term of Government and as Opposition, to introduce firearms safety orders or firearms protection orders. Quite simply, the reason why we want to do that is because—I get anecdotal information coming to me constantly from police officers working on the front line through to district and area commanders—we know that there is a growing prevalence of firearms being carried and used by gang members and organised crime. We know for a fact that with the prevalence and growth of 501s, or returning gang members, who are highly resourced—gangs like the Comancheros—the amount of violence that, actually, the police are having to deal with now on the front line is growing.

I had the owner of a security company that’s been providing security for the Auckland CBD for over 20 years come and see me about two months ago in my office. He showed me four videos—disturbing videos—of what his staff have to deal with now from patched gang members presenting firearms and using firearms. He is finding it more and more difficult to recruit staff to actually provide security in our CBD, and that is reflective of what is actually happening around the country. Why would the Minister not take this opportunity to work with us to actually target the people that have got illegal firearms and that are creating the harm?

I make a prediction: if this Government doesn’t show some intestinal fortitude around this, if this Government doesn’t decide to pick up and support our firearm protection orders—that actually enable the police to take serious action against organised crime and gangs—then we will continue to see deaths from the use of firearms, which is what the previous speaker, the chair of the committee, spoke very passionately about; we will continue to see unnecessary deaths perpetrated with illegal firearms by gangs and organised crime.

So I would appeal to the Minister to signal to his members, and through the process of the select committee, for us to work together to get focus back on what is actually going to make a real, fundamental difference to ensure that we as a nation, and our people, are safe, and to restate that intent and restate that focus, instead of moving into different areas where we’re targeting people that actually have got nothing to do with the atrocity in Christchurch, and every day are just living law-abiding lives. Let’s focus on where the real issue is for us, and that is around organised crime and gangs. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of this, the Arms Legislation Bill.

I struggle to understand the two previous speakers from the National Party in their stance on this bill.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Because they didn’t say what it was.

No, they haven’t stated what it was, but what I got out of that, at the very least, from Mr Hudson, was that they weren’t going to support this bill. They’re not going to support this bill because the vast majority of gun owners are law-abiding. The vast majority of gun owners are law-abiding and crims will be crims: they’ll do what they are going to do with the guns and we can’t do anything about it. That’s the sentiment that the National Party has put up and the main reason they’re giving for not supporting legislation that would bring in the likes of what this bill will be, which is a gun register to ensure that—now, here’s the thing: this is what a gun register will do, Mr Hudson. It will allow the police to do their job more effectively. It will allow the police to track weapons more effectively, and they’ve said that.

Now, this is the umpteenth time in the House this year that I’ve had to stand up and be surprised that the National Party is going against what the police want, what the police are asking for. Mr Hudson also stood up and gave the example of the terrorists down in Christchurch, and how he was law-abiding.

💬 Brett Hudson: No, he wasn’t.

Oh, yes he was.

💬 Brett Hudson: He wasn’t.

Oh, yes he was. And then the example of why he may not have been law-abiding because he put a butt on, or something; he changed—

💬 Hon Stuart Nash: The only time he broke the law was when he put the mag in that gun.

When he put the magazine in the gun, 30 seconds before he mowed—you know, the terrible situation where he killed those 51 people: that was the only time that he did not follow the law. So the excuse from the National Party is that they’re not going to support this because this affects the law-abiding gun owners when, with the very example he had, he contradicted himself. That’s where the National Party is putting their hands up and saying—and, actually, unfortunately, I think they’re politicising it. They’re not going to support this piece of legislation just because—because they’re contradicting themselves. Even when Mr Mitchell stood up, he had no clear view, and, to be fair, he wasn’t even speaking on the bill.

But here’s the thing that New Zealand First is going to do. We’re going to support this bill through to select committee, and it’s vitally important that we see this full process through, because this legislation and this issue of gun crime affects everybody in this country. That’s the key. The issue of gun crime, which is what this legislation is trying to tackle—not law-abiding gun owners; it’s gun crime, and that affects everybody in this country, and it’s vitally important that we give the people who this affects the right and the opportunity to come in through the select committee and have their point of view heard and listened to. And New Zealand First will listen to those people who this legislation will affect; we will hear and listen to the common-sense, the sane, the rational, the reasoned points of view given for this piece of legislation—the multifaceted aspects of which are trying to tackle the gun issue.

But what’s confusing to me is that the National Party don’t want that to happen. They’re voting against this piece of legislation, when they stand up and say they know there’s a terrible occurrence that’s happened in Christchurch, but they don’t want to do anything about it. What’s worse is Mr Hudson stood up and he said he’s got 13 changes he wants to make to this legislation. He’s got 13 changes he wants to make in this legislation, but he doesn’t want to see it through to select committee. Now, where’s the irony in that?

Unfortunately, that’s the message that we’re getting from the National Party—well, it’s the mixed message, where they understand that something terrible has happened in this country, and that there is an issue that is decades old, as has been mentioned in question time today—that is decades old, that spans multiple Governments. But they don’t want to do anything about it, when we’ve got some legislation on the Table of this House that we’re debating, where we want to hear from the gun owners, from the lobby groups, from the gun clubs, from the Deerhunters Association, from the police, from the people who are victims of gun crime. The National Party don’t want to hear them.

I want to point out there’s a couple of stats that have been mentioned already. This is about the why—why we need to do it. Between 1 January 2015 and the end of December 2018 there were almost 14,000 firearms-related offences that were committed. There were 71 firearms-related homicides committed and 901 assaults. Every month, as the police Minister mentioned already, the police are called out to 200 crimes where firearms are involved, and one in five front-line officers is confronted with a firearm—that’s every month. And every year, between 800 and a thousand firearms are reported stolen. They disappear on to the black market, and many into the hands of the gangs. That’s what the National Party need to realise: one of the purposes and main intents of the register is that it will allow the police to better monitor where the firearms are and, obviously, who owns the firearms, and if any are stolen, they can track it. They will be able to, clearly, give the police a better ability of understanding how many firearms there are, who has them, and where they are stored, and, especially, and most importantly, where they are stolen and sold illegally.

New Zealand First will be supporting this bill through to select committee because it’s the right thing to do. The changes that occurred for this country in March of this year have dictated for us the need for a change in the gun laws of this country. New Zealand First will be seeing it through to select committee, and we’ll be hearing from those that this gun law affects. We’ll be listening very carefully to those organisations and those people that this legislation affects.

I think that the National Party need to re-evaluate their commitment to changing the laws in this country, not only for the betterment of those gun lobbyists and the gun clubs and law-abiding gun owners but also the people that the gun laws affect and the gun crime affects, which is everybody in this country. New Zealand First supports this Government in moving this legislation through, and we’re looking forward to the process of it through this House. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, I want to assure Mr Ball and the parties opposite that the National Party wants fair, safe, effective, and enforceable firearms legislation. Mr Ball’s speech is utterly disingenuous, because he took the view that the Government can introduce a bill that is deeply flawed, as this one is, and yet the National Party should be forced to support it no matter how bad it is, because otherwise we couldn’t possibly work on it in select committee to improve it. Well, the fact of the matter is that the Government knows they have the numbers to get this to the select committee, so it will go there and the National Party will engage in the consideration of the bill in good faith and bring all the wisdom and the fairness that we can to those deliberations.

I’ve long been very grateful to live in such a beautiful and relatively safe country as New Zealand, and I’m sure most members of this House who were born here would feel the same as I do. There are so many countries where innocent law-abiding citizens are at daily risk of being threatened, or worse, by somebody brandishing a firearm, perhaps at their own front door, or when they’re driving a car and they pull up at the traffic lights, or when they’re attending a public event in perhaps a theatre or a park, or a place of study. How terrifying that must be. We don’t ever want that to happen in New Zealand, so we must ensure we get the legislation right. How tragic, so often, are the consequences of that type of thing in those countries—how many lives are cruelly taken, how many families are devastated. How many communities are left heartbroken and bewildered as ours was, of course, in the immediate aftermath of 15 March with that horrific, despicable atrocity that we witnessed in Christchurch.

That is why this Parliament responded as one in the immediate aftermath of that atrocity and supported the measures that were introduced at that time. And it’s why I’ve also been grateful that we do, broadly speaking, enjoy sensible gun control laws in this country, unlike many other democratic nations, especially the United States, that have failed to adopt effective measures and which have paid a tragic price week after week, month after month, because of that failure to have sensible and effective gun control. So I would like to be able to continue to support firearms reform legislation, particularly in the aftermath of 15 March. If I felt that the Government was proposing further measures that would enhance our public safety and strike the right balance between the competing and legitimate interests that it concerns, I would support it. And I do welcome commitments from previous speakers in the debate to achieve that outcome—

💬 Greg O’Connor: Unbelievable. You don’t believe that.

—but we cannot support this bill at this time when it is so flawed in several significant ways. Mr O’Connor can abuse me from the other side of the House, but he must be receiving the same sort of emails and communications and contact with our offices that I and my colleagues on this side of the House have been receiving from people who are genuinely aggrieved by what is happening.

The Minister suggested in his speech, when introducing this bill, that the current gun buy-back scheme is working.

💬 Hon Stuart Nash: It is.

Well, I’m sure we all wish that were so, but, Minister, you know that is nonsense. Certainly, many good law-abiding citizens have accepted the changes that were made in the first tranche of firearms legislation that was passed a few months ago and they have been surrendering their now banned firearms, and good on them. They deserve our gratitude—

💬 Greg O’Connor: Unbelievable.

—and our admiration, and for Mr O’Connor to say that is unbelievable is frankly unbelievable. But they were never the people who threatened us or who should be the objects of our concern. Mr Ball, speaking a few moments ago, said that he couldn’t understand National’s position, so let’s consider some of the basic questions that should be the test for a bill of this type: is it fair; is it well drafted; is it well focused; and, most importantly, will it increase public safety? Unfortunately, the answer to most, if not all, of those questions, at this point, is no.

Let me just conclude by pointing out that the National Party is willing to work on this bill in good faith to improve it if all of the conditions that we have set out are met, but we have not received any indication yet from the Government that they will do it. I haven’t got time to go through all of them, but let me just—the introduction of firearms prohibition orders is something that we have debated in this House many times. It is well past time for those to be adopted. I call on the Government to commit to them. They must introduce clearer and more flexible rules for clubs. They must introduce clearer and more flexible rules for sporting ranges. They must ensure that the register that they’re proposing to introduce is clearly defined in legislation and will be effective. They must keep the licence duration the same as it is today. They must include safeguards on healthcare practitioners reporting to police, because we do understand that there are many in the medical profession who have a very important role to play here, and we would wish to support them to the utmost. They must introduce new and consistent exemptions for sports shooting and for pest control exemptions. They must amend the fit and proper person test to require some clear rules for assessing patterns of behaviour. And they must require common-sense rules for visitors purchasing firearms over prohibition, as outlined here.

So I do hope that, ultimately, the Government will come to their senses and realise that those are all fair and sensible measures. I do hope that we’ll be able to reach a point that the country can live with and that the Parliament would be proud to enact. But we are far from that at this point.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is only barely over six months since our nation’s heart was broken on 15 March, when 51 lives were lost in Christchurch as a result of the biggest act of terror in living memory in this country—a hate crime that also wounded dozens more people in body and in spirit for ever. We all remember the victims. We remember the small children who remind us of the little kids in our own lives. We remember the elders who remind us of our grandparents. We remember those who fought back, those who tried to save loved ones. The stories of those victims are what propels the change that we’re about to make in this House.

I remember little three-year-old Mucad Ibrahim, who lost his life, who was ravaged by a military-style semi-automatic weapon that had no business being in the hands of anyone in our community, and that that weapon was owned lawfully. But in the wake of that tragedy, that act of terror, Aotearoa came together in love. All across this country, people came together to hold the victims in our hearts, to support all the affected communities. It was something to behold. And the legacy of that love, that strength that was shown by the nation in the wake of that attack, is to make real change. It must be. We must be brave as we have these hard conversations about what is actually wrong, what shortfalls exist in our law and in our culture, but mostly, in this House, we’re responsible for keeping New Zealanders safe. We’ve been working to ensure that nothing like that tragedy will ever happen again.

The Green Party has a long legacy of working on our kaupapa of non-violence that stands against firearms being out there in the community but, in particular, for regulation like what this bill is about to introduce, in terms of introducing things like a gun register. We’ve been saying for so long that our gun laws are not fit for purpose. We know now that it’s been 36 years since we’ve had significant reform or change in our gun laws. That is unbelievable, given the changes, given the tragedies that have happened, and we here on this side of the House are about to change that culture of apathy in the face of a grave tragedy but also knowing that New Zealand is behind us.

The calls for change were so loud, have been loud for decades, and include the voices of our law enforcement agencies. It is unbelievable that change hasn’t happened until now. But I am so proud that we’re doing it and we’re doing it starting today. This bill proposes five heads of change, so to speak. It will strengthen the purpose of the Act by explicitly acknowledging that gun ownership here in New Zealand is a privilege, not a right. It will provide for an online registry to collect information about firearms and that will link those firearms to the licence holders.

Again, it’s unbelievable that we don’t have a registry that tells us where firearms are, how they’re being stored, and whose hands they’re in. It will make it far easier for law enforcement to do their job. We keep talking about, you know, “Law-abiding citizens are being punished”, but this is actually about knowing who, where, and when firearms are being kept and used in our communities so that the police can enforce the law. That’s what was being made hard by lack of a registry.

Storage will be better monitored. It will reduce risk of theft. So just all of the things that we’re trying to do when we talk about law-abiding versus non - law-abiding. This is about making our gun laws more effective, more knowable, more transparent. The register will also show A category licence of firearms holders in New Zealand—again, unbelievable that we didn’t have it. The bill will strengthen, and make more transparent, the licensing process for individuals, including more clarity around the fit and proper person test to hold a gun licence. It will introduce disqualifications, for example, for anyone who has been released from jail in the last 10 years, been convicted of serious firearms offences, and serious violent offences, among other things. The Green Party will be working further to clarify whether or not the definition of the fit and proper person test in this bill covers the right types of criminality in someone’s record, so that we do make sure that the bill works together with the bigger purpose of our law reforms, in terms of stigmatising drug users, for example, and it actually targets people who may be unsafe to hold a gun licence instead.

We’re going to be increasing penalties, and expanding compliance with our gun laws. Most New Zealanders, again, would be shocked to know that there are higher penalties for infringement of fishing rules than there are for some firearms offences in New Zealand. So this is about making it clear, and allowing law enforcement to do their job, when we deal with a culture in New Zealand, where people don’t actually want gun ownership to be something that can be flagrantly held, that’s something that’s kind of insidious, and uncontrolled, and, like we see in other parts of the world, considered to be a right, to the point of making other community members unsafe, and to the point of making law enforcement so difficult that, in fact, the problem balloons.

We stand at a moment now where we can say that, actually, fishing infringements may be less significant than something that risks the lives of vulnerable people. We know in New Zealand as well that, terrorism aside, we live in a nation with epidemic levels of domestic and sexual violence. Victims of domestic violence are at a risk from firearm offences, including murder, and very serious injury. While we’re working to eliminate domestic violence, we owe it to those victims to ensure that they’re not at greater risk of harm than they need to be. Likewise, we live in a nation with epidemic levels of mental illness, including suicide—another vulnerable community that we need to look out for. Yesterday, even the United States Department of Homeland Security placed white nationalism on its list of types of terrorism on the rise, and while we know that threats like that grow globally online, we know that we’re not immune.

So our communities are at risk of gun violence, and we owe it to them to change that. The whole world is watching. New Zealand has, so far, shown that we are a nation that reacts responsibly, with compassion, that prioritises values like peace and love and public safety above what a small lobby group would have us scream about. We are not a country whose Government sits apathetically on its hands because they sit so comfortably in the pockets of the gun lobby.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: You can’t—

We owe it to the victims—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry, order! But you cannot accuse any members of being financially in the pocket of anyone else.

Sorry, what I meant is that we are not that here in New Zealand, unlike another nation, who shall remain nameless.

In that context, we’ve acted far more responsibly, so far, and far more quickly. So the hope is that we will continue to have those hard conversations, we’ll continue to make real change. We do owe it to the victims. We owe it to all of the affected and vulnerable communities. We owe it to little Mucad Ibrahim. We must be brave, as we weave that love—outpouring of love—all across New Zealand, into the enduring fabric of our society. So I do commend this bill to the House.

It’s a pleasure to take a call on the first reading of this Arms Legislation Bill, and to emphasise the importance that National puts on having effective, safe, and fair firearms laws. I want to reflect on the contribution we’ve just heard from the Green Party. It is National’s view that part of reducing the risk from the awful tragedy that occurred in Christchurch on 15 March is appropriate gun laws. But I would challenge the Green Party that we can never pretend that there will not be firearms in New Zealand. Many experts have already said that one of the most important preventions to a repeat of that strategy is having strong security intelligence services, and I note that that party then and continues to advocate the abolition of those security intelligence agencies that, really, are part of what this Parliament would do, on a united basis, to protect this nation.

I do challenge the Green Party to review their policy on the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service, and the important role it plays. I’m pleased to say that this Parliament has had cross-party support—with the exception of the Greens—on that issue, and, if they genuinely feel about the importance of the lessons from that mosque attack, I hope they will review that position. Now, it’s not National’s view that everything in this Arms Legislation Bill is wrong, but what we do think the Government is doing is repeating a mistake that it is making in an area I feel strongly about, and that is around water policy. That is, this Government seems intent on doing stuff to people, rather than doing things with people. We want to improve water quality, but we want to do it with farmers. We want to improve the safety of firearms, but we want to do it with those law-abiding citizens that hunt and use firearms quite responsibly.

I do want to challenge Government members who have repeatedly ignored the pleas from National to work on a cross-party basis in this area. I have heard over six propositions—

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Posturing, you’re posturing—posturing.

—around the issue of gang prohibitions—well, can I ask Mr Shane Jones: why will his party not support prohibition notices in this legislation for gang members with firearms? We all know, every member of this House knows, that the bulk of the crime that’s committed with firearms is done by gang members—

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Posturing.

—and I’d love to know—talk about posturing—I’ve seen more posturing from the New Zealand First Party on the issue of gangs than any other issue, by any other party. Why Shane Jones and his colleagues will oppose the good work that Brett Hudson and other National members have done around including prohibition of gang laws in such legislation absolutely contradicts what is required, because members on this side actually appreciate that there is a large number of New Zealanders, particularly in rural and provincial New Zealand, who are involved in gun clubs, who go hunting for deer and other recreational pursuits, that are true, decent, responsible New Zealanders. Members on this side of the House are all for safety, but we’re also about treating those hunters and their recreational pursuits with respect and making sure that we work with them to improve firearms safety.

💬 Hon Shane Jones: They’re not gangs.

The greatest irony for me, with Mr Jones, is that in the nine years of the previous Government, the party that was most opposed to making progress in improving our firearms legislation was the Hon Ron Mark and members of the New Zealand First Party. Now, they are the most ambidextrous party I have found on any issue. They are fair-weather friends—

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Flexible—flexible.

—and there are so many members—and I’d say to Mr Jones that I would have met so many constituents in my own area who feel so let down by New Zealand First. They say one thing prior to the election. They vigorously opposed any form of quite moderate firearms law reform when they were on this side of the House, and, suddenly, they have now been taken in by the Green arguments and continue to rat on the provincial and rural New Zealanders that were misled by the New Zealand First Party.

So the members on this side of the House are saying that we’re open to reform, and I actually must commend Brett Hudson. It is unusual for an Opposition party to go out with very detailed policy propositions and say, “Look, this is the sort of stuff that National members can support.” This is the sort of balanced firearms legislation that will improve the safety of our firearms, but not in a way that will impose an unreasonable burden and unreasonable powers against those that responsibly use firearms.

I think this Parliament needs to learn some lessons from the buy-back scheme, because when the buy-back scheme started, the police acknowledged that there were 240,000 firearms out there, and here we are, more than halfway through the buy-back scheme, and only about 20,000, or 10 percent, of those firearms have been collected. How many members of this House really believe that every single semi-automatic firearm prohibited earlier in the year is going to be surrendered—

💬 Hon Andrew Little: So what would that member do? He’d do nothing.

—to police by December this year? So Mr Little says what we should do. Well, let me tell Mr Little, we’ve said the absolute detail of what should be done, and that is that we should go after those criminals that have firearms. Here is the member—Mr Little—that has been so keen to be soft on crime, to reduce sentences, and to go soft on the very people that commit the bulk of the crime, and where, Mr Little, we see the world differently to you is we would go hard on crims, go hard on gangs, go hard on those people that pose the greatest risk in terms of firearms, and give honest, decent New Zealanders who enjoy hunting and other recreational activities—give them a break and not impose some of the excessive provisions in this bill.

💬 Hon Andrew Little: What a stupid member.

So my challenge—oh, Mr Little. He always—Mr Little’s got this habit. Whenever anybody expresses a view that’s different to his, he goes for the personal attack. That speaks volumes about Mr Little. He should take a big—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could we just cut the personal abuse? This is a House of Representatives. Let’s have a standard in this House that doesn’t support personal abuse.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is our view on this side of the House that there are—

💬 Hon Andrew Little: That would make a change from that member.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the honourable Minister Little just please calm down.

I think it is interesting. We have the Minister of Justice, who can’t control his own temper—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: And the Hon Dr Nick Smith, just please talk to the bill.

The bill does have some useful provisions that National could support, and what we have suggested quite constructively to the Government is a series of amendments to this bill that would enable us to be able to support it at further stages. The disappointing part is that there’s been absolutely no engagement with National members—the largest party in this Parliament, that showed on the first bill that it was interested in playing a constructive and supportive role. But you cannot—

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Opposition party.

Well, Mr Shane Jones, actually, it is right and proper that the Opposition scrutinise legislation and ask the hard questions, because otherwise we end up with schemes like the buy-back, that has only achieved 10 percent of what was promised, and we end up with botched policies like KiwiBuild and so many other areas of the Government. So I make no apologies for holding the Government to account and for making sure that any firearms legislation that’s advanced through this Parliament meets those tests of being fair and of being effective and improving the safety of firearms. I’d simply challenge members opposite to take a more reasonable approach and to listen to what the hunters and the responsible gun-users in the community are saying, because it is possible for this bill to be improved so that it meets those objectives.

This Parliament needs to take a very open and balanced approach, where we genuinely are out to improve the safety of firearms in New Zealand while minimising the compliance costs and the hassles for those many New Zealanders who responsibly use firearms. My plea, again, to Government members is why not include the prohibition on firearms ownership for those with criminal records, so that we can indeed keep the gangs, keep those that are criminals—keep guns out of their hands and genuinely make an improvement to firearms safety in New Zealand.

I’m pleased, as a Government member on this side of the House, to rise and speak to this bill. This is one of the more challenging pieces of legislation we will have to steward through, in light of the circumstances that brought this legislation about.

It’s one of the more challenging pieces of legislation that I think this House has to consider and, indeed, we must consider it responsibly, and I think we must reflect as well on many of the recommendations that have come through over the last 36 years. This Arms Act has been in place for 36 years. There haven’t been comprehensive amendments to this Act in 27 years.

I want to take a note from—it was two days after the events of 15 March. A journalist by the name of Laura Walters from the Newsroom made this observation. It was at a time when the country was in its heightened stage, and she wrote this piece about gun law reform and some of the challenges that I think resonate with me today and this afternoon as this House considers this raft of reforms. She said, “The issue of guns is constantly bubbling away under the surface, with debates rising to the top every time there’s a high-profile incident involving a firearm. When this happens the reports are all the same: police saw it coming, Police Association calls for tighter laws, the firearms community pushes back saying that their rights as responsible gun owners were being eroded by the criminal minority—‘guns don’t kill people, people kill people’—and politicians promise to look at those laws.” That statement, two days after one of this country’s most tragic incidents in post-wartime, couldn’t resonate more loudly than what this debate has reflected in this House this afternoon.

When you look through the detail—and I’m not sure how many of the Opposition members have gone through this bill—there’s a raft of things that are being proposed by the Minister of Police, the Hon Stuart Nash. One is the registry, another looks at licensing, and then there’s a whole raft of reforms in terms of the offences and penalties.

The registry has been a point of contention this afternoon across the House, and that, to me, is very interesting. It’s interesting that the list member for the National Party who is the spokesperson for the police can, in this House, get up and say that a registry is not wanted or required for law-abiding citizens. It astounds me that the Opposition spokesperson for the police can say that when the former Minister of Police from the now Opposition, the Hon Judith Collins—she agreed at the time, in March, that there should be a firearms register. The former spokesperson for police, the member Christopher Bishop—he agreed only a couple of months ago that there should be a registry for firearms. Why did they do that? Because those that are responsible for ensuring that all New Zealanders are safe have been calling out for that amendment for years.

The Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern, when she made her remarks in this House in March for the first tranche of those firearms reforms—she said and she noted that this House has tried to address arms legislation reforms in 2005, 2012, and 2017, and never quite could get the momentum to get the numbers to get this piece of legislation over the line.

One of the more—and he’s been oft quoted this afternoon. The Hon John Banks, right after the law-abiding citizen, the gun-licensed citizen David Gray, in November 1990—he was a licensed gun holder. He was a law-abiding citizen.

💬 Brett Hudson: No, he wasn’t.

In 1990, when he acquired that gun licence, yes, he was a law-abiding citizen, and he went on to commit a rampage, killing 13 lives in 1990. That triggered the review. That triggered the review, and in 1997 the Thorp report came out. That recommended a raft of amendments. The Hon John Banks said that that was one of his lasting, I guess, sorrows, leaving this House—that he could not get the numbers amongst his own side to get that gun reform legislation over the line. I implore the Opposition to stop playing politics with something so significant to public safety.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is a very important issue to get right. Firearm safety is hugely important for the wider public in New Zealand. There should be the ability for those who enjoy recreational hunting, target shooting, or any other pursuit that involves firearms to do so in a safe manner, adhering to a specific set of rules and criteria. Whenever we’re proposing changes to that, we need to be looking at the intent: what are we trying to achieve? In this instance, off the back of those horrific attacks on 15 March, the intent is to improve safety and to reduce the ability for criminals to access firearms. That needs to be the focus.

Now, some of the proposals that are in this bill—yep, no problem; we can support those. But so many of them are focusing unnecessarily on the law-abiding firearms users and changes that, quite frankly, would have no impact on the ability of criminals to access firearms or to conduct criminal activity with firearms. So the focus needs to be on criminals, and it is extremely disappointing to note that, in several instances now, this Government has opposed our efforts to impose firearms prohibition orders. Now, this is a direct mechanism to restrict access by the criminal element to these firearms, and this, as I mentioned, is what we need to be focusing on: reducing the ability of criminals to access firearms. So I would hope, actually—I’m disappointed they haven’t, but I would hope—that, perhaps during select committee, the Government might review that and support that proposal, because that is one that we absolutely would like to see brought in under this legislation.

Now, in terms of those changes, we supported the first raft of changes, and we’ve heard a lot of debate around that. One of the things that’s come out of that—the goodwill, we talked to that—is there’s some concern around the compensation for those that are currently going through this buy-back scheme, with people questioning whether they are being compensated fairly. There are other aspects, such as ammunition or safes and other security arrangements, that are not being compensated and, quite frankly, should be, because these New Zealand citizens who have up until recently legitimately held these firearms and conducted their recreational activities are now outside the law because of those law changes, and they’re feeling a bit frustrated. They’re feeling a bit scared about being outside the law. These are law-abiding New Zealanders who have continuously acted within the realms of the law. Especially so because of the firearms requirements, they are very cognisant of their responsibilities and don’t like to be outside of that. So that is part of why we’ve seen such strong pushback, and I’ve certainly heard that from constituents around the Waikato as well. So we need to be looking at that.

The licensing term proposed under here, reducing it to five years—what benefit does that bring? There’s no benefit to that. That’s not going to stop criminal activity; it’s just adding extra costs on to firearms licence holders. That brings me to the cost recovery aspect proposed under this bill—and, actually, a number of the Government members, I suspect, haven’t read it, given their comments. I just refer to Kiritapu Allan. It is important to read this stuff. The devil is in the detail, and the cost recovery suggests quite clearly that any costs associated with implementing this can be put back on firearms licence holders through their renewals. So things like the implementation of a firearms registry—that entire cost could be conveyed across to firearms licence holders, and that would be a massive increase in costs for them, and an unjustified increase, I believe.

So, a registry? Look, in principle, I’m not opposed to a registry, but I question the benefit of it. I would much rather see the cost of administering a registry implemented into a focused effort to reduce criminal behaviour and activity in relation to firearms. That’s where the investment should be going, and we’ve seen time and again this Government’s focus has been not on actually restricting criminal access but on impinging rights through a raft of changes under this legislation—and I’ve earmarked a whole bunch of issues that I have with what they’re putting forward here—rather than where the focus should be, around getting tough on criminals.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: Same old.

“Same old.”, says Dr Duncan Webb. He has no idea of the actual implications that this has on the firearms community in New Zealand. This Government needs to do a lot better, and I hope that we can get some improvements at select committee.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in opposition to this bill. Why? Because it is morally and practically bankrupt. Fundamentally, this bill is about punishing the law-abiding while leaving law-breakers to get off scot-free, and there are so many more problems within that. One that I never would’ve thought we’d hear from this Government is that it undermines the doctor-patient relationship in respect to mental health. Who is going to go to their doctor and say they’re not feeling so well when they know that the Government has sent a message from Parliament that their doctor is on duty to report on them and take their rights away if they feel they’re not quite right themselves?

It also promises a register of firearms. Everywhere it’s been tried, in every country that has tried one, it has been found to be impractical. They need 90 percent compliance to be remotely close to effective. Nowhere in the world has got over 70, and countries that have tried it have abandoned them. But, actually, the reason a register doesn’t work should be intuitive. If somebody is a fit and proper person with a firearm, what difference does it make if that particular firearm is registered? And if a person is somebody who shouldn’t have a firearm and is not a fit and proper person according to the law, then they should not have a firearm, whether it is registered or not.

One of the most important safeguards to ensure that we have responsible use of firearms in this country can be summed up in one word: community. Up and down this country, people get together and form clubs to keep an eye on each other, to upskill each other, and to make sure that firearms are used with appropriate skill and responsibility. Well, what does this bill do? It places a regulatory burden on those clubs that will make them more expensive to operate and, in many cases, for the smaller informal ones, ensures that they will disband, go underground, and people will start shooting up cans on their mate’s farm instead of having any kind of social operation whatsoever.

The member in charge of the bill, Stuart Nash, said he doesn’t want to be a Minister with regrets for not doing anything, and I can understand that. All Ministers are mindful of their own place in history. He should be saying he doesn’t want to be a Minister who failed to do anything effective—and that’s the critical point. There is nothing effective in bringing a bill to this Parliament that punishes the law-abiding and does nothing at all to the criminals. It’s not going to make New Zealanders safer, but it is going to put a huge burden on those who are trying to follow the law.

It’s a great irony for this Government, that talks so much about social capital and wellbeing, that they have chosen to respond to our nation’s greatest peacetime tragedy by scapegoating, othering, and generally treating with contempt, a group of several hundred thousand law-abiding New Zealanders. I remain genuinely puzzled that the Prime Minister, who speaks the language of kindness and inclusion, chose to follow a process that was so rushed and so improper and so accusatory of a group of law-abiding New Zealanders, it would make Robert Muldoon blush. But she did it, and now this Government is doing it again.

What might have been a smarter response to firearm laws in New Zealand that would truly honour the victims of our nation’s tragedy in Christchurch? Well, the first thing they could have done is thought, “This Government has a royal commission to find out what went wrong. Why not wait to see what the royal commission reports, and find out what went wrong before attempting to fix it?” That would be smart. Then, on brand and on message for this Government, it could follow the ACT Party’s initiative of having a hui and bringing those law-abiding firearm owners—those with an interest in the policy area—the police, and those who are associated with the victims all around the table and had a constructive discussion about how to make firearm laws better. That would not only be better for the dignity of our democracy; it would have got better laws, but, sadly, we have this, which the ACT Party proudly opposes. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. Thank you. It’s a real pleasure to speak on the Arms Legislation Bill because we are moving forward, and this is part of what this Government wants to do, which is to make a society which is just and safe. We heard one of the earlier speakers from the other side opposing this on the basis that there had been many law-abiding gun owners and this was going to affect them; that in some way, simply because the law is there, we shouldn’t change it. There is no greater fallacy than seeing a law which is not fit for purpose and just letting it lie there when our job, as parliamentarians, is to improve our law and make our society better, safer, and fairer. This is what this bill does.

Tim van de Molen: The member’s demonstrated no understanding of the argument.

Yes, Mr van de Molen protests too much. There are four arguments that the other side has here. First is, don’t do it. Don’t do it now. Let’s wait. We heard that from Mr Seymour: let’s delay, let’s wait. Let’s have a hui before we attack this problem which faces our society.

The other argument is deny: “Oh, there’s nothing wrong. There’s no problem.” Well, there were 71 firearms deaths last year—homicides. That’s a problem that we’re not going to stand by. Defer: “Oh, let’s do something else. Let’s just wait a bit longer. Let’s hit pause.” And the other one: deflect—“Oh, that’s not the problem; the problem is the criminal organisations.” Well, you know what? Let’s just remember what we’re dealing with. A firearm is an inherently dangerous thing. We deal with many dangerous things in our life: poisons, explosives, motor vehicles. Now, that’s not to say that we shouldn’t also attack the problem of criminality when people deal with those things, but we want to know who the owner is. Who is in control of those inherently dangerous things?

You know, I do not begrudge for one moment the fact that I’ll have to wander down to the police station and register a firearm. No difficulty with that at all. It’s a small chore: a few minutes or perhaps an hour out of my day. I have no difficulty with letting the police know that, safely stored—and I won’t tell you where—there are those firearms, because I accept that there may be instances when the police would want to know that there is a firearm there, whether they are entering my premises to assist in some incident, whether I’ve had a burglary, or any other number of reasons. It is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. We register our cars without any protest whatsoever. We’ve got to remember that it isn’t some God-given right. This is not a constitutional entitlement—to own and carry a firearm. That narrative belongs elsewhere; it’s not part of New Zealand’s culture. It is a privilege and we must exercise it with the utmost care.

So, registering that firearm—it’s not a chore. It’s something I’m happy to do, and so should every other gun owner be happy to do: to let people know that there is an extremely dangerous thing that the gun owner is in possession of, that they are going to responsibly store it, they’re going to secure it, and we can make sure that it doesn’t fall into the wrong hands. If they come to dispose of it, we want to know how and where it is disposed of so that we can indeed know where these dangerous weapons are.

So, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with both registering those firearms and also paying attention to our licensing regime: making sure that the people who own these guns are proper to do so, and continue to be proper. Mr Seymour mentioned the fact that a health practitioner can report if someone is at risk. Now, let’s remember what the risk is. This is a life risk. If someone is so mentally unwell that they pose a risk to themselves or someone else, there’s already an obligation to report to Oranga Tamariki in some instances. There’s nothing wrong with saying, “There’s a real risk that this person will cause death to another person.” That is what a medical practitioner should be doing in this situation. So, this is just one more step down the road to making our society safe, making it fair, and making it a great place to live. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am pleased to stand and speak in this second reading of the Arms Legislation Bill. I want to say that, actually, I agree with the speaker, Dr Duncan Webb, who’s just resumed his seat, in terms of wanting a just and safe New Zealand, and to have law that’s fit for purpose. The reality, though, is that National sees that the bill, as drafted, won’t deliver a just and safe New Zealand that the Government speaks of. That’s why we’ve been very practical and pragmatic in terms of proposing 13 changes or improvements to the legislation that would deliver a just and safe New Zealand.

The first one, of course—which is a bit of a no-brainer, really—is the firearms prohibition orders, because if a member of the public or a member of the community was listening to this debate and thinking, in terms of risk to them and their safety, where is the greater risk? Who does that risk come from? Does it come from the criminal element, does it come from someone who is associated with a gang, or does it come from the person who lives next to me, who owns a firearm to shoot rabbits and possums? So, it’s really important, for those who are listening to this debate, that National absolutely wants to ensure we have a just and safe New Zealand. But what we don’t believe is that the bill—as drafted, that’s come out of select committee—delivers that. We want to have a piece of legislation that delivers it.

So if you were to ask who the New Zealand public is more at risk from, are they at risk from the person who lives next to me who has the firearm to shoot their possums and rabbits, or is it the person who has a criminal record who is a member of a gang or a gang affiliate? So we’re quite surprised—I’m personally very surprised—that the Government hasn’t included the firearms prohibition orders. That’s the top of our list in terms of recommendations for how this legislation can be improved. I urge the Government to incorporate that particular change, because of any of the changes that we are recommending, that is the one that I think would have the biggest difference.

If I think about those that have been in contact with me about this piece of legislation—they’ve been loosely called the firearms community—well, let me let me put a face on those people. They are the people who are sport shooters. Shooting and target shooting is a sport for them. It is a means of recreation. As I’ve said, they are the people that are killing pests—whether they’re rabbits or possums. They are those that hunt for recreation or for food. They are a group of New Zealanders, if I look at the statistics in terms of the number of firearms licences, 248,000—the vast majority of those are law-abiding, upstanding members of our communities. They are not the lunatic fringe, they are not extremists; they are everyday New Zealanders that participate in our communities, in our schools, in our churches and everywhere else.

So, again, I come back to the question that I posed at the start to the Government: who is the public at greater risk from? Criminals, gang members, gang associates, or the sorts of people I’ve just described as members of our communities that are part of the nearly 250,000 New Zealanders that have licences, who use them for sport, for hunting, for pest control, to gather food for their families, and in some instances it might be to humanely dispose of an animal on a farm. I think the unfortunate piece of this legislation is the Government have got the balance all out of whack. What it’s doing is actually penalising and adding bureaucracy and rules and red tape to the close to 250,000 New Zealanders who have a firearm for a range of purposes, and, actually, it really fails to deliver the really hard edge of this, which is: who causes the greater risk to New Zealand communities?

I want to just briefly touch on the firearms register because, in my own electorate, I know that, had there been a firearms register, a murder would have been solved much quicker if there’d been one in place. So, in theory, a firearms register is a good idea, but it’s only a good idea if it works and delivers on the purpose. That’s why National was suggesting that this bill should be improved by including the details of the register in the bill itself so that it’s clear for everyone what is actually going to be delivered and how it’s going to work.

There are still some concerns on this side. I share them with my colleagues that have spoken previously at length about this in terms of—given the examples and experience of countries overseas with a firearms register, that perhaps it would be better to say, “Actually, that’s a very chunky piece of work. It’s really important that it works. Why don’t we take that out of this bill, deal with it separately, build the business case, and do it properly?” And, at the end of the day, I’m going to finish as I started. National absolutely wants to ensure a just and safe New Zealand. We want a piece of legislation that is fit for purpose and that works. That’s why we’ve got 13 recommendations to improve this legislation and we’re asking the Government to support these practical, pragmatic changes to make this bill work. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

It’s with something of a heavy heart I stand to speak today. Many of the speakers today have spoken about Christchurch and focused their speeches around Christchurch, but, actually, this isn’t about Christchurch. Christchurch was the tip of the iceberg about just how badly managed our firearms system has been for many years. The warnings have happened along the way, and they’re warnings that have been ignored. I’ll go back to ones I was personally involved in: the shooting of Len Snee in Napier. That offender had 15 firearms. For those firearms, he had been a legitimate user. His licence had lapsed, but the system as it existed meant that he existed in a vacuum and he was never discovered.

We went on to the shooting in Kawerau of four police officers. Those police officers were shot by a man who had acquired the firearm from his brother who had legitimately had that firearm. On those occasions, in my previous role at the New Zealand Police Association, we had been calling for an inquiry, so obvious was it that our system and the availability of firearms were out of control.

Interestingly enough, on the morning of that shooting, the then Minister Judith Collins said there was no need for an inquiry. The shooting happened in the afternoon and that evening the inquiry was called. That’s how politicised the system became, and also how only with absolute necessity would anything be done. During that select committee I spoke to the select committee in my previous role and I said that if we didn’t do something about our firearms laws, an overseas terrorist or terrorist group would come to New Zealand, realise how easy it was to acquire these weapons, and would carry out an atrocity. It gives me no pleasure to say that was exactly what happened.

Can I also say that in an article I wrote at the time, “It is in the interests of New Zealanders to preserve this country as a country where citizens can legitimately own and use firearms. Our forests and mountains are teeming with what I term ‘edible pests’, the killing of which allows hunters to make an ecological contribution to the natural environment.” So this bill is not about hunting. It is not about firearms ownership. It is simply about ensuring that those who legitimately want to go about the business of hunting, who go about the business of enjoying firearms, can do so.

Now, to separate out and to think we should only have a bill that focuses on criminals is actually, quite frankly, ridiculous, because even the bill that is being paraded across the House, all that would do would be dealing with the legitimate acquisition of firearms by the criminal fraternity. The reality of it is the criminal fraternity acquire their firearms illegitimately, but the vast majority of those firearms begin life legitimately. They are bought—whether it is from a gun shop or however else it is acquired, the majority of those firearms actually start life legitimately and move into the criminal fraternity. It’s actually about stopping the flow of firearms into that criminal community.

In my time as a police officer, in my early years firearms were relatively rare in the hands of criminals. For those that had them, they were something of a status symbol, and certainly quite hard to acquire, and not something you ever wanted to risk losing by being careless with it—by careless: when you pulled it out. Also, there were quite high penalties on them. What actually happened is that as the firearms laws became lax—and I have to say, police have to take some responsibility for this—as the ability to import firearms and the laxness around who could buy firearms became apparent, what that did was actually increase the flow of illegitimate firearms into the criminal community. So it was only from that pool of firearms that were legitimately purchased, and for which anyone who bought that firearm had no responsibility for once it went out their door—whether it had been stolen, whether they sold it to someone in a pub, because there was no way it would ever come back to them.

In my early days as a detective, with many of the firearms we did see, often the serial number had been somehow erased; it was not a difficult job to take it into the then Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, now the Institute of Environmental Science and Research Ltd, to actually get that serial number reproduced, and it would be relatively easy to then trace the firearm back to where it legitimately began. That would then hold to account the often legitimate owner of that firearm as to why he or she had allowed it to fall into criminal hands. Often it had been sold in the back of a pub. So what it did do was ensure that those owners knew that if it went into the wrong hands and was used, then they would be accountable for it. Once the law was changed so it was only the owner and not the firearm that was licensed, then, all of a sudden, there was no responsibility for that individual firearm. And that’s why we have this situation today. That’s why what law we implement, whatever we bring in, it’s important that we stop the flow of firearms into the criminal fraternity.

Those who are speaking—and look, I hear speeches. People believe they understand what they’re saying, but the analogy I use is this around firearms. People say, “Well, let’s just pick on the criminals. Let’s go out and do search warrants on the criminals.” Well, the problem with that is that many of the people who end up committing the crimes actually aren’t necessarily the criminals at the time. You need to start looking across much more broadly. It’s perhaps a poor analogy, but I’ll use the analogy of sex offending, where we teach our children to be wary of strangers. There’s this myth built up that the real danger to our children is actually from someone who’s hanging around the park; someone who’s hanging around schools. And that’s actually not the case.

The real danger to our children from sex offenders is actually people they know. It’s actually family members. It’s actually people who are legitimately brought into the house. And similarly it is with the firearms legislation. The real danger is actually not them over there, those who get the guns, because the reality is that many criminals commit offending against other criminals. They’re not always a danger to the—I’m not in any way defending them. And, of course, whatever we do, we still need to ensure that not only do we stop the supply but we get the supply off. The other thing I might say is that when criminals do get guns, they store them very poorly because they have to actually ensure that they won’t be picked up in a normal police search warrant. And what that means is that they’re often stored in damp places, in places that are dusty, and the firearms very quickly lose the ability to be used quickly.

I’d just also like to go on, just to make people understand how many firearms are out there. Now, the police in the past were very poor at collecting this. We as an association actually started collecting the statistics ourselves. In the last six months, police have attended 1,354 events. In the last six months, they have seized 1,206 firearms; that’s 44 firearms a week. So that just gives you some idea of how many illegitimate firearms are out there. There are an incredible number, and whatever we do we must actually ensure that we mop them up.

Now, again, I hear the Opposition talking with glee about the fact that people aren’t taking part in the firearms buy-back. Well, I would suggest to those that think that they’re going to sit on those firearms: just ensure you’re not ever going to have a relationship break-up, just ensure that you’re not ever going to have a falling out with a partner, just ensure you’re not going to have a falling out with a mate or someone who knows you’ve got those firearms, because that’s where you’re going to get yourself in very big trouble—because nine times out of 10, the people who will actually report you for that will be people who know you. So those who are sitting here watching this, thinking, “They’re not getting my gun; I’m not handing them in.”, be very, very afraid, because, unless you believe that you won’t fall out with anyone, that person is likely to be suffering from being brought into the system.

As far as the registration goes, the registration is actually a no-brainer. The only reason registration was discontinued the last time the Act was rewritten is that, quite frankly, it had broken down—it was a paper-based system and it was pre-computers. The general feeling is that had it been five years later that that Act had been rewritten, once we understood computers and their capability, it probably would have very likely remained a registration system, because registration is in a country like New Zealand, where people should grow up, and I would like to see a situation where every New Zealander gets the opportunity to go out and enjoy this country. But it will only be done—we’ll only protect hunters—by ensuring we have a robust system. And this bill will do it. I recommend this bill.

on behalf of the Minister of Police: I move, That The Arms Legislation Bill be reported back to the House by 10 February 2020.

Motion agreed to.

I seek leave without notice to move to give the committee the power to examine any provision, schedule, or legislative instrument included in the Arms Act 1983, and report recommendations to the House that may otherwise be considered outside of the scope of this bill.

Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.