Arms Legislation Bill

I move, That the Arms Legislation Bill be now read a third time.

The details of this bill have been worked on assiduously since it was first announced 11 months ago, but in reality there are at least 23 years of knowledge and analysis behind it. On a day like today, in the middle of winter, on 30 June 1997, Justice Sir Thomas Thorp presented his review of firearms control in New Zealand. The Napier-born Sir Thomas passed away in 2018. But his colleague Simon Mount QC has been closely following the passage—[Interruption]

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! Can we have a bit of quiet for the Minister, please, as you leave.

—of this legislation, and I would like to quote a message from Simon, received this week: “Sir Thomas would have been pleased to see so many of his recommendations implemented in this bill. He had a strong affinity with New Zealand firearms owners, and he knew how important firearms are for many sections of New Zealand’s community. He worked extremely hard to meet with and listen to gun owners, and he respected those for whom firearms are vital tools or sporting equipment. He also valued personal responsibility and public safety highly, and he worked hard to find recommendations that struck the right balance for New Zealand. He had a deeply practical streak alongside his broad intelligence, and he wanted a firearms regime that would work in the real world. He knew that effective firearms regulation is not easy, and no laws, no matter how good, can prevent all harm. After years of waiting, he would have been very pleased to see Parliament finally adopt the key planks of the system he believed would give New Zealand the best chance of reducing harm.”

15 March 2019 will always be a devastating day in our history, but it does not define us. What defines us is how we reacted and the actions we took. There were so many brave people who stopped directly in harm’s way to help victims—running into live fire, some knowingly giving their lives to save others. Families and friends sacrificed themselves and put others first on that day. People who were passing by stopped to rescue victims and take them to safe shelter. Police and emergency services rushed to the scene, and we know two of Police’s brave officers managed to locate and stop the killer and prevented the horror from continuing. So many people rushed to help.

I am proud of our response as a nation and of every person who took some small action to show support and solidarity, especially those courageous people who risked their own safety, and I’m proud of my fellow MPs in this Chamber. It’s been nearly a year since that day, and we’ve achieved a great deal. We’ve achieved what previous Governments could not. We have collected, destroyed, or modified almost 64,000 firearms and destroyed more than 227,000 prohibited parts and large-capacity magazines.

But we do not stop with that. As a Government, we took a comprehensive, system-wide approach to risk management of firearms use. That brings us to the bill before us today. The third reading of the Arms Legislation Bill is a historic milestone for community safety. We know we always have more work to do to make New Zealand a safer place. This is another significant step along that way. The new law is designed to stop firearms falling into the wrong hands. It spells out for the first time that owning a firearm is a privilege, limited to responsible, licensed owners.

The most significant change is a new firearms register. Successive Governments have failed to deliver a register since it was first recommended by Sir Thomas Thorp in 1997. This will finally track how many firearms are in legal circulation, who holds them, who is selling them, and who is buying them. Once the register is established, every licence holder has up to five years to register their guns. They will need to keep updating the register as they buy or sell guns. It allows us to link firearms to licence holders, return stolen firearms to their legitimate owner, and hold licence holders to account for the safe storage and possession of firearms.

We need to ensure that every part of our risk management system, from licensing processes to security requirements and the firearms themselves, is robust. We don’t want anyone to have access to dangerous assault weapons or to be able to slip through a crack or manipulate the system, which is why we have expanded the definition of “prohibited firearm” and we have prohibited those types of pistols that were really short military-style semi-automatics.

We need checks and assurances across the entire system. This comprehensive risk management approach means a number of changes. The changes we’re making to the Act touch on those key points where it is essential to mitigate risk. Risk includes the unsafe use of firearms or illegal possession of firearms. These changes include those that take effect immediately following Royal assent, expected next week—for example, reducing length of a firearms licence from 10 years to five years for first-time licence holders and those who have previously had their licence revoked or who have allowed it to expire. Offences and penalties have been changed to better reflect the seriousness of offending. Examples include possessing a firearm without a licence, which now has a penalty of up to one year in prison or a $15,000 fine—that’s up from three months or a $1,000 fine under the old system—and selling a firearm to an unlicensed person, which carries up to a two-year jail sentence or a $20,000 fine, which is up from three months or a $1,000 fine under the old system.

More people involved in agriculture and similar businesses can obtain endorsements to possess prohibited firearms where it can be clearly demonstrated these are needed for pest control purposes, and a ministerial arms advisory group will be established to ensure there is ongoing support and advice on firearms matters. Some changes, though, will follow over a three-year period. These include new rules to take effect in six months to determine who is fit and proper to possess firearms and who will be disqualified from holding a firearms licence. The fit and proper person status is at the core of any application for a firearms licence. Every person applying must be responsible and trustworthy enough to earn the privilege of holding a firearms licence.

There will be new rules, in one year, governing a gun dealer’s licence to recognise the range of dealer activities and associated risks of theft or misuse of firearms. In six months’ time, anyone who sells ammunition will need a firearms licence.

To satisfy the public and licence holders that the changes we have made are delivering on the intent, we have brought forward the time frame for reviewing the Arms Act from five years to three years. This will include a review of the Act’s offences and penalties and the registry.

We appreciate the contribution from the firearms community throughout all these changes. We have had healthy debates and have worked to keep people safe. I thank them for their time and your support. No doubt, some of them will keep providing that support through the arms advisory group which will be established under these new laws. Its members will be people with knowledge and experience from both inside and outside the firearms community, who will advise me on matters such as legislative proposals and policies that contribute to the safe use and control of firearms.

At the heart of the new laws is the new principle that the possession and use of arms is a privilege. We must always remember that with this privilege comes responsibility, and that is what our changes to this Act ensure. Every person involved with firearms has to act in the interests of safety.

I mentioned at the start of my speech that Sir Thomas was a Napier boy. He watched his father rebuild his business after the devastation of the Hawke’s Bay earthquake. We too have been devastated by the loss of life on 15 March and the harm caused by gun crime.

To quote from the obituary of Sir Thomas in the Law Society journal in 2018: “He had an eye for the big picture and the future, and never stopped looking for ways the system could be improved.” That must be the duty of this Parliament too. Sir Thomas, this is for you. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is regrettable that we are standing here today debating this bill in the form that it’s in. And that is true for a number of reasons, but particularly one key reason, and that is that the Minister himself, and, indeed, the Prime Minister, have repeatedly said that the provisions in this bill would ensure that guns were kept out of the hands of criminals and that it didn’t unduly focus on law-abiding firearms owners. Well, that’s not what the bill we are debating today actually delivers, and there’s a mound of evidence that backs this up.

For instance, in the 51st Parliament, a Law and Order Committee inquiry heard evidence from Australia that almost 90 percent of firearms offences are committed by people who are unlicensed. And we were assailed for a period of time, pre-COVID, in this country, with report after report of firearms offences involving gang members, where those gang members were not licensed for those firearms, and certainly not carrying the proper endorsements for the semi-automatics that they shouldn’t have been using, nor the pistols in some cases. This bill does nothing about that. This bill, and particularly in the amendments to Part 5 of the principal Act, places more rules, regulation, and cost on people that do follow the law, on those law-abiding firearms owners who meet the fit and proper test. It doesn’t do anything about people that don’t bother to get a licence. It doesn’t stop them getting hold of or using the firearm. Yes, the Minister might say there is an offence with a tougher penalty if they get caught. That is true. But his claim consistently has been that it will stop them, and it doesn’t.

One thing that could have been done—and I will only mention this in passing, but it could have been done—was putting firearms prohibition order provisions into the bill. That absolutely would have been a tool to help keep guns out of the hands of genuine criminals and gang members. There was ample opportunity through the process—the Minister has said 11 months, there was ample opportunity. The Government actually even undertook some minor form of consultation on the matter that ended in early January, but they didn’t take the opportunity to put provisions in the bill. It’s a missed opportunity. Had they done so, they would have been able to argue that, at least in part, it was delivering what they claimed it would deliver: to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. But it does not.

Certainly, in licensing, it makes some changes. There was a comment as early ago as yesterday, which I just think needs to be resolved for the public and the members of the firearms community, in particular. The Minister claimed that the licensing provisions, the amendments and additions to Part 5 of the principal Act around licensing for lawful, law-abiding firearms owners, would have prevented the 15 March massacre. Principally, what he was referring to was a provision in here about patterns of extremist behaviour. Well, I think it’s important for the public record to note the public record, and the public record of that very matter that we have been led to believe now for over a year, is that police were unaware of the online comments of that individual prior to the event. That being the case, there’s nothing in here that could have stopped that. I do accept that had they been aware of it, absolutely, the provision would prevent it. But I’d say that you would have struggled to determine him fit and proper in the first place. But to be absolutely clear: can’t claim that by adding a couple of provisions and codifying the elements of the fit and proper person test actually would have prevented that event. It wouldn’t have. It is unfair on the firearms community to, in effect, indirectly demonise them by claiming that it would have done.

Actually, on that point, largely all it does do is take elements that are already in the police guidelines and codify them into the legislation. In itself, that is not necessarily a bad thing, but there are elements in it—not only that pattern of extremist behaviour one but also the health practitioner proactive notification element—which are worrying—very worrying.

We all know how much of an issue mental health has become across the country—for instance, in a recent ride-along with Wellington police, I was told that, in frequency, mental health issues represent the second-highest frequency call outs for them. The first, regrettably and terribly, is family harm; mental health is a close second. It is an enormously serious problem. We heard evidence through the course of this bill traversing its way to this point and concerns not only from firearms owners, but from other organisations within the mental health sphere, that this risks people with problems not seeking help, because if they worry that by seeking that help, it might result in a police officer coming to their door to remove their firearms, they may very well not seek that help in the first place. That doesn’t help anyone, and it certainly won’t help to keep New Zealanders or New Zealand safer. There was an opportunity to improve that, in our view; that was not taken up.

What the bill also does in the form it is in is it places a whole lot more compliance and cost on shooting clubs and ranges, almost all of which are, simply, run by small volunteer groups. These are not large-scale commercial operations, they’re not profitable organisations, and we’ve heard repeatedly that that risks many of these simply closing up. Were that to transpire—and there is good reason to believe that, in some cases, it will—it actually has the perverse outcome of making New Zealand less safe, because what we will see is firearms owners going down to a mate’s place, a farm, down to the river to do things like sighting their rifles and for hunting or other activities, and that’s less well-managed. In fact, there’s general agreement—has been all along from police officials, I think even from the Minister, certainly from Government members on the Finance and Expenditure Committee—that these clubs and rangers represent the best organised, governed, and managed facilities in New Zealand. In the regulatory impact statement, the police noted that there has been no case and no evidence to suggest that any form of extremist or illegal behaviour was growing or fomenting in organised clubs or range environments. They put forward a hypothetical that suggested it could happen, but they admitted there was no evidence that it had. There was no need for this level of compliance burden. We argued that a simple notification of police of an existence of a club and range was sufficient because the police would retain powers of inspection at their wish, so they would be able to provide the enforcement and compliance oversight without burdening the clubs and range managements themselves.

On the register, I’m going to point out a problem—there’s several problems on the register. Now, National does not oppose a firearm registry per se, but what we’ve said all along is that this one that’s being proposed won’t deliver the objective, which was stated as keeping the guns out of the hands of criminals. Again, the evidence out of Australia at the select committee inquiry in the last parliamentary term: in 90 percent of homicides involving firearms, the firearms were unregistered. We heard a statement since this bill traversed: 50 percent of firearms captured by police in this country have their markings ground off. This, simply, is the case and it’s borne out with other examples, not just evidence out of Australia, that the registry itself will not keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

It is also a really important element that Justice Thorp, who’s been referenced, noted in his report that in order for a registry to be effective, it would have to capture at least 90 percent of the firearms. There are estimated to be 1.2 million firearms in the country. There are also estimated to be, based on police estimates, up to 180,000 now prohibited category firearms still out there in the communities that haven’t been handed in. Now, that immediately and absolutely means that the 90 percent threshold would not be able to be met and that, by Justice Thorp’s own comments, the registry that they are proposing would fail. That’s before we even consider the security and privacy around it. I mean, the police’s SAP system had a problem last year where dealers and firearms owners were able to see information, including firearms details, of other uses that they shouldn’t have seen.

The pest control exemption has got an enormous fish-hook in it that the applicant has to prove a significant detriment to jump through that hurdle to get their application approved. We’ve seen over the last year that that will be used to avoid giving the exemptions. So Federated Farmers want to look again at what they agreed to, because their members are going to find it hard to use.

This was a wasted opportunity, a missed opportunity. We could have worked together to have presented worthwhile reforms; the Government heard, but it didn’t want to listen. We reject this bill.

The legislative changes that we have made as a nation since 15 March have meant the Christchurch terrorist would not have been able to purchase the types of weapons that killed 51 people last year.

There have been a number of people that had contributed to this bill, and I want to acknowledge the Hon Stuart Nash. I want to acknowledge him for stewarding through this bill under immense urgency and I, also too, want to acknowledge his team. With us, we have the deputy commissioner Mike Clement, who is retiring next week from the police force after 42 years of service. He has been an exceptional champion for the safety of all New Zealanders, and, in this House, may I take the chance just to acknowledge you and the service that you’ve given to men and women across this country.

I, too, want to acknowledge the rest of the team that is here with us today: Acting Superintendent Mike—I had to ask how to say this—McIlwraith, Catherine Petrie, Geoff Dunn, John White, and James Edmonds. You’ve all done exceptionally stellar job under exceptionally trying circumstances, and I believe that we are fundamentally safer as a society due to your collective actions. With no further ado, I’m extremely proud to commend this bill to the House.

Before I call the next speaker, I will be leaving the Chair to attend another meeting, and I do want to acknowledge Deputy Commissioner Mike Clement. He’s performed an extraordinary service to New Zealand over the last 40-odd years. I wish him well and thank him very much—particularly from the East Coast electorate recently with the Whakaari tragedy and the support that he gave to the community there. But that’s only one example of many, many years of extraordinary service. So thank you, Mike, and all the best.

The origin of this Arms Legislation Bill is the horrific tragedy that shocked this nation on 15 March last year, where a madman shot and killed 51 people, attempted to kill a further 40 people, and subsequently pleaded guilty to those crimes. The question in the mind of all New Zealanders and of this Parliament, in respect of our arms laws, is how it was possible for that individual to be able to pull together the armaments of which he committed that horrific terrorism act. The part that concerns me about this bill and all the rhetoric that has surrounded it is that that fundamental question has not been answered.

Now, I’ve been in this Parliament through a series of tragedies—whether we look back to the awful Cave Creek tragedy, in which I became a Minister of Conservation to repair; whether it’s the awful Christchurch earthquakes, in which New Zealanders lost their lives, and the subsequent royal commission of inquiry and the parliamentary response to laws; or, indeed, the more recent event of the tragedy that occurred at White Island, also with the loss of life. But, in each one of those tragedies, in responding as lawmakers, we need to know what went wrong.

What concerns me with this legislation is that the Minister has repeatedly refused to ask the most basic of questions, as we push through another raft of arms law changes. If we don’t put the horse before the cart, then we keep pretending that we are fixing the problem but having no confidence in doing so. And here is the essential question that I’ve asked repeatedly, that my colleagues have asked repeatedly, but that has not been answered by the Government or the officials. It’s this: when the mad murderer received his gun licence that enabled him to acquire the arsenal of weapons, was the law followed? Pretty basic question. Before we talk about whether the law needs to be changed, I ask the question of the Minister: was the 1983 Arms Act and its regulations followed?

The Minister says it was. Well, let’s look at the facts. What we know is that the mad murderer was required under the law to have a referee who, under the regulations, is to be a close family member and to have a second referee that, by law, must know the applicant well.

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: They got someone from the chatroom.

Now, what we know, as my colleague Nathan Guy has said, is that this mad murderer was issued with a firearms licence with a referee whose only contact had been in an internet chatroom and lived more than 1,000 miles away. So the two referees were a father and son who lived at almost the most two furthest points in the country, who had never met, except on an internet chatroom.

Now, I say to the Minister: why have you not answered the questions about that very essential matter, that I think the 51 families of the victims deserve an answer of but so too do 5 million New Zealanders, who were appalled by the Act?

Now, the Minister says, oh, no, no, no—I’m not prepared to answer any of those questions because there’s a royal commission of inquiry, but here’s the problem: if we are to get our arms law correct, driven by the tragedy that occurred on 15 March with the mosque attack, then shouldn’t we know the facts of what went wrong before we completely rewrite the law for New Zealand’s 400,000 law-abiding gun users? Wouldn’t it be more sensible, Minister—and I’m prepared to say, well, look, if you’re prepared to answer the questions, we can make sure we get the law right. But what the police Minister is saying is, oh, I’m not prepared to answer any of that; I just want to rush this law through.

Now, it would be credible—remember, the royal commission of inquiry is due to report on 31 July. That is some six weeks away. So if we want to put hand on heart—and I do—that we are making the very best possible arms laws so that madmen, such as that individual, do not get access to firearms, then let’s have the answers to the basic questions that go to the heart of the matter that saw those 51 people cowardly killed and a further 40 seriously injured.

💬 Hon Stuart Nash: Read the bill, Nick.

The Minister interjects and says “Read the bill.” I have. But what I ask of the Minister is was the law—because we can change all the laws we like, but, if the law as it was was not followed, do not pretend that we are going to the core and—excuse the pun—hitting our target of making sure we have reacted responsibly and properly to the awful tragedy that occurred in Christchurch. I find it appalling that 15 months after the tragedy, the Minister has ducked and dived, he has gone all around the circle, but he has not been prepared to answer that fundamental question, and it’s simply this: who were the two referees that in November 2017 met the legal requirement for this madman to get a gun licence.

Why is the Minister—there’s a piece of paper sitting in the police department office that shows exactly who those two referees were. Doesn’t this Parliament have a right to know whether those two referees were compliant with the law of the land as it was, before we go down these extensive exercises of completely rewriting our arms laws? I say that Minister, in refusing to answer those questions in this House, is acting negligently, and that there is no good reason to withhold from this Parliament, that is being asked to pass another major raft of arms laws, to not answer the most basic question, and that is: why and how that madman was issued with a firearms licence that led him to being able to get his arsenal of weapons and for him to then go on and perpetrate the awful evil that occurred on 15 March.

And then the second point that there has been no explanation from the Government, whatsoever, on is this: we know that the vast majority of firearms offences in this country are not committed by the law-abiding hunters and others but are committed by those with criminal convictions and gang affiliations. My colleague Brett Hudson, over time and time again, has asked that we provide for prohibition notices on people that we should quite clearly say, as a Parliament, should not have access to firearms. We are being soft and ridiculous in allowing gang members to be able to access firearms. And what we have advocated through amendments, we advocated it with the first firearms bill, and the Government said, I will think about that with No. 2. We have debated relentlessly this second arms amendment bill, and again the Government refuses to provide those sensible practical provisions that would prohibit gangs and other criminal organisations from having access to guns. It is wrong, this is a lost opportunity, and the bill should not proceed.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to take a call on behalf of the caucus of New Zealand First and to express their views as we move this legislation through the third reading. I guess, possibly, the last week has been somewhat sobering for a number of reasons. There is no secret; we’ve had many conversations in the media and with Minister Nash and with the Labour team around some of our reservations with respect to this bill. New Zealand First formed a coalition Government and selected the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern to be the Prime Minister of this nation, and she was the Prime Minister of this nation when that horrendous attack by that terrorist took place in Christchurch on 15 March. As the Prime Minister of this nation, she made a call. It was a loud and clear and very emphatic call.

As responsible parties and members of this coalition Government, New Zealand First supports our Prime Minister, and continues to do so. There are many occasions when I know commentators in the media and commentators around this country, politically motivated or whatever, have chosen to accuse New Zealand First of not being responsible, not capable of participating in a stable coalition Government. They often hark back to 1998 and the dissolution of the coalition Government. Actually, that wasn’t our doing; that was Jenny Shipley’s doing, and a whole band of turncoats inside her party who tipped that Government up. But, none the less, the accusations still keep getting levelled at New Zealand First. New Zealand First means to continue to support the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern as the Prime Minister of this nation and this Government. That’s not to say that we don’t have a different view in all cases to the Labour Party.

New Zealand First has had many conversations around this piece of legislation and has attempted to get some changes. We believe, at this point in time, we have struck a balance that will reopen the conversation around this Act. I know that some people want to celebrate and wave a flag and say that they have won a battle that they’ve been fighting for some time. Rightly or wrongly, they have certain views about firearms owners. I know a lot of firearms owners, who I respect as law-abiding citizens of this nation, who just want to go about enjoying their chosen sport freely. But 51 people dead, 50 people severely wounded, some who will carry disabilities for the rest of their lives—it provided an environment which made it very, very challenging to allow things to continue as they were. The Prime Minister made a call; we support the Prime Minister.

But we also support the rights of some people, like sporting shooters, to go on about participating in that sport. Whilst we have not gained the concession that we wanted from Labour in that respect to make competitive sporting shooting competitions—three-gun, military service rifle—an allowable sport, to allow those people who compete internationally all over the world, many of whom are professionals, highly qualified people. You have to be to be able to afford to undertake their sport. Many of whom demonstrate weapons skills and weapons safety standards far higher than a lot of the police officers that I see carrying around their AR-15 Bushmasters on the streets of New Zealand on a daily basis. Many of these people—many of these people—without going into names, are actually members of the police force. They are actually members of the Defence Force. They are actually people who, by dint of the occupation and the security clearances they hold and the appointments they hold in the police force and in the New Zealand Defence Force are highly responsible New Zealanders. It does sadden New Zealand First that they are not able to continue that sport.

But it’s not over—it’s not over—because the one thing that New Zealand First has negotiated in this piece of legislation—a couple of things, in particular—is a post-implementation review. In that post-implementation review, we mean—whether we’re in coalition Government with National or coalition Government with Labour—to review and test the risk benefits that were argued. Any good post-implementation review goes back to the initial business case, to the detailed business case, and tests what’s happened against what was stated would happen. When that test is done, the new Parliament of the day will make a decision as to whether these decisions that we’re making here today, on the advice of police, stack up.

I guess the part that the New Zealand First caucus takes a great deal of pride in—at least satisfaction, and finds solace and consolation—is in the fact that we will have an independent arms authority established in the next term of Government. We would have liked to have seen that happen, but COVID’s intervened. The legislative timetable doesn’t allow for the new legislation to be written. We would have seen a change to the purpose of this Act. We would have seen that purpose widened so that an independent arms authority would have fitted the scope of the bill. We would have seen that legislation drafted, tabled in this House, and passed through all three readings before the House lifted. That’s been interdicted.

I want to thank Minister Nash for coming around to our way of thinking. It was useful, actually, that Sir Justice Thorp had recommended that in his report in 1997. I’ve got to say, New Zealand First has been the strongest advocate and supporter of the New Zealand Police for the last 25 years, 27 years, that we’ve been in existence. It is through the various things that we’ve done in coalition agreements, whether it was with National or Labour, that over time we’ve increased the strength of the police by over 3,500 people.

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: But you’re not going to deal with the gangs in this.

That is because of our belief that the police need the resources to deal with such things, Hon Nathan Guy, as gangs. So we’re starting to hear about—and we understand the desire for police to interdict the weapons supply to gangs. I mean, it was me who tried to table a bill—

💬 Hon Member: Last moment.

—because at that time—to that member: you’ve been partaking already. It was me that tried to table a bill in this House called the Suppression of Gangs Bill that got vetoed, ironically, by Labour, and then not taken up, either, by National. That would have made it illegal to be a member of an organised crime unit or entity or a gang. But ironically, the people who talk about empowering the police to deal to gangs never supported that proposition at all. I think we tried twice to table it in the House. There is no question about New Zealand First’s support of the police force, offering up law changes that give them greater powers to deal with organised crime. In this coalition agreement, Mr Nash knows, there are aspects of this coalition agreement that give greater resources to the police to deal with organised crime. The jury and time will tell us, the House, whether or not this legislation has stopped the gangs importing and accessing firearms.

I want to say a big shout-out to Mark Patterson, my caucus member, who advocated strongly for the farmers to ensure that they had access to semi-automatic centre fire weapons to deal with pest controls. I’ve been down in Southland and I’ve been down in Otago and around those areas where the wallabies and the hares and the rabbits run free, and I know the difficulty of trying to shoot rabbits on the run with a bolt action rifle, and trying to shoot goats and wallabies. Give it a go, if you think you can do it without a centre fire semi-automatic weapon.

I want to thank the New Zealand First caucus for their steadfastness. The post-implementation review of this Act will happen. The extension out to five years before the registration system comes into being is set in stone. In that time, we will assess, no doubt, how it’s rolling out, its effectiveness against the criteria laid down by Sir Justice Thorp and decisions will be made at that time. So I’d just say to people that this Government, and New Zealand First as part of this Government, is passing this legislation. But don’t be rolling out the bubbles and popping the cork too quickly, because after this election is over there will be closer scrutiny on what we’ve done and the costs and benefits and whether or not this is delivered to the people.

By the way, many of us are looking forward to the report from the royal commission so we understand better what happened, how that person got access to a firearm, and those vast quantities of ammunition that were signed off, and what changes should happen on the basis of the royal commission’s finding. I want to finish by thanking—

Order! The member’s time has expired.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, I was coming down to the House with a few lines in mind, but after listening to that I’m totally confused, and I’ll have to outline why. But before I do, I did want to just acknowledge the team up in the gods, I suppose you’d call it, because they’ve been through a number of arms inquiries and bits of legislation, and many of them have accompanied us through quite a few of those things. I just want to congratulate them on a very difficult topic, and a topic that will continue to cause debate for many years to come, I’ve got no doubt, but I think they should be acknowledged for the work they’ve done.

One of the reasons that we’re not comfortable with this bill was outlined very clearly by the Hon Ron Mark a moment or two ago; in fact, a number of the reasons that we’re not comfortable with it were outlined. I guess the very fact that we’re passing a piece of legislation that’s going to come back for review in perhaps four or five months’ time seems extraordinary to me. He also confused the issue a bit because he then talked about the arms register being put out for five years. That confused me too, because I don’t think it is for five years; I think it’s for three years.

But we’ve heard today about the history of this piece of legislation. In fact, the first piece of legislation was brought to Parliament under urgency to deal with the gun buy-back and a number of other matters related to people owning firearms in our community. At that time, the Government gave us estimates of the number of those guns that were out in the community, of how the buy-back might achieve a reduction in those guns, and then, yesterday, we heard the Minister saying very clearly that this would take the guns out of the hands of the gangs. Well, the statistics, unfortunately, tell you that’s not going to happen, because we have an estimated, I think, 1.2 million to 1.5 million guns in New Zealand society now; we have about 248,000 or 250,000 licensed gun owners in our society; and we had an estimated 240,000 guns that were to be acquired as part of the gun buy-back. We seem to have acquired around 65,000. So there could be almost 180,000 of these now illegal guns still out in our community, and if they’re in the hands—and they will be—of people who are unlicensed, they will never appear above ground again, because they can’t afford to. Those people will not bring them back into circulation; they’ll be sold to the underworld.

So that’s a massive challenge that we’ve created, and we created it because, in the course of the first piece of legislation, we didn’t enable the police, or whoever ran the gun buy-back, to effectively buy back every gun of that type in New Zealand. We only allowed them to buy the guns back from what the Minister yesterday called the good guys. That in itself has created a massive challenge. So that is one of the flaws, I think, that’s highlighted by this bill and one of the reasons why we can’t support this bill. It, frankly, hasn’t got the background to do the job that it needed to do.

The next issue that concerns me greatly, and it was raised by the Hon Nick Smith in his speech, is the fact that we’ve got a royal commission reporting back to Parliament in a month’s time on the very issues that created the need for this bill. I think that it’s extraordinary that we’d be pushing a piece of legislation through the House and passing it in urgency, when we don’t know the result of that royal commission.

Now, I want to go back to the point that the Hon Ron Mark has raised a couple of times in the course of this debate both before and today. That is the fact that that we’ve gone through a lot of effort in the time I’ve been in this House to look at this very difficult and complex issue—because it is a complex issue, because, effectively, we’re taking the rights of people away from them and replacing them with, well, what’s termed in the bill as a privilege. I’ve got an objection to that, too, which I’ll talk about a little later.

I don’t think there’s any doubt that our gun legislation needed to be reviewed and changed and improved. There’s no question of that. The first piece of legislation was a reactive piece of legislation, and I’m not at all critical of the need to react; there was a need to react at that time. It was a reactive piece of legislation which set out to try to achieve a task which, as I just said a minute or two ago, it didn’t really achieve all that well. So we accept the fact that there was some form of gun reform needed, but it needed to be done in a manner that, in my view, was much more informed and better calculated than this piece of legislation has been done. So it’s disappointing that we’re putting a piece of legislation through the House that we’ve already heard from the Government is going to be reviewed almost immediately after it goes through the House.

This piece of legislation puts quite a significant imposition on gun owners. And the fact that the register has been delayed for three years is very significant, because we had a register in New Zealand once before. It was disbanded because it was inefficient, and, sure, in those days the manner in which you collected information was much more difficult than it is today. Of course, in those days, that information was probably much more secure as well, and that’s one of the great concerns that many of the submitters had when they came to the Parliament to talk about the gun register. So the potential for that gun register to leak and the potential for that to then become just another way for the crooks to get a hold of guns or those people that shouldn’t have guns to get a hold of guns—there was great concern around that. Now, maybe delaying the register might improve the chances of that being successful. I don’t know whether that will be correct or not, because we seem to continue to have leaks from all sorts of departments and businesses in New Zealand and around the world, and that’s also becoming more common. So that’s another reason, in my view, that we don’t support the piece of legislation, because we are not sure that we can provide for a secure register.

There’s been some changes made to the bill, and that was one of them, of course, the register being delayed, but there’s been some other changes made to the bill which I think are satisfactory. Whilst it’s not perfect, the fact that farmers and landowners are now able to obtain access to these types of guns to shoot pests, and can be licensed to hold those guns, is probably a good move. I tend to disagree with Ron Mark. I think you can shoot most things with a pretty simple sort of a gun, if you’re a good enough shot, but—

💬 Hon Member: Show me!

Ha, ha! No, I don’t claim to be one of those, but I do think that, you know, that’s a reasonable change to the piece of legislation and probably not a bad change. It shouldn’t make it any more difficult to control where those firearms are—and what this bill is all about, at the end of the day, is controlling where firearms are and who has access to them.

I want to get on to the point that I made a little bit earlier about owning firearms being a privilege. I said yesterday that I think living is a privilege. I object to the term being put in the bill, frankly, because I think we’re starting to categorise things in life by using terminology that we don’t need to use in pieces of legislation. That is one of them. I just think the fact is that you’ve got to go through a pretty—I wouldn’t say it’s complicated; it might be for me—complex system to get a licence. Not everyone qualifies to get a gun licence. That’s the other point that needs to be made here. But having got that licence, all you’ve got to do to get a firearm is go down to the gun shop and buy the blimmin thing, so that’s hardly a privilege. I think that to use that type of language in a bill like this is unnecessary and it creates, I guess, a false sense of security for people going forward, because it doesn’t actually mean anything.

I think it would be very good if we could have supported this piece of legislation. We can’t support it and I’ve outlined a number of the reasons why I don’t think we should support it. Brett Hudson, earlier on, outlined very clearly why we didn’t support this piece of legislation. I just hope that—if the Government, in fact, think they’re going to bring it back in the next term of Parliament—we’re the Government that’s bringing it back, because we’ll certainly be reviewing it in a manner that I think will make it a better piece of legislation and will do more to protect our society from what the first bill actually set out to protect our society from, because this bill does not do that. It doesn’t take guns out of the hands of the crooks. It just merely has taken, and it will continue to take, guns out of the hands of good people. It’s disappointing that we can’t support it. That’s my contribution, thank you.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to open by acknowledging the team that’s in the public gallery this afternoon—including Deputy Commissioner Mike Clement, who, I understand, after a long and fruitful service, is retiring in a week—and thank them for the work that they’ve done in terms of bringing through and shepherding a quite significant improvement in our gun laws and gun regulations. I want to acknowledge also that, as a nation and globally, we’ve been having some really difficult conversations about firearms use and the police force, and that it is actually a sign of strength and the strength of this nation’s values that our police force have stood, at certain points, this one included, for better regulation of firearms, and also, last week, having announced that they are abandoning the armed patrol trials. So we as a nation stand for non-violence, and we stand for what works in terms of keeping our communities safe, and we know that that comes with properly regulating firearms and getting as much of that as possible off the street and out of the hands of those who would not use them safely.

I also want to acknowledge, as others have, that we stand here in this Chamber just barely a year after one of the worst, most devastating acts of terror in our nation’s recent or living memory, on 15 March last year, when 51 innocent people lost their lives to a hate crime committed by gun violence, and, of course, dozens more were harmed, were injured irreparably in body and spirit, with scars that they’ll bear for ever. We all remember that tragedy. We all remember the victims. We remember the small children that reminded us of the children in our own lives, the elders that remind us of our grandparents. We remember those who tried to fight back to protect their loved ones. And none of us wants to see anything like that happen in New Zealand again. We also remember, and I think that this bill really does represent, all that love that poured out across our beautiful nation as New Zealand came out, wrapped our arms around the victims, the victim communities across our nation. I think that the legacy of that love, of the strength that our nation showed, must be real change. We have to have those hard conversations in his House. We are responsible for the wellbeing of New Zealand, and we must make change; we must identify the shortfalls in our system, and that is what this bill represents.

I also want to acknowledge that, apart from that heinous act of terror, apart from the far outliers in terms of violence that we see, we also are here as representatives of a nation with epidemic levels of family violence that we’re tackling in this House. We know that victims of family violence are made far more unsafe if firearms are involved. It’s the difference between injury that victims can overcome and become survivors of or death. We also sit here in this Chamber as representatives of a nation with epidemic levels of mental illness and suicide, especially among our young people, and we know that firearms, if they are widely available, if they are available in conditions where we don’t know where they are, where the licensing, where the registering system is unclear, untransparent, it makes it much, much more unsafe for those with serious mental illness. Those are issues that we have to solve in different ways, but this is a small step towards making all the communities affected by mental illness, by family violence, by gun violence, and by crime more safe.

So the Green Party has a longstanding kaupapa of standing for gun regulation, and one of those policies has always been to establish a proper gun registry. It boggles the mind that we don’t have a gun registry that’s available electronically, that tells law enforcement who has guns, what are the terms of their licences, and where they are. That’s what this bill will introduce. So it’s not about punishing those who lawfully hold guns; it’s about making it easier for law enforcement to actually enforce the law. We have better licensing terms, we have clearer licensing terms both for dealers and for those who hold licences in terms of the terms of use and who can and will be allowed to continue to hold firearms licences.

The fit and proper persons criteria: those who have been convicted of serious crimes—that’s violent criminal offences—who have a history showing symptoms of mental illness that might be deemed by the New Zealand Medical Association as being a concern. Importantly, I think, in the context of the Christchurch terror attack, one of the criteria for the fit and proper persons test being introduced here is that those who have patterns of behaviour relating to hatred and extremism will be identified and excluded—or at least that will be taken into account. And we know that, in terms of the Christchurch terrorist, there were reports about extremism, about communications that were concerning, made by members of the community who’d been to his gun club. So this will make it easier for law enforcement to record those things and to look at whether or not someone should hold a gun licence.

Offences and penalties—and we’ve heard this a couple of times: it turns out that in our law some fishing offences against our fishing laws hold higher penalties than firearms offences. So some of what we’re introducing here will be offences, including failing to provide information to the registry; the sale, supply, or ownership of ammunitions and parts without a licence; the failure to permit inspection of firearms; the illegal manufacture or trafficking of firearms. These are terrifying offences and the lack of an ability to effectively enforce them must be terrifying for our police force. So we are acknowledging that offences against firearms law are serious, that they need to be described in our law clearly, that enforcement must be provided for, and that we need transparency around who can and can’t hold a licence, around who does hold a licence, where they are, what the terms of their licence are. These are just breathtakingly sensible changes, and I think I do want to acknowledge again that, actually, it’s been the law enforcement agencies that have been calling for some of these changes for decades.

So, as a Government, we are taking responsibility and taking action. It has been the apathy of successive Governments that has allowed for these changes to sit on the shelves and not be implemented. But, as a Government, we must also look at what else makes our communities safe. So we’re taking action on gun control but we’re going to look at things like housing; like accessible, inclusive education; and mental healthcare addiction treatment—all of the things that mean firearms use isn’t on the rise in our communities, that crime isn’t on the rise, that communities are safe and inclusive, and, as we have said many times in this Government, that a compassionate approach is taken to making us, well, safe, but also more of a community. So I do commend this bill to the House. It stands for peace and non-violence—Green values—and I commend the Government for finally bringing them with decisive action.

Well, Mr Speaker, I feel like we’ve come to the end of a long road, to be speaking on this Arms Legislation Bill this afternoon.

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: It’s going to be reviewed again. The road does not end.

Yes, I know it’s going to be reviewed again, Mr Guy—well, maybe it depends whether New Zealand First gets back, of course.

When the Minister introduced the bill at the committee of the whole House, he made this claim that this bill will keep New Zealanders safe and also will keep the guns off of the bad people. He implored us, the National Party, as to why we weren’t going to support this bill. The simple answer is, unfortunately, this legislation won’t achieve the objectives that it ought to—and it is with some shame that we’ve arrived at this point.

We, of course, supported the first bill and, as a firearm owner myself, I too was concerned about the proliferation of semi-automatic weapons or rifles that were available for sale. And much of that was dealt with in the first bill, now Act. However, what we experienced after the passing of that first Act was a debacle, in the sense that the delay in determining the remuneration that would be paid for returned rifles led to a significant loss of goodwill by the firearms community, and that ultimately led to a rather small amount of rifles being handed back in. The estimate was approximately 56,000, even though, whilst the police weren’t able to quantify it, there is an estimated 250,000 of such dangerous types of rifles in the community, out with the gun fraternity at the moment. That is a shame—that is a real shame. I know we can pass laws that we’re going to fine people and jail them, and all that sort of stuff, but unfortunately a lot of goodwill was lost, and has resulted in many very old, historic weapons being handed in that do meet the strict requirements of an automatic weapon but, in reality, offered absolutely no ability to be used in such a manner, because of their age or the way that they would operate, and I think that is a real shame. That is a case of poor implementation of this bill.

We have asked the police continuously about this number of 250,000. There are records of all the import records that show what of these types of rifles would have been imported to New Zealand—it is possible to quantify it—but even if it’s within 20,000 or 30,000, if the figure is 250,000 of them in total, that is a staggering amount of them out in New Zealand. This bill—well, actually, the last bill—we actually were lucky enough to get two wins, and National played an instrumental role in that. The first one was as a result of National’s direct intervention; we were successful in persuading the committee to reduce the licence period from 10 years to five years.

💬 David Seymour: Success has many fathers.

That is a very significant piece of legislation, and I know my good colleague from ACT supported that. The other area that we did get some headway around was the issue of dealer licences, particularly in relation to guides and film operators and armourers, in terms of their scope and how they were affected by the Act. But this bill perpetuates a number of real issues that we had with the original proposition, and that is namely the issue, firstly, about regulation of clubs. We had a number of excellent presentations, particularly from the pistol clubs, who operate under the most stringent conditions. Like many of you, I’ve visited them, and they are excellent, safety-conscious, and do the most wonderful thing that if you do want to learn how to manage and fire weapons or firearms, pistols, whatever, safely, they will teach you how to do it in a safe manner. Unfortunately, what the bill does is it imposes a whole lot of certification rules, notification rules, onerous, having a requirement to have public liability and, basically, it is making it so much harder for those clubs that we are at risk of losing those wonderful little clubs, all interspersed amongst our communities, who do that great job of training people safely how to use these types of arms.

The second one is really around sports shooters, and this was a perennial problem when the first bill went through, and certainly through this one. It is inconceivable that these people, who are highly proficient, highly skilled, and actually a very small number of them, who calibrate their arms that they use—they are so precious about them because they are personal to them in the way that they undertake competition, and we fought hard for them to be able to be exempt under most of the regulations over this. Unfortunately, we kept turning to New Zealand First during this process, and where were they? Unfortunately, they were not, they were silent, missing in action, and if they’d just fronted up with us we could have overturned that particular aspect and supported our sporting shooters in New Zealand. Collectors have already been subject to a huge amount of regulation, and, of course, they continue to have under these regulations ongoing, onerous requirements.

Pest control—this was traversed so numerously during the last time and this time, and again we sought to find a practical solution for farmers and, again, it is unfortunate we arrived at the committee of the whole House yesterday to find that we couldn’t make an adjustment and yet here we have “Johnny-come-lately”—or should I say “Ronnie-come-lately”—who introduced a Supplementary Order Paper rather than turn up to the select committee and engage with us and be an active part of that select committee. We could have made those changes appropriately for farmers, but what we’ve got is an overt pitch to get farmers’ votes at the last moment, and the worst thing is that if Mr Mark had ever turned up, or even his other colleague had spoken up, he could have changed it—if he’d just simply talked to us—because we had been pushing for it. But they’re silent—they were silent.

The other thing is fire protection orders. We are very concerned about the issue of how these arms will be able to be in the hands of gangs and people who use them for significant crime. And this is our principal issue with the bill: that the bill does not sufficiently stop or target those people in the community who are most likely to use these types of arms for their nefarious gains, which is wrong. We should be focused wholly on those, because, unfortunately, what we’ve ended up doing is targeting a lot of lawful New Zealanders.

The other issue, of course, is the licensing of firearms, and there’s been a lot of traverse around this, about whether it works or not. We heard from a number of E category licence holders—which is the highest category—how, even under their arrangements where they have to record each rifle or pistol that they own, as opposed to the general category, where the person is certified, that there were problems with the existing recording of their arms when they get checked every 12 months. So we are now going to move to a register for every firearm in New Zealand? That will entail a significant administrative burden. Guess what I said in my second reading speech! I said this: that I think it is wrong that the burden of this licensing of firearms has to be given to the police, who have many other most pressing priorities. I went on to say that it was my view that there should be a new entity outside of police control. And, again, here we had yesterday, in the committee of the whole House, a new member who we’ve never seen anything from about it, trying to claim that from the perspective of New Zealand First they—

Order! The member’s time has expired.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Look, I really only just wanted to make one brief point. It was in response to Mr McKelvie’s statement that he didn’t like the use of the word “privilege” in the bill—an important statement that the ownership of a rifle is a privilege. You know, I think if it’s not a privilege, it’s a right. And if we go down that road, we’re in all kinds of trouble. There are all kinds of privileges we have, and we have to show our competence and the reasons that we need it—whether that be using explosives or poisons or driving a car, and having a rifle for a legitimate purpose is simply another one of those. Once we establish that, absolutely the Government will confer that privilege on you, but to suggest it’s anything other than that, to suggest it’s a right, is taking us down a very slippery slope. We don’t need to look very far to see where that leads us, and that’s not where we’ll be going today. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Listening to the debate this afternoon, I was able to reminisce back to the weekend just gone. I’m a licensed gun holder. I was out there with my 15-year-old son on our farm and a couple of his mates doing our bit for Predator Free 2050, shooting possums. Before we went out, I said to my son and his mates, “Let’s run through the seven basic rules of firearm safety.” I have a saying: “Out together, back together.” So we went out after they had been well schooled on the vital information of keeping safe. We went out and had some fun.

Now, this bill is brought about because of the terrible mosque killings in Christchurch. And we know we’ve had the first stage of gun reform whereby semi-automatic firearms had to be handed in. The Government went through the amnesty. I think it’s fair to say that the amnesty didn’t go as well as everyone would have hoped.

💬 David Seymour: It was a disaster.

I can hear David Seymour saying, indeed, it was a disaster. Reading through the facts, it’s estimated by the New Zealand Police there are 1.2 million or 1.5 million firearms in New Zealand and the amnesty yielded something like 56,000. So we know that there is a hell of a lot of weapons in New Zealand that are in the hands of unlicensed individuals. And that is a real concern.

Potentially there are 180,000 illegal weapons at large in New Zealand. So in my mind, that’s why it made sense for the Government to back what National’s been saying for the last 18 months or so: let’s get tough on these gangs with a prohibition order. So we had a member’s bill; got voted down by the Government. We tried through the select committee stage, tried through the committee stage to really get tougher on gangs and what they do in communities with peddling illegal firearms. And what do we hear from the Government? “No, that’s not necessary because 1,800 cops are actually going to deal with that issue.”

Well, that doesn’t sit comfortably with me when I think back to what I’ve heard in the last wee while about the individual that took 51 innocent lives in Christchurch at the mosque killings, when we get down to the level of detail about how that individual got a firearms licence in New Zealand. When we look at that detail—and, by and large, when the police came and interviewed me and my wife for my firearms licence, they went through a hell of a lot of detail. They interviewed my wife. They went and had a look at the storage area, the gun safes. They looked at the weapons. They wrote down some, I think, serial numbers as well. I was heartened by that process a few years ago.

But when we drill down on the detail of the murderer, that has now pleaded guilty, that took 51 innocent lives, how did that individual become a licensed firearm owner in New Zealand? There is a fit and proper test that the individuals need to go through. Well, we now learn that the referees of that particular individual came from a chatroom where they had never personally met the murderer, and those were the people that were interviewed. That is disgraceful.

So we get back to the point of this bill now and the opportunities that the Government has turned down to do the right thing and get tougher on gangs. What this is going to mean is that good law-abiding citizens that have a firearms licence will have to pay more because it will move from a 10-year licence to a five-year licence. I do acknowledge the change that’s been made for farmers with the ability to apply for a pest management regime and hold a semi-automatic weapon. I think that’s a good move. But I’m disappointed that the Government didn’t take this opportunity to get tougher on gangs.

I’m also heartened to hear that the register that hasn’t worked in Canada—it’s cost a couple of billion dollars—is being delayed. This bill will be reviewed and reviewed and we will—

Order! The member’s time has expired. This is a split call. I call Rino Tirikatene.

I’m delighted to speak on the third reading of this Arms Legislation Bill. I want to just acknowledge not only our outstanding Minister in Stuart Nash for his leadership in shepherding this bill through the House but I want to acknowledge the late Justice Sir Thomas Thorp. Justice Thorp told us what was wrong with our gun laws way back in 1997, with his landmark gun control report. Nothing had happened since that time, and we only need to look back to the tragic events of last year to see the deficiencies that are in place with an outdated Arms Act that goes way back to 1983.

So I’m delighted to be standing to support this bill. I want to acknowledge Minister Nash and our coalition Government for taking action—for taking action and bringing about this significant and much-improved piece of legislation. I’m pleased that we’re consigning the Arms Act 1983 to history, and I welcome this new bill, and I commend it to the House.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in opposition to this Arms Legislation Bill. I sometimes reflect on what it means to be a New Zealander, and I certainly did in the wake of our nation’s tragedy in Christchurch, when people of every creed, religion, and race, people who have come from all over the world, were united in their condemnation of the heinous act. It got me thinking: what is it that unites us? We have one thing in common as New Zealanders, and it’s the only thing: it’s that we are children of pioneers, that our ancestors chose, and in some cases ourselves as New Zealanders chose, to move to the edge of the map so our children could have a better tomorrow. If we wanted mediocrity, we could’ve just stayed, in my case in the UK or Hawaiki, but my ancestors came here to do better, for the best.

That’s the framework against which I assess this Government’s response to our nation’s tragedy in Christchurch on 15 March last year, and how have they gone? Well, when we assess a policy, we might ask ourselves three questions: what is the intent of the policy, what’s it supposed to do? Number two, is it effective at achieving that goal? And, number three, what are the side effects of that policy being implemented? The intention, according to the Minister of Police, is to stop bad people getting firearms, and I think we might surmise that beneath that, it is to keep New Zealanders safe. I would add that New Zealand needed something else in the wake of our nation’s tragedy, and that was unity, to actually be united as a country against the terror that tried to divide us.

How effective has this Government’s response been at getting the guns off the bad people, keeping New Zealanders safer, and ensuring that New Zealand is a more united country? Well, that would have been an intelligent and effective response, but what we’ve got is a response that, first of all, has utterly failed to take the guns off the bad people. In fact, in the previous legislation and the past legislation, there are so many new restrictions and rules for people who follow the law and nothing for people who break the law. That is the greatest failure, that it has targeted the wrong people: law-abiding New Zealanders who are as horrified by what happened in Christchurch as any other New Zealander.

That’s where the second failing of the Government’s response comes about, that it has actually chosen to scapegoat and blame and bedevil a group of law-abiding New Zealanders who’ve done nothing wrong, as though they were somehow vicariously responsible for the greatest peacetime tragedy on New Zealand soil. That is shameful, and it tells you something interesting about empathy, because the Green Party stood here and said it was all about aroha. Well, they didn’t even show up to the Finance and Expenditure Committee when person after person—dozens, hundreds of people—came before the select committee and said, “We’ve done nothing wrong. These rules, for a variety of practical reasons, will not be effective in making us safer, and, actually, we feel victimised by the way we are being assaulted as law-abiding firearm owners and we find that divisive.” It’s an interesting thing, empathy. I’m not a gun guy. I’m not a shooter, but I get it—they’re Kiwis, they’re humans like us. They feel victimised by the approach the Government has taken. Where is the empathy for them? It has been sadly lacking.

Has the Government managed to get the guns away from the bad people? No. The buy-back that preceded this legislation was an enormous failure. Will the Government’s regulations on clubs, introduced in this legislation, make New Zealand a safer place? No. What it’s likely to do, and we heard this on the select committee, is that those clubs that are a place where people can monitor and keep an eye on each other are going to be less likely to keep going, and more people will go bush or do their sighting and get their eye in by shooting some cans on the back of the farm. It’s going to make New Zealand more dangerous by making it harder to run a voluntary club, and it’s going to make it less likely that people who are terrorists are going to be reported.

I was at a pistol club a few months back, and I put the question to the president: what do you actually do if someone comes along and you don’t think they should have a firearm? They told me, “Actually, it’s happened a couple of times. In one case, we got the person deported.” Now, I would hope that, actually, that will continue, but nothing that’s been done in this legislation has helped the relationship between the licensed firearm community and the police. Those are the side effects of this legislation, massive alienation of the very people that should be the eyes and ears of the police throughout our community, those who are closest to people that have firearms.

Then we look at the problems imposed on people who use firearms for sport. They pay a cost. People who are collectors, people who have lost their property, people that haven’t been compensated—they’ll pay a cost. But I would argue the impact on mental health is greatest. It’s a sad thing that because of the rules under this bill that invade the relationship between a doctor and a patient in relation to mental health, if a person has a firearm—and we were told this on the select committee—people will not seek help, because they think they might lose their licence or be victimised if they talk to their doctor, who will tell the police. That is the biggest own goal for this Government, I can imagine.

But wait, maybe that’s not the worst. The real nightmare out of this legislation is the register. I might add it’s a political nightmare for New Zealand First, who, let’s be clear, despite all their promises of jam tomorrow and “We’re sorry.”, are voting for a firearms register. That’s the reality of the transaction here, and people up and down Aotearoa New Zealand will know that Ron Mark, whatever he says, voted for a register. The problem with a register is not only is it ineffective—and we know that because half the illegal firearms confiscated by police have their serial numbers ground off anyway—a register is one Government leak away from being a steal-to-order list of every firearm in this country for the worst criminal elements in this country. How’s that for an own goal when the Minister says his legislation is supposed to be keeping the guns out of the hands of the bad people? He’s one leak away from giving bad people more guns than ever before. That’s what happens when you don’t ask the basic questions: what’s the intention? How effective will it be? What are the unintended consequences of this policy?

As I said, my ancestors paddled and sailed to Aotearoa New Zealand in the hope of a better life for future generations, and what they want from this Parliament is not mediocre lawmaking; they want the best. So what should we do? Well, here’s something obvious: we should wait for the royal commission to find out why the Christchurch tragedy really happened and how our laws actually need to change. Then we should bring everybody together around the table, including, as the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee once said, those ghastly gun people, and actually have a proper conversation so we can again have the world’s best firearm laws, based on unity, dignity, and respect. That’s something to hope for, and that is the choice that many New Zealanders will be looking at in just a few months’ time. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

It is an honour to make the last speech in this House on the Arms Legislation Bill. I wish to end with thanks. Thank you to all the people who made submissions on the bill. We received a great many submissions. We listened to a great many people and listened very carefully to what they had to say and made some changes because of what people had to say to us. Thank you to the members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, who worked hard on the bill. I wish to record a special thanks to Mark Patterson from New Zealand First, who came along and listened carefully and sensibly and advocated and made, I think, a good case for some of the changes that we made in this bill. Thank you to the other members of the committee, who worked hard and sensibly on the bill.

Thank you to the team of advisers, people who have worked for many, many years on the issues in this bill. It is wonderful to see you here today as this bill goes through its very last stage. I know for many of you it represents work that you are very pleased to see done, work that you have done for many years. It reaches its culmination today. Thank you for your work.

Thank you to the Minister of Police, who brought this legislation to the House and who has shepherded it through all the stages and, again, has worked very carefully on it. It’s legislation that about 85 percent of New Zealanders agree with that we do need to have better control over firearms in this country. This bill represents a step in doing that. We will continue to work on these issues over the years, as should be the case. But today we have achieved something significant. I commend this bill wholeheartedly to the House.