Arms (Firearms Prohibition Orders) Amendment Bill (No 2)

I move, That the Arms (Firearms Prohibition Orders) Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill.

Firearms prohibition orders are intended as an additional tool in the tool box of police to help keep New Zealanders safe. The National Party campaigned on firearms prohibition orders at the 2017 general election, and we have championed them in this 52nd Parliament ever since. Regrettably, although the Government had the chance in its own Arms Legislation Bill which was recently enacted, they did not take up the opportunity to work with us on this regime that will help to keep firearms out of the hands of the most dangerous threats to the public of New Zealand.

It is true that because this bill was crafted some time ago, there have been a few changes—most recently, of course, the Arms Legislation Bill. They would necessitate some updates to this bill, and the select committee is the perfect place for those updates to be made—for instance, they are as small, but significant, as numbering changes to sections because that previous bill introduced some more. There is certainly the element of ensuring that the bill now captures all categorisations of firearms, particularly, for instance, firearms which are now prohibited explicitly under law.

But, without question, this bill and what the heart of it is will help to keep New Zealanders safe. I’d like just to give some background context to that, particularly at this time. This bill was drawn from the ballot, from the biscuit tin, in February. The backdrop in New Zealand at that time, and in the months leading up, was a prolific amount of violence, including murder, involving gang members and firearms; stories such as a mother in South Auckland who was killed on her doorstep because her son, who had gang connections, wasn’t at home; homes being shot up in Tauranga, and multiple homicides in that town. There are far too many stories in recent times with gang members possessing, most likely and most often, firearms that they were not lawfully entitled to possess at any time, using those firearms to commit crimes and, regrettably, too often, to cause physical harm or death to New Zealanders. Something needs to be done.

There are offences, of course, under the Arms Act for unlawful possession, for unlawful discharge of firearms. We argue that there is a place—and, in fact, a much-needed place—for a very tough regime for those that do present the greatest risk to New Zealanders should they be in possession of, or around, firearms. Firearms prohibition orders are not intended to be widely issued across the general body of people who might possess firearms or have licences, but who may also pose some sort of a risk to the public—they are intended for those who pose the greatest risk. That’s why the criteria are quite narrow and quite strict. Firearms prohibition orders can only be issued under this bill against gang members who have already been convicted of a serious offence under section 86A of the Sentencing Act. That includes things such as murder, such as manslaughter, or attempted as such. It also includes sexual violence and other sexual crimes. These are crimes which are, by their very nature and by legislation, deemed to be serious.

Part of the reason for that I will come to, around the eligibility, is about the impact that has been assessed over time on these measures against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, but the intention was all along to make sure that there was a narrow definition and that it was addressing people who posed the greatest risk. Now, should members across the House agree for this to go to select committee, I would welcome the opportunity not only to fix things such as section numbering and firearms categorisations but members might wish to discuss the eligibility criteria. It has been put to me by, in fact, a colleague and others that it’s not only gang members that might present that greatest level of risk to the public. If members across this House, in what would then be the next Parliament, wished to look at that eligibility criteria, and perhaps broaden it somewhat, I would be certainly open to that discussion.

But I contend and reiterate that it is important that we have an extra tool in the tool box of police to make sure that we keep guns out of the hands of those that represent the greatest danger to New Zealanders. This bill creates new offences with very harsh penalties for those that are subject to such orders who are in possession of firearms, who are sold or supplied firearms—the seller or supplier is subject to those same very harsh penalties—or, indeed, who, without reasonable defence, are residing in premises where firearms are held.

This is an opportunity to do what we as a Parliament should have done over the last 12 months. It was a criticism from us that the Arms Legislation Bill placed more cost regulation and rules on law-abiding firearms and did little, if anything, of substance to deal with genuine criminal behaviour and gangs. This could have been a part of that bill, it is important that it becomes part of our statute book now, and I certainly would call upon members across the House to support this.

I just want to talk about the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act connotations, because it is true that this does impact, arguably, rights for people, and that has been reported in section 8 findings on more than one occasion now, but I would draw the members’ attention to section 4 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the sovereignty of this Parliament to choose to make laws that do impinge on people’s rights. It is an explicit permission under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act that this Parliament can do so.

I also, just for context, draw members’ attention, just a few weeks ago, to the prisoner voting bill. Had we said the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act trumps everything, the Government would have presented a bill that gave all prisoners the right to vote. It’s actually what the court said in its assessment of the previous law, but instead Parliament and the Government proposed one that still constrained rights to some. So even most recently we have a real-world example in this House, where the Parliament gets to decide that it will pass legislation that does impinge rights. So the mere fact that there can be a finding that firearms prohibition orders do impact rights is no reason why this House can’t, or should not, still look to enact legislation to put this regime in place.

I’d just like to finish up with an acknowledgment of a news report I saw last night, and that was that New Zealand First had signalled that they will support this bill to first reading. They had signalled that there are elements of it that they wonder are already taken care of through that Arms Legislation Bill that was enacted, and certainly the eligibility for a gang member to have a licence is, but, as I say, the heart of this bill is actually about new offences, with very tough penalties around prohibition orders.

But I would like to take this opportunity—I have never, in fact, in six years, so looked forward to a contribution from a New Zealand First member in this House than I do this morning. But I acknowledge that report, I look forward to their contribution, and if it is the case—and I’d like to believe that report is accurate—then I’ll take this opportunity to acknowledge New Zealand First for placing public safety ahead of politics, and I welcome and thank them for that support. I pledge—and obviously this is all subject to an election in just a few weeks’ time—to work constructively with all members of this Parliament on this bill should it progress to select committee. I say that’s exactly what should happen, this is something New Zealand needs, and I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. When I made the decision to come to Parliament, one of the things I wanted to achieve in this House is the disempowerment of organised criminals in New Zealand. I agree with the previous speaker, Brett Hudson, and congratulations for having this bill drawn—or re-drawn, as it were—out of the ballot. Gangs do present a serious threat to the security of New Zealand, and it’s far too big a threat to be dealt with with piecemeal legislation like this.

Firearms and gangs are inherent. I remember an early experience while working as a detective in Masterton. I recall getting a phone call at 11 o’clock at night from someone I knew who had decided he was going religious the next day and wanted to give up his firearms that night. I knew this was an individual who we’d had a few problems with over the years and that he had access to firearms, but we’d never been able to find them at his place—they were never kept at his place. Now, due to the intervention of his newly found religious zeal, I went at 11 o’clock that night into his house, where he then, having satisfied himself I was alone and wasn’t with anyone else, disappeared for 10 minutes and came back with a sheet covering a very, very large number of firearms, which he promptly handed to me. And, just as an aside, not only had he gone religious but those around him had also gone religious, and instead of receiving my usual greetings, which normally involved suggesting I make love elsewhere, I was actually being invited to praise the Lord with him as I staggered down the drive with this extremely heavy bundle of firearms, which I promptly threw into the boot.

And another little aside: just as I did so, a rival gang also pulled up in their car and sat there quite surprised as they recognised me as a detective talking to this member of another gang and throwing this big parcel of firearms, which at that stage I had not examined, into the back of my car. I threw them into the car, leaving these rather surprised other gang members with their jaws open as their car was surrounded by these same females asking them to praise the Lord as well. So the world had turned itself on its head on those backstreets of Miriam Street that evening.

The main point of that is that it’s a very, very good example of this individual who had had considerable access to firearms. He had a pretty good haul. There were military-style semi-automatics and some pretty impressive firearms that had been involved in some shoot-outs. But they weren’t at this address, and the whole point I go back to is that if we’re going to make some inroads into gangs, it’s got to be far more than just these piecemeal pieces of legislation, because what you’ll find is that the essence of gangs—

💬 Simeon Brown: Come on!

If that member over there would just sit and listen, he will learn that the essence of gangs is about power. Power means that you get others to do your offending for you. The prisons of New Zealand are full of what senior gang members affectionately know as “jailbait”. They aren’t actually gang members—they tend not to be. They may get their patch from having committed the offence that puts them in there, but they are hang-arounds. Hang-arounds then become prospects, and it’s those prospects who won’t be captured by this legislation—they’re not gang members—who are the ones who do most of the offending. It is them, like in the tale that I related—those firearms were stored at an address nearby where those people actually had no criminal record and they were being forced to hold on to those firearms. That’s what we’ll actually be doing if we’re not careful. We’ll end up forcing these gang members to draw more people into their sphere of intimidation to ensure that they do have these firearms.

So, yes, part of anything we do around gangs has to be to reduce their capacity to offend, and certainly firearms do increase that capacity. But what is absolutely necessary is that we ensure that what we’re not inadvertently doing is pushing their activities into another area that will drag more people into their sphere of intimidation.

Even the sponsor of the bill did mention that there have now been changes since the firearms amendment bill came in this year as a result of the shootings in Christchurch. One of the main purposes of that bill was to ensure—and I go back to that gang member I spoke of. In those days, firearms were actually very hard to get hold of and hard to replace if the police ever seized them. What had changed, certainly up until February this year, until the passing of legislation, was that those firearms had lost their lustre. They’d lost their exclusiveness because they were incredibly easy to replace. I give the example of a person called Peter James Edwards, who was a licensed firearm owner in west Auckland who legitimately bought 74 firearms from Gun City, which he then adapted and which ended up in the gang community. What that meant was that it was relatively easy, prior to the legislation, for such firearms to be replaced. Now, of course, someone acting like Mr Edwards not only would not be able to get hold of the firearms he was passing on but his activities would now be revealed. So it’s about reducing the supply.

You will know, Madam Speaker, that in recent times police have been extremely successful in seizing a large number of firearms from gang members. The important part is that those firearms that have been seized will be a lot harder to replace now than they were before. This is why I say it’s important that anything we do be part of a range of activities we do.

The legislation by itself—and I can see that something along these lines has been included in legislation which is designed to do the ultimate, which is really going to affect the gangs, which is to actually stop the money supply—the reason these gangs are thriving. The Rebels were the first Australian gang to establish themselves here. You may remember the new Leader of the Opposition guaranteeing, pledging, that they would never be allowed to establish a foothold in New Zealand. When you say that and at the same time you reduce the number of police officers, let alone the number of police officers who are actually policing gangs, the two things don’t actually gel. And that’s exactly what happened, and that is why the opportunity was missed around 2012/13 to actually do something about the gang situation. Now we’re seeing yet another plane load. The Australians have gone through and hand-selected some of the most capable criminals in their land and brought them back here, and they’re in the business of establishing themselves now.

Fortunately, one of the main ways in which we attack gangs, attack organised crime, is to ensure we are policing them. And it’s policing them we are now, and that is why you will see that large numbers of the new gangs arriving in New Zealand are not used to the sort of scrutiny in New Zealand. They are not used to the fact that instead of having the ease with which they did business in Australia, they are now losing a considerable amount of the proceeds of crime. Many of them are now in prison. That is how you do it—it is a concerted effort, ensuring that what we do is not just piecemeal legislation but is stopping the business of crime, because that is what gangs are, and the best thing we can do as a society is to ensure in New Zealand that the gangs are not romanticised as they currently are in too much literature and too much music. It’s far more important that we actually ensure that New Zealanders understand what they are—these gangs. They are organised criminals. Their power comes from their ability to ensure others commit the crime, to coerce others to commit crimes, like storing their firearms, and coercing others into taking the rap and doing the time.

The intent of this legislation may be good but the reality of it is that the people who are being targeted do not have the firearms at home, and if we’re not careful, what we’ll do is ensure that the gangs increase their sphere of intimidation to make sure that the firearms are stored in safe places and out of the reach of legislation like this. So, unfortunately, I can’t commend this bill to the House, although, again, I congratulate the member for having it drawn from the ballot. But it is just a piecemeal piece of legislation that unfortunately won’t have the effect it needs to have, which is to decrease that sphere of intimidation.

This firearms prohibition bill, brought to the Parliament by Brett Hudson, will make New Zealand safer. It will give the police the tools that they need to go after the high-risk areas of where firearms are in New Zealand, and I am bitterly disappointed and underwhelmed that Labour is opposing this bill. I’m delighted—and I commend my colleague for securing the parliamentary support for its introduction.

This bill highlights the key practical difference between National and Labour on firearms laws. What we have seen from the Government is broad-pan legislation that treats all firearms users as though they are criminals. It involves putting huge amounts of costs, of restrictions, and, frankly, of quite impractical measures on the tens of thousands of New Zealanders in a country that enjoys its outdoor recreation, its hunting, and its sports shooting, but misses the target of actually going after those people that cause the intimidation, the violence, and the deaths from guns. My colleague Brett Hudson’s bill provides very targeted prohibition orders on those people who we should prohibit from having firearms, and goes further in actually giving the police the powers to go after those people and ensure that they don’t have these dangerous weapons.

Now, I’ve heard members opposite continuously challenge the National Party—“Where’s your policy? Where’s your positive alternative?”—and this is exactly what you have got with this bill. Quite frankly, the contribution from Greg O’Connor for opposing this bill really does need scrutiny. Mr O’Connor said, “Oh, we’re not going to support this bill because it’s not a comprehensive response to the surging gang numbers in New Zealand. It doesn’t deal with the issue of police resources. It doesn’t deal with the issue of going after the money of gangs.” Well, neither do the Government’s bills. So why would you oppose a bill that’s a positive part of the solution when of course you should do those other things, but that’s no reason—no reason at all—to oppose this bill.

Now, I look at the detail of this legislation that provides for four groups of people to be able to have prohibition firearms orders issued. The first of those is people who have committed a serious, violent offence—not accused; convicted in a court of law of a serious violence offence. Who in this Parliament believes people who in the last 10 years have committed such an offence should not be prohibited from holding a firearm? I look at the weak law and order parties like Labour and the Greens—only they would be foolish enough to say people who have convictions for serious violence offending should be able to have firearms. Then the bill specifically says if you’re a gang member, you shouldn’t be able to have a firearm. I look at the surge in gang numbers up from 5,000 to over 7,000 in just three years of this Government. This Government is soft on hard crime, soft on gangs, and I am delighted to have a bill that prohibits that group of people who cause so much crime and so much harm. I equally include the provision that includes domestic violence. Those that have convictions for domestic violence, they are actually some of those that are causing the most of the tragedies.

So this is a well-targeted bill. It summarises so well National’s approach to law and order and the views on firearms: focus the legal effort and the resources on those that cause the crime, and we will make New Zealand a safer and better place—

The member’s time has expired.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It’s good to be able to bring some sense into this debate. This bill, the Arms (Firearms Prohibition Orders) Amendment Bill (No 2), has two purposes. The first one is to prohibit gang members from holding a firearms licence. Secondly, it is making it illegal for them to possess firearms, ammunition, or parts, and it also allows police to search the vehicles or premises of gang members for these items at any time and at any place without a warrant.

The first point I’d like to make is that in the research done by officials in this space, the blanket banning of gang members from holding a firearms licence is likely to have absolutely zero effect on the problem that has been identified. The reason for that is that in 2014, 3.969 gang members were analysed in relation to firearms offences, and of that number, less than 1 percent held a firearms licence. So I would like to put it to the members opposite that introducing legislation that removes the ability for a gang member to hold a firearms licence does absolutely zero to target the problem that they have identified.

As to what is actually being proposed in this space, let’s go to the second point, which would be the paper that the members opposite might not have picked up from the Table in front of them, and that’s the Attorney-General’s report on the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet on this particular bill. What this says is that the bill treats gang members differently from another person, but, quite clearly, the members opposite don’t have a problem with that. Their former deputy leader is on record saying, in a very 1984-esque quote, that some people have more rights than others, and that’s exactly where this Government has a problem in terms of how this is being approached. So what has been stated in the past is that gang members, quite simply, do not have the same human rights as other people.

The problem that I’d like to pick up on in the time that I’ve got left is this entire model of the firearms prohibition order (FPO) has been based upon Australia. What I saw when I worked for the police was that what happened was the then National Minister of Police went on a trip around the world, to Australia and to America, to look at other gang problems. They went on a bit of a shopping trip and brought back a selection of different mechanisms to try and modify gang behaviour, and that was put in as a gang strategy in New Zealand. But the big problem with that approach was that it took situations completely removed from the New Zealand one and applied them here, in the New Zealand context, without understanding the underpinning issues that permeate the New Zealand gang problem, and this FPO model is simply just one of a suite of measures that were brought in that came from either California, New South Wales, or somewhere else.

My proposition to those members opposite is that if we are going to develop a long-lasting approach to some of the fundamental crime issues within New Zealand, it is not this approach of shooting from the hip, removing their rights, and taking away their gun licences that is going to have any kind of long-lasting impact upon reducing the rate of arms offending and illegal firearms within New Zealand. So what has happened recently, and what is a positive thing that we will see make some difference over time, is that we are trying to establish a better test so that people who are not fit and proper should not be able to have access to firearms, and the Government has work under way to draw up new legislation to support existing laws.

But this is a legally dubious bill that is ill-advised and it will not address the issues that are trying to be fixed in this instance. It might look good—it might look good in a press release. It might seem like you’re tough or are trying to be good, but, in reality, if 1 percent of gang members own a firearms licence, this bill does absolutely nothing in terms of enabling a greater response in this space.

Prior to the original bill’s first reading, the New Zealand Police had recommended that the Government did not support the bill when it first came up as the No. 1 bill because it had serious flaws and it would not have delivered on the intent as outlined in the general policy statement—and that is advice from officials. I think you need to go back to the drawing board and have a good look at effective legislation that would actually address the problem, and this bill doesn’t do it.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, what a curious debate to be taking part in. I’ll start by saying New Zealand First has looked at Mr Hudson’s bill and we have noted that, at first glance, it bears some similarity to a bill originally proposed by, of all people, the Hon Paula Bennett when she was the Minister of Police, at a time when she was being well informed by senior police officers as to what they believed they needed in order to bring a higher degree of safety to the streets and remove guns from the possession of gangs. Interesting that this bill did not go as far as the Hon Paula Bennett’s bill went, because Mr Hudson’s clearly looked at some of the human rights implications and has taken those aspects out of it, which gives New Zealand First a degree of comfort, because it’s not so much the impact it would’ve had on the gang members themselves, the people who are the focus of this bill; it actually removed a human rights issue relating to anyone else who may or may not have had gang members in their family, who, being family, might actually be in their home on the odd occasion, be it for Christmas or be it for Labour weekend or whatever, or be it just for catching up with whānau, as you do.

Interesting that at the time, if I recall correctly, I think Labour actually had a degree of sympathy for the bill. Now we have a situation where the Labour side of the House is opposing this bill but at the same time proposing—and this is what’s going to get really interesting, because the speeches I’ve just heard from both the Labour speakers are going to be interesting when read back when the Minister of Police puts forward what he’s proposing to put forward, which actually will bring into question human rights issues.

I cannot speak on this bill without referring to the contribution from Mr Hudson saying that this is aimed at making New Zealand safer. Yet what we witnessed here earlier on in the House did not make things safer for first responders. I just struggle when I see Labour and National colluding and working together to defeat a member’s bill of a New Zealand First member of Parliament which sought to bring safety and enhance safety around first responders. We are talking public safety, so it’s the same thing to us in New Zealand First. Actually, ironically, we would say first responders are more deserving of protection and support given the work they do and the difficult circumstances, the first responders being police as well. Then in the next breath, we’re talking about this bill and standing on our high horse and promoting it as being in the interests of public safety and police safety. I don’t know what the word is—probably “confusing” is how the public will see it.

But New Zealand First is not going to be detracted by that. We’re going to stick to our word—support good legislation going to select committee—that it be examined. I think there have been comments made that are quite accurate. This Government has passed through firearms legislation which was designed by the police to tighten up on how firearms licences are issued; the question is, if we did that correctly, why do we need this piece of legislation? But I’ll leave that question for the select committee to work through, because I do understand what Mr Hudson’s trying to focus on, and New Zealand First applauds him for that.

There’s this other question around—and I take Ginny Andersen’s arguments and say, though, her arguments—actually, she’d be a good contender for Minister of Police because, clearly, her research is more thorough than some that I’ve read. If those arguments, Miss Andersen, are correct, and I think pretty much you are, then that would be the argument against the Government itself putting up a firearms prohibition order next year or after the election.

So it’s going to be a curious time. I simply say to people that New Zealand First is focused on one thing, good firearms law, and we mean to make some redresses in the next term of Government, when we’re back in Government. We mean to tidy up some things that we didn’t necessarily as a caucus, as a party, feel comfortable with. I look forward to good, constructive dialogue at select committee, where I know we’ll be represented very, very well by Darroch Ball, unless he’s a Minister, of course—he could be Minister of Police by then—to see good, constructive legislation come out. I congratulate Mr Hudson, thank him for his work, and we assure him that we will give the bill good consideration all the way through committee.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to take a call on the Arms (Firearms Prohibition Orders) Amendment Bill (No 2), a bill in the name of my colleague Brett Hudson, a fantastic police spokesperson—I’m sure he’ll make a police Minister, too, very soon; maybe not as soon as what Ron Mark was referring to, but maybe in 60 or 59 days, or something like that, he will be the Minister of Police.

This piece of legislation is an incredibly important piece of legislation, because what it does is it targets gangs and those who have committed serious offences and it puts in place a system whereby the Commissioner of Police is able to prohibit them from having firearms. It is about ensuring not only that gang members but people who have committed serious violence offences, offences under the Domestic Violence Act and offences under the Arms Act, are not able to have firearms.

This is the type of legislation which should have been progressed by this Parliament as it has worked through the Arms Act over two bills in this Parliament over the last couple of years. This is the type of legislation which targets those people who are not law-abiding citizens, who have been convicted of serious offences, and makes it clear that it is not acceptable for them to have firearms and to be able to have access to them. This is the type of legislation that puts the emphasis on those who break the law, not on law-abiding citizens.

So I’m proud to support this piece of legislation in the name of Brett Hudson. I’m proud of the fact that he is finally getting this to a select committee and that it will be duly considered and that this will be progressed and will soon be part of our law here in New Zealand so that we can make our streets and our communities safer.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to rise to speak to this bill, because as we know here in New Zealand, unfortunately, over this term, the concept of regulating firearms has come to the fore in this House for many reasons, and not least for our nation having lived through its most traumatic instance of gun violence, that act of terror that happened in Christchurch in March 2019. We found that successive Governments had actually kicked the issue of prohibiting and regulating the use of firearms to a point where we’re very late to it, but I am very proud to be part of a Government who did act swiftly to regulate firearms, to regulate the types of firearms that we found out so tragically were out on our streets and to regulate them—in fact, to introduce far, far more stringent and far more effectively enforceable regulations around things like having a gun register, around having a fit and proper person test, which was introduced only last month with the attendance of very senior members of the police force, the deputy commissioner, and others who’d been calling for this type of change for years and years. Other Governments, including the previous Government, had ignored them, to tragic effect.

The Green Party will not be supporting this particular bill today because we don’t believe in using the criminal justice system and things like the regulation of firearms to further the type of rhetoric that only really makes politicians look tough on crime. The use of words like “gangs” and the prohibitions that curtail human rights without really effectively regulating what we want to regulate—which is firearms use unlawfully out there on our streets—is not effective, and we don’t support it. I would note that with the rules that we introduced last month around the fit and proper person test we did, in fact, prohibit criminal groups and those with certain types of convictions from obtaining gun licences. “Criminal groups” does cover gangs.

In this particular bill, we have a reference back to the list of 35 gangs that we have listed. We know that that disproportionately focuses on Māori and Pacific populations. We know that those are not the only criminal groups that we need to prohibit from holding gun licences—we learnt that in Christchurch. So to say that we will focus only on the old kind of gang that we’ve already listed, and we will use the term “gangs”, we will rile this fear in our communities without actually looking at what we want to prohibit, which is people with criminal intent, which is people who are known to be violent, to hold people who have the type of hate, the type of ill will in our communities—as we know many different types of groups may hold, but we’re only going to focus on gangs.

We know that our criminal justice system has previously done that to our detriment because it has focused away from what is, in fact, dangerous. In fact, we’re not going to focus on what prevents crime; we’re not going to focus on strengthening our communities so that they are more equal, and that people do have jobs and homes and access to mental healthcare, access to drug addiction services; but we are going to keep doing the same old thing that we kept on doing before. We’re going to do things that we know, in fact, breach human rights. We’re going to make our communities more divided and unequal while we see crime rates rise. Well, that isn’t what this Government is about. So we do oppose this bill.

Kia ora. Thanks, Madam Speaker. What Paula Bennett actually said, and I know there’s been a few references to her speaking on this legislation, was that some people have fewer human rights than others. I think this bill, or the previous version of it, inspired that particular comment, which is a pretty extraordinary thing to say, to be honest, and I think we should all just pause and reflect on that. But actually, that’s what sits behind this piece of legislation.

As I’ve been sitting here listening to the speeches and reflecting on what’s being said, I’ve wondered, given that this is the Arms (Firearms Prohibition Orders) Amendment Bill (No 2), whether, if it’s not passed through this House today, we’ll see another attempt to put it through in exactly the same form as No. 3, because No. 1 was, as I understand it, exactly the same piece of proposed legislation. At that time, I understand that it was the police, prior to its first reading, that recommended to the Government not to support the bill as it had serious flaws; that it wouldn’t deliver on the intent as outlined in the general policy statement; that there were concerns raised about police accountability and human rights violations where searches could be based on subjective reasoning instead of sufficient facts; and the fact that the bill was based on the New South Wales legislation, an Ombudsman’s review had found multiple failings and, you know, this is a kicker: including no firearms located in over 600 searches.

So if you, sort of, draw it together, you come up with something that’s wrong, ineffective, and is based on a mirage and a set of contradictions. So you have to ask yourself: well, if it failed back in 2018 as No. 1 and now here it is as No. 2 in pretty much exactly the same form, what is the point?—what is the point? Keen to hear that from the member when he gets up and speaks again. Is it a place filler or is it actually something that’s supposed to mean and be effective in some way or another? It seems to me that it’s a waste of this Parliament’s time to put up a piece of legislation as a member’s bill that has already failed, has clearly got no substance to it, isn’t going to be effective, where there’s been clear recommendations that it breaches human rights, and police say it’s not workable and don’t support it. But I guess what really sits behind this—

💬 Brett Hudson: So to that member, it’s about the colour of the party not the bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Mr Hudson.

—is that it’s about how it appears. It’s that whole tough on crime, “Look at us, we’re tough on crime. Never mind whether we’re effective or not or whether it’s actually right and proper legislation, which is what the people of New Zealand expect of us. But oh, no, it looks as if we’re being tough on crime.”

To be honest, I feel embarrassed to be speaking again. I didn’t speak last time, but I have read some of the transcripts from members who did speak against it. I’ll just read, actually, quoting David Clark, who spoke on it back in 2018, who said that “This is a bill that undermines human rights principles and enables the extension of searches without warrants … puts the police in an invidious position. [And] they’ve recommend the Government not support this bill.” And at the same time, he said—and, again, he said, this is a kicker—“there’s a National Party member who said not … long ago that the National Party firmly believes, or this person firmly believes, that searches should not be enforced without warrants, [which is] apparently in complete contradiction to the bill’s intent.” So I kind of leave you with that thought, and I think it would be a good idea for the member to withdraw the bill before it got to the vote.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Clare Curran said she felt embarrassed to be speaking, and I’m not surprised. But I want to stand on behalf of the ACT Party in favour of this Arms (Firearms Prohibition Orders) Amendment Bill (No 2) because it’s actually a good start on a piece of legislation to solve a real problem. That problem is not ultimately firearms; it’s P. It’s the scourge of P that does not discriminate. I represent the Epsom electorate, and I can tell you that picture-postcard Remuera families are affected by P as much as any other. People don’t talk about it a lot. People don’t talk about it perhaps because they are embarrassed. But once you start talking about the effects of P on the people of New Zealand, you find that none of us are more than a couple of degrees of separation from a life ruined by that drug.

Who is peddling the drug? Who is profiting from that drug? Well, it’s the gangs. How do they go about enforcing their ill-gotten property rights in this criminal enterprise? Well, they use illegal firearms, and we know that, at great pain, from the recent death of Matthew Hunt, a young police officer at the beginning of his career, slain by a gang dealing drugs with illegal firearms. That’s why Brett Hudson has done the right thing bringing a bill to this House to address the problem.

But I’d put it to Brett Hudson that we can actually do better on a couple of counts. One is, I know that the licensed firearm community, the people who have been punished for the actions of criminals over the last 18 months, are very concerned about leakage, funnily enough the kinds of issues that Clare Curran alluded to—leakage of this law to affect other groups of people at the whim of police. I can understand that concern. So the ACT Party supports this bill on the first reading because Brett Hudson is going in the right direction. But when Parliament reconvenes after the election, serious questions will have to be asked about whether this bill is safe. Is it susceptible to mission creep, where it may affect law-abiding people wrongly defined under a law designed to catch gangs?

The second thing I’d say to Brett Hudson and the House is that I don’t know that this particular law will hit the gangs hard enough. You see, the thing is that it says they’re not allowed to have a firearm. The problem is they’ve already got illegal firearms so I don’t know if making more laws will deal to people whose problem is they fail to follow the law. The ACT Party says we got to hit them where it hurts. Sending these guys to jail for breaking the law is not going to have much effect. You see, they got more friends in jail anyway. But what they do care about is the bling—the gold-rimmed motorcycles that they use on their social media channels to recruit the next generation of thugs and, ultimately, victims of the scourge of P.

The ACT Party says what we should be doing with this bill is amending the criminal proceeds legislation to say, if gangs with illegal guns deal drugs, it’s open season on your assets. That’s what we should be saying, not just “here’s another law for you to break” but “if you break the existing law, then we’re coming after your assets.” That’s the opportunity to punish the gangs in New Zealand. That’s the opportunity that we have to actually put the squeeze on the scourge of P that is ruining so many lives. The ACT Party looks forward to the next Parliament where we can work together with our friends in National, and Brett Hudson in particular, to really get stuck into gangs with illegal guns dealing drugs and loot, ruining lives, by hitting them where it hurts: going after the bling and the assets that they use to suck people into this terrible tragedy, life after life, day after day. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I commend this bill on the first reading

E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe. Otirā, ngā mema o Te Whare nei, tēnā tātou katoa. I’m pleased to take a call on the Arms (Firearms Prohibition Orders) Amendment Bill (No 2). I commend the member who has had this bill drawn, Brett Hudson, but, clearly, Labour will be opposing this bill.

Essentially, the bill attempts to do two things. It prohibits gang members from holding firearm licences, making it illegal for them to possess firearms, ammunition, or parts, and it also allows police to search the person’s vehicle or premises of gang members for these items at any time. We’ve heard previous speakers on this side, who are opposing this bill, say that police themselves have reservations on this particular bill. But the point I want to make, and, hopefully, the member who is sponsoring this bill can alleviate for the members of the House, is the evidence that says firearms prohibition orders (FPOs) actually work. I’m keen to hear Mr Hudson express that to the House, the evidence that he’s obtained that shows that FPOs actually work.

My understanding is that this is modelled on a similar piece of legislation followed by the New South Wales Government. Let’s see what they’ve said about their own FPO policy. Obviously, wherever we are in the country, gangs are rife and should be addressed appropriately, and I think we’ve got the tools and the mechanisms and the commitment from this side of the House to give the police the tools to do exactly that. But let’s see what the FPO policy in New South Wales model talked about and what they actually found in addressing their own policy around firearms prohibition for gangs.

Some of the issues that they raised in their own review of the FPO policy talked about an absence of record-keeping in terms of premises being searched. They were actually not lodged. Again, I can only assume that that’s a concern of the police. The review also appears to have found that the power to search without a warrant was misused; 92 people who were searched were not subject to an FPO—again, concerns that our New Zealand Police have around this bill. Children were present during those searches. Their bedrooms or homes were searched, and we can only understand the trauma that would have had on young people, be them children, be them teenagers, when their homes were searched.

I understand that, in New South Wales, you cannot request a review of how the police conducted a warrantless search. So, again, these reservations of the New South Wales FPO have demonstrated the misuse, the trauma of innocent people perhaps, or not so innocent people, and the lack of recording when police instigate searches.

Of the FPO searches in New South Wales, 642 resulted in police finding firearms, and only eight were recovered as an unlawful item, and that’s usually related to drugs. So there are many, like I said when I opened my contribution—the evidence that the member sponsoring this bill could alleviate for the House’s benefit as to where FPOs actually work in similar jurisdictions as New Zealand’s, because in New South Wales, it hasn’t worked. It has not worked. So I’m really keen to hear from the member himself, where he can draw on evidence where it works. Of course gang activity is something that we are, on all sides of the House, abhorrent with—we are abhorrent with.

But my key point that I want to make in my contribution is hearing from the member sponsoring this bill of where FPOs have worked, where they are, and he can express to this House where they have been successful to address the issue and the purpose that he’s presenting. But on the base of it and on the conclusions that I bring to the House around New South Wales’ own FPO being an abject failure, Labour will not support this bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’ll just address a couple of the issues that were raised over the course of this debate, and then I’ll finish with an acknowledgment.

An early speaker mentioned that this bill wasn’t comprehensive enough. Perhaps that member hasn’t been around sufficiently long to realise that most members’ bills are, in fact, very tightly defined on to specific issues. But I’d also note for that member and his colleagues that the Government claimed themselves to put up a comprehensive firearms bill recently, and never has there been, I think, in the history of this Parliament, a so-called comprehensive bill which missed the mark so widely, because all it did was place more rules, regulation, and cost on law-abiding firearms and do little of real substance around genuine criminals and gangs.

What little it did do, actually, remarkably enough—because a number of their members have said about licences and “Gang members don’t have firearms licences”—they actually included the provision that we had in our firearms prohibition orders bill that being a member of a gang or an associate, a prospect, are grounds to be denied a licence. So they felt it important enough to include that. We actually agreed with that particular provision.

The heart of the bill is not about licences and whether the gang member is licensed or not; the heart of the bill is saying that if the Commissioner of Police believes that a prohibition order should be in place, that person, if they possess or are near a firearm, are subject to very, very stiff penalties. The nature of the prohibition orders helps the police with thresholds to undertake search and seizure powers that they possess.

I just want to finish on the element of contributions with Mr Seymour, and I thank ACT for their support. I just make a note on his comment about locking these people up and what does it achieve—well, it certainly achieves fewer victims over those many years that they would spend in incarceration. On the point of the criminal proceeds, I noted recently a video circulating of a new motorcycle club—Mongrel Mob motorcycle club, of all things—in Hawke’s Bay. I looked at this row of Harleys, and I suspect that each one of those would probably meet the threshold for the current law around criminal proceeds. But, you know, should good fortunes return us in a position to have that meaningful discussion, Mr Seymour, I’d be very happy to discuss with ACT the idea of looking at that particular Act as well.

I just want to finish off with a second acknowledgment of New Zealand First and their decision to place public safety ahead of politics. I acknowledge the comments that Mr Mark made, but I acknowledge also his caucus colleagues for agreeing to progress this bill to select committee. As I said in my first contribution, there are things that will need to change, partly because, of course, the Government themselves have put a bill through that changes section numbers, amongst other things. There are things that we could look at to further improve and to satisfy all parties that would be in the 53rd Parliament where we can.

But this is a measure that is important to add to the tool box—not to replace things, not to fix entire systemic issues, but an additional tool in the tool box for police to help keep New Zealanders safer. I thank and congratulate ACT for their support but also particularly New Zealand First for signalling theirs. I commend this bill to the House.