Arms (Shooting Clubs, Shooting Ranges, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

Members, we now come to the debate on clauses 1 to 3. Clauses 1 to 3 are “Title”, “Commencement”, and “Principal Act”. The question is that clause 1 stand part.

Can I take a call on my amendment that’s been tabled in relation to the commencement date of this legislation? We received in the Justice Committee quite a lot of information from officials that the current commencement date in this legislation is insufficient for them to be able to do all the necessary changes that are required. What my amendment does is it makes a change to replace the three-month commencement date proposed in clause 2 with one year. That’s exactly what Police asked for in select committee.

The amendment to the commencement of this Act is really intended to delay its implementation until the current Arms Act rewrite is complete, so that the oversight of shooting clubs and ranges is considered within the broader context of the wider firearms regulatory system. We’ve already heard Associate Minister of Justice McKee say that all of the changes that we’ve just voted on are to set things up so that the Firearms Registry can be transferred, and so she’s just said that. There’s no outcome from the review on that Firearms Registry. There is no business case that’s been made public on the review of the Firearms Registry. It’s unclear whether Cabinet has signed it off. It’s unclear what IT system would be needed to host such an agency. It’s very unclear as to how much that would cost. It’s also unclear whether the finance Minister has given approval for this to happen. My change here, by pushing it out for a year, would actually give the New Zealand public the opportunity to have all of those questions, that are fundamental.

We have the Minister of Police, who has publicly said, out on the tiles, that the Firearms Registry is going nowhere. He has said that on the record, on the news. We’ve got the Minister of Police speaking with a completely different position to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Nicole McKee, right now about the future of the Firearms Registry. If we are, right now, passing legislation that does, as the Minister has stated, transfer all the powers from police to justice, with her presiding as the Associate Minister, I believe that we should understand why we can’t delay that for a year, why we can’t have those answers about what happened for the review of the Firearms Registry, and, also, what is the information that’s been done about the cost to the New Zealand taxpayer of taking it out of Police.

We know that real-time information is absolutely critical to the lives of our front-line officers about where firearms are, and taking that away from Police is endangering the lives of our front line. I think it is only right—

💬 Hon Nicole McKee: Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Nicole McKee.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This amendment is about extending a date from three months to one year. I’ve been advised that three months is fine. I have no need to extend it by a year. By the way, this is about the transfer of the Firearms Safety Authority, not about the registry.

Kia ora, Madam Chair. It’s interesting to listen to Associate Minister of Justice McKee’s narrative on this. As has been spoken about in previous calls, there is concern around the rush that the previous Government made around firearms reform.

My brief question to the Minister is: why the rush? Why the rush? Why not consider my colleague’s amendment to make it one year? As I look at the commencement date of three months, and as I was listening to the earlier debate, my concern is the fact of bringing the community with us. What I’ve picked up through every single call in the committee stage from the Minister has been around the fact that the previous Government didn’t take the community with them. When I look at the three months—and I think it’s reasonable to add another nine months on to that to make it a year. It would actually make sense because (1) it’s bringing the community with us, and (2) it’s because of the concerns that have been raised in previous calls around the ministerial oversight and the challenge that has because of history.

My question to the Minister is: why would she not consider an extension to the commencement date, it being the fact that it’s actually, I guess, following on in the footsteps that she has been talking about so often around how everything’s been too rushed? Let’s slow it down and let’s actually give it time to embed, understand—as my colleague has talked about—the cost to move it, what it’s going to look like for the police, and what it’s going to look like in terms of the arms register.

I think we need to seriously consider this amendment, and not ignore it just because it’s an Opposition amendment but actually consider the fact they’re adding nine months on and giving us time as a community to move forward; that it’s not seen as being rushed, because the Minister keeps going on that our Government rushed things. I’d like some feedback on that, please.

It can be done within three months. There is absolutely no need to extend it. These are changes that can be made easily, and we’re doing it in three months.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is my first opportunity to take a call in this session, and I appreciate it. I’d like to ask Associate Minister of Justice McKee whether there has been any consideration to changing the title of this bill.

I note that we were discussing, in new section 74(4)(b) in clause 12(1) under Part 2, the phrase “done everything reasonable to consult other [people]”, and I would like to also congratulate the Minister on being very effective at getting some people to submit on this bill, because, as a firearms owner, I do get a lot of correspondence. One of the bits of correspondence I got was from a pro-gun lobby that suggested—my wording—in a submission that “I object to my personal information being released as part of an Official Information Act request. I object to this due to concerns around my data and identity security”, etc.

As a suggestion, I think that the title of Arms (Shooting Clubs, Shooting Ranges, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill 2024 could be changed. I would suggest that we could simply alter it to call it the “Pro-gun Amendment Bill” to describe what it actually is and who has been consulted on this and who has been listened to on this, because, as a firearms owner, I like clarity and I like people to speak directly, and I think that’s exactly what it is. I’d like to the Minister to respond to whether the Minister would be open to changing the title of this bill. Thank you.

Debate interrupted.