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

I present a legislative statement on the Arms (Shooting Clubs, Shooting Ranges, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon NICOLE McKEE: I move, That the Arms (Shooting Clubs, Shooting Ranges, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by four months and one day after the bill has received its first reading.

I’m pleased to be in the House today speaking about this bill. This bill forms phase two of the Government’s four-phased approach to firearms reform. Shooting clubs and ranges play an important public safety role in our communities. They are places for people to learn how to operate and handle firearms safely, as well as to practise and to compete.

Amendments made to the Arms Act 1983 in 2020 changed the way that clubs and ranges were regulated. Clubs are now required to be approved and ranges certified. These new requirements came at an increased cost and time commitment for operators, many of whom are volunteers. Some of these changes have been positive, but others have gone way beyond what is necessary for public safety and we are now at risk of losing safe venues for licence holders to use firearms safely due to overly burdensome regulatory requirements.

This bill will simplify the regulation of pistol and non-pistol clubs and ranges, and ease the burden on operators without negatively impacting public safety outcomes. This bill amends Part 6 of the Act to improve how clubs and ranges are regulated. The changes will ease the burden on clubs and range operators while continuing to enhance public safety outcomes. The first amendment relates to pistol clubs and ranges. The bill maintains the current regulatory requirements, recognising the higher regulatory standards associated with pistols, but will streamline the annual reporting requirements. This change will avoid unnecessary duplication of administrative activities and reduce the time that operators spend on requirements that do not enhance public safety. The bill will also amend some regulatory requirements that apply to non-pistol clubs and ranges. This is to reduce the compliance burden on operators where there is no tangible benefit to public safety.

Firstly, the bill will introduce a streamlined enrolment system to replace the current approval and certification system for non-pistol clubs and ranges. These enrolment systems are designed to ensure that the regulator has the information necessary to ensure public safety, while reducing excessive costs for the operators and making compliance more straightforward.

The second change is related to incorporation requirements. Currently, non-pistol clubs are required to be incorporated if they sell ammunition and firearms. The bill proposes that non-pistol clubs will not need to be incorporated if all ammunition sold on behalf of the club is used on the day of the sale and at the club range. They are not to be taken off the premises.

The bill will also support the ability for clubs to establish and operate temporary non-pistol ranges to host club events, providing that the regulator is notified. This is particularly good news for clubs hosting large national, regional, or international competitions.

Finally, the bill will provide certainty about when compliance inspections for both pistol and non-pistol clubs and ranges can occur. It will clarify the role of the regulator in encouraging compliance for non-pistol clubs, and the powers for monitoring and enforcement in relation to non-pistol ranges. These changes will ensure that clubs and ranges are not unduly burdened with compliance requirements while incentivising operators to maintain high safety standards.

Further amendments to requirements, agreed to by Cabinet earlier this year, will be made by Order in Council to the regulations once the bill is passed. For example, amendments will be made to the annual 12-event participation requirement for pistol endorsement holders. Once these regulations are in place, attendance at any organised shooting event in the host club’s calendar will count towards these 12 annual shoots. Currently, only those undertaken at the pistol shooter’s home club count, which was nonsensical considering pistol shooters regularly travel to compete.

In addition, the bill contains provisions to reflect Cabinet’s decision to transfer the administrative function for the Act from Police to the justice portfolio. To reflect this, the bill will provide me with regulation-making powers to recommend policy changes to Cabinet as we progress the reform. I will carry out public consultation in accordance with section 74(4) of the Act before seeking Cabinet’s endorsement on any policy changes.

It is important that we have firearm laws that improve public safety, are practical, and make compliance straightforward. These laws should also support clubs and ranges to continue to operate safe and controlled environments where people can learn about firearms, practise firearms safely, and compete. I look forward to hearing from New Zealanders across the country through the select committee process, and I hope everyone takes this opportunity to have their voices heard. I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. On 15 March, a terrorist practised on a gun range in Dunedin. He didn’t break any rules, and no one went to the police. At that stage in New Zealand’s history, pistol clubs were lightly regulated, and non-pistol clubs were self-regulated. In the aftermath of his killing of 51 people, regulations for clubs and ranges were tightened up right across New Zealand. There was a consistent standard nationwide. This was to ensure public safety and to ensure the safety of those who used guns on ranges.

The Firearms Safety Authority had oversight of pistol and non-pistol ranges. What we do know is once they did get oversight, 267 safety improvement notices were issued to the pistol clubs for failing to meet safety standards in the past. This would be to do with ballistics. If they were shooting in areas where people could be horse riding or bike riding, they had to make improvements to change those ranges to make them safe. Let’s remember that that is for the pistol ranges; the non-pistol are still under review. That work has not been done for the non-pistol ranges.

This crucial information that 267 improvement notices were issued by police did not make it into the Cabinet paper which made these decisions. Nicole McKee stated, and it’s been published in the New Zealand Herald, that she did not provide that new Cabinet paper, and she said to Cabinet that there was nothing to indicate that there are any safety issues under the previous system, and she failed to include the information about the 267 improvement notices that have been issued. That vital information was missing from the Cabinet paper that made the decision to deregulate gun ranges in New Zealand, that we are now considering. That is a very serious concern for all New Zealanders and our police service, who are in line for dealing with this and mopping up.

Nicole McKee is unwinding all this, and the reason is that there is a risk, and the risk is that gun ranges could close, that this level of regulation might close gun ranges, and that’s a real concern. The Ministry of Justice in the regulatory impact statement have been very clear in stating that this is an assumption. There is absolutely no information or no evidence to demonstrate that this is a realistic threat.

The proposals in this legislation try to give the impression that there is regulatory oversight but they severely undermine the ability of New Zealand Police to regulate and monitor and enforce the safety at shooting clubs and ranges. There are no compliance tools of any kind, no penalty provisions for refusing access to inspect ranges. The public and law-abiding users of shooting ranges can have absolutely no confidence that the range in their neighbourhood is operating safely.

The bill is also half the story as all the other work goes on in the regulations. There is a complete lack of detail about how the new enrolment system will work. It is assumed it will be spelt out in the technical regulations which we are yet to see. This takes us back to pre-2019, and, on top of this, there is a new requirement, a new pop-up rifle range that can be enrolled and certified if they hold only two events a year. The bill only states that police must be notified and gives police no follow-up powers of inspection or certification. The wild west is coming to a backyard near you, ladies and gentlemen. There is nothing in the bill to specify the format that police must be notified, and it is assumed that this detail is yet to come.

I’ll conclude by talking about the consultation. The regulatory impact statement states that the consultation was rushed. It was skewed towards the firearms users with 91 percent of submissions coming from firearms groups. What other sector in New Zealand gets to write its own safety rules like this? It wouldn’t happen in maritime or rail or any other recreational sport or area, and this is firearms we’re talking about, as well.

Ninety-one percent of submissions came from the firearms community. There are 230,000 licence holders, which is around 4 percent of the population. The Minister responsible for all of this work is a member of the Wellington branch of the Deerstalkers Association, which makes you automatically a member of the Council of Licenced Firearms Owners. What we have is a member of a coalition of licensed firearm owners writing the rules and regulations for ranges in New Zealand that only cater to that firearms community. The safety of New Zealanders, the safety of our communities, is coming second. The gun lobby and gun mates are being put ahead of our communities and it’s time we called it out loud and clear.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Arms (Shooting Clubs, Shooting Ranges, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill purports to support public safety outcomes by improving compliance with the Arms Act 1983. Firearm ownership is a privilege; it’s not a right. As a firearm owner, I certainly do not support relaxing controls, and most other Kiwis do not support relaxing controls either.

This bill, the Arms (Shooting Clubs, Shooting Ranges, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, will do the opposite to what it purports to do. Too often in this House, I get the feeling that I’m in George Orwell’s book 1984 because this bill is a typical example of double-think. To quote Orwell: “Double-think means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously and accepting both of them.” “War is peace”; “Freedom is slavery”; “Ignorance is strength”, and that really applies to this bill because this bill reduces regulation and inspection requirements for shooting clubs and ranges. Is that dangerous or good? We have to ask that question because the claim is that this is helpful and it’s going to be good for communities that are suffering under too tight regulations.

If I understand why anyone might think this is—I want to understand why anyone might think this is—a good thing, I think back to pre-1990. Firearms were, essentially, a tool for people who lived rurally to take care of pests, to go hunting; and those few city dwellers who liked to go out hunting. Mostly good, responsible people, but we’re no longer there—we’re no longer in 1990 or the 1980s. I remember the Aramoana massacre on 13 November 1990: 13 people killed, including a local police officer. That killer was shot and was actually operated on by my father-in-law. It was a really difficult moral decision, I understand—he didn’t survive.

What’s the danger? How about making it easy to sell ammunition in gun clubs and rifle ranges? Is that going to be a risk to anyone? Well, of course it is—of course it is. You just need to think about how informal gun clubs are. Anyone who has been to a gun range—anyone who has been to a gun range—knows that there can be a degree of informality and relaxation. A good bloke—or someone presenting as a good bloke—might be handed or might be sold some ammunition even if they don’t have a firearms licence. These are the risks of informality.

Perhaps we should be including, in this, bullet-proof backpacks for children if that’s what we’re going to do. If we’re going to allow unincorporated gun clubs to sell ammunition, perhaps we should have bullet-proof backpacks for children. This is what this bill is putting on us. It is putting us in a really, really risky place, because what it does is take away oversight and controls in places where firearms are discharged.

We know the Christchurch mosque gunman was able to practise in a very informal gun club—that was near where I live, in the Bruce Rifle Club near Milton in Otago—and what this legislation does is open us up to unnecessary risk. When regulations are strengthened, as they were after the Christchurch massacre, it was found that many gun clubs were non-compliant. Since then, police have issued 251 improvement notices. This is a good thing—this makes sure that people are doing things correctly.

Now, I’m certainly not someone who thinks that we should take away the right to sight-in our rifles—to make sure that we are taking care of our rifles—but we need to do so in a controlled environment; we need to do so in a respectful environment. We certainly need to do so in a way that provides safety and reassurance to the wider community that they are not going to come to harm because we are letting people who—with bad intentions—have access to firearms, have access to ammunition, and can train and practise to conduct massacres; just as we’ve seen in Christchurch; just as we’ve seen in Aramoana.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. As the chair of the Justice Committee, I’m sure the whole committee looks forward to considering this bill when it comes through to us shortly.

The bill is a pretty straightforward bill. It is aiming to improve the safety and compliance of firearms regulation on shooting clubs and shooting ranges. I think some of the rhetoric that we’ve heard already in the first couple of speeches is going to be entirely unhelpful as we consider this bill over the next four months, and I would caution all members who are making contributions to be somewhat more considerate in their viewpoints and the allegations that are being made around here. The last thing we need is to heighten the debate on these issues with miscellaneous and somewhat outrageous accusations.

As the chair of the committee, I look forward to hearing the submissions on this bill. I would encourage, as I have mentioned previously, for all those who are out there listening, who are making submissions, to use the formal process, to use the parliamentary website so that we can process their submissions in a timely and orderly manner. I look forward to the debate on this as it goes through and I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to give a small contribution in support of the Arms (Shooting Clubs, Shooting Ranges, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, in the name of the member who has actually just left.

This bill, I must admit, is something that has brought me back to thinking of growing up on the farm, when, for us, growing up, there were no rules and regulations; we went out and found a tree and we saw a few accidents at the time. But it is now time for a safe and controlled environment.

What this bill will do is amend legislation which will relate to the clubs and ranges. It will also redefine some things, being pistol-shooting and non - pistol-shooting ranges. Some of these amendments we see as just common sense and they will ensure to reduce any gun-related accidents. Also, as the speaker who was introducing the bill said, “Is there a tangible benefit to public safety by having this in legislation?” I see that that is a good question to ask when legislation is being made.

I will keep this short. On behalf of New Zealand First, I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

I will invite the member—I didn’t want to interrupt—to not read quite so much of her speeches in the future. You’re a good speaker, and get some confidence by leaving those notes behind.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Thank you. Kia ora tātou katoa. It is a public safety issue. It’s a huge public safety issue, but if you don’t talk to the public, then you’re not going to understand and know what’s going on. Going just to the guys or the gals that have a holster and love the gun and talk about that and worship it and so on, you’re not going to understand the real issues that go on in the minds of families—regular families that live in regular streets, that want to feel and know that they are safe from this kind of legislation.

The loosening of regulations has to be a huge concern for every single person in this House. To dismiss it as if, “Well, the gun lobbyist knows what she’s talking about, so let’s just let her make those decisions, shall we?”—that is a huge risk. That is negligent. Wake up to that fact, e tātou mā. Wake up to it. It’s a gun, right?

It might have been the middle of last year, we had two of our whānau going to check out a house in the Whangārei Heads area and ended up being shot by the gentleman that was living in that house. Now, from what I understand, he seemed like a regular guy—so regular. They arrived, checked out the facility, shot the mother, shot the daughter, burnt the house down, and he died. These very current and real and tragic stories are in the minds and in the fear of people and families and whānau and their mokopuna that want to feel safe, and this kind of legislation, loosening of these regulations, is negligent. It’ll be detrimental and we completely object and oppose it. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I rise in support of this first reading. These changes are part of our coalition Government’s plan to reform the 41-year-old Arms Act. We collectively want to modernise the Act so that it’s fit for purpose for public safety with the best regulatory practice in place. Like our chair on the Justice Committee, James Meager, said, we look forward to submitters, we look forward to their submissions, and we look forward to a conversation in the Justice Committee that’s based on the facts and not on inflammatory rhetoric. I commend the bill.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It speaks volumes that that member—all he could really say is that “This is part of our coalition plan”. I have strong views about this kind of liberalisation of what I thought was a very good, cross-party consensus on firearms being watered down. I was there in Christchurch on 15 March. I was in the square when a school kids’ climate change march was dispersed. I was there when kids were cowering in my office with me, afraid because they didn’t know what was going on, you know?

Then I came back to this House and we worked hard and quickly to reach a good arrangement that saw more stringent rules around firearms, military-style semi-automatics, and gun ranges. That party over there on the other side of the House supported that, and we worked very cooperatively. We listened. We consulted widely. I want to tell you something: we went around the country and listened to whoever wanted to speak to us. I remember distinctly, because I was on the select committee, going to the Sudima Hotel in Christchurch, out by the airport, and listening to numerous submissions while there were some protesters outside—gun lobbyists. Do you know who was out there on the front lawn of the Sudima Hotel? Nicole McKee. Anyone who tells me she is not a gun lobbyist is deeply mistaken. Go and have a look at her Facebook page. She’s got a post up there with some people from the Muslim community, but the rest of them are her at antique gun shows, deer-stalking shows, rifle ranges—she is deep into the rifle and gun community. She does not have a balanced view, and this is who is leading the Arms Act reform.

I’ve got no problem—as Scott Willis from the Greens said, and I heard his speech, guns have a place in our community. But let’s not pretend that they can’t be harmful, that there aren’t significant dangers in there. The idea that you can have gun ranges which are largely unregulated, in fact, just self-regulated, where you can go along with your firearms, buy a bit of ammo—and I heard the Associate Minister of Justice the Hon Nicole McKee’s speech, she said they have to use it all on the range. Who’s counting? Who’s caring? Who’s keeping records? I’ll tell you who: absolutely no one.

This is just the—well, it’s actually the second step. I listened to the Minister say, “Don’t worry, we’re going to consult. We’re going to consult under section 74(4) of the Arms Act.” Well, she’s already passed regulations and said she consulted—because that section of the Arms Act says you consult with who you think it’s “practicable” to consult with. Who did she think it was practicable to consult with?

Glen Bennett: Her mates.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Her mates—that’s right, Glen Bennett, her mates—who are also gun nuts.

It is absolutely appalling that this Government, that party over there in particular, is being led by the nose because that’s the price of power. If the price of power is to liberalise gun laws to lead to the kind of tragedies that we’ve seen in Christchurch, in Aramoana, and elsewhere, then we’re in a sad, sad state indeed. No one’s saying the Arms Act isn’t old, but let’s not pretend this is some kind of modernisation. This is a programme of radical liberalisation of gun laws, and the National Party’s complicit in the ACT Party’s programme.

I stand in support of the Arms (Shooting Clubs, Shooting Ranges, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. The bill seeks to simplify regulation of a 40-year-old law. It simplifies regulation and distinguishes between pistol clubs and non-pistol clubs and pistol ranges and non-pistol ranges, ensuring that regulation is able to be implemented well. The bill also is, as my colleague Cameron Brewer said, part of a suite of legislation that this Government is putting in place that seeks to support and promote public safety outcomes throughout New Zealand. This is part of a series of legislation that we have put together and are carrying out, including gang legislation, sentencing reform, and rehabilitation in corrections. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just was listening to some contributions and also recalling the day that I think was the impetus for a lot of the changes—the good changes—that we had made in March in Christchurch when the terrorist attack happened.

I too, like the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, was in town in the middle of the CBD with the school strike for climate change and had only got a couple of blocks away from that event when I heard all the sirens and all the commotion. I think it was kind of quite natural to think that something had happened there, and it took a few minutes to realise what indeed had happened and the enormity of what had happened. Whilst all tragedies are unspeakable, and the images that you may create in your mind wondering what had happened and filling in the gaps, I don’t think anything could have prepared me for the fact that a terrorist had literally taken a vile weapon and an inhumane weapon and an inhumane intentionality and cut down so many people—which is deplorable.

As has been said as we’ve made some contributions on this side of the House, it really is just back to the old days—the bad old days—of self-regulation and no regulation at all at shooting clubs and shooting ranges. I think that it’s very easy for the Minister to position this particular bill as a small step, but like all changes in direction and like all ideological missteps, often they come in small steps and each of those small steps adds up to something quite grotesque and quite dangerous. This is certainly a subject matter that is heading in that direction.

The public safety risks of this were highlighted, as has been traversed by the royal commission of inquiry into the terrorist attacks in Christchurch. We know that they’re currently subject to a coroner’s inquiry, and what the Minister is, effectively, saying is that the changes that were made in 2019 and the changes that were made in 2020 that were part of a consolidated process—as my colleague said, where people had the opportunity to provide their views, where experts from a cross-section of New Zealand were able to have their views represented. That culminated in what, I think, were really good changes—that were really celebrated, that were regarded as swift and powerful leadership, where the rest of the world said, “Gosh, there’s New Zealand—suffers a tragedy and actually has the foresight and has the fortitude and has the leadership in place to do something profound about it.” I certainly remember lots of media at the time commending us for that. To take us backwards, as so much of the Government’s agenda is doing, on this particular issue is completely galling.

We’ve also heard that the bill creates multiple loopholes for gang members and extremists alike, in particular, to exploit, and that’s not something to take lightly. It’s all very well thinking that self-regulation and loosening up of rules in service of an essential lobbying activity is OK because you regard yourself as a safety expert, but being a safety expert and then removing safety requirements from shooting clubs and from shooting ranges, which, let’s not forget, is exactly the environment and exactly the place where the Christchurch terrorist practised, essentially, before turning his gun on real people—doing that in the name of safety just feels like another kick in the guts, to be honest.

The changes also create a frightening precedent for landowners, who might find pop-up rifle shooting ranges over their back fence. The bill risks the ability of the police or the firearms regulator to enforce any safety oversight or even inspect the facilities. It really does have that wild west feel to it, doesn’t it, when you start to visualise and imagine the circumstances that those landowners could find themselves in.

It feels like there is a certain amount of outrage on this side of the House about this particular bill, and rightly so. It’s an outrage that I think we all share, and it feels as if it’s very well directed at a Minister who we don’t think is moving this in the right direction. We don’t commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak in support of the first reading of the Arms (Shooting Clubs, Shooting Ranges, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. This is a Government bill in the name of the Hon Nicole McKee, our very hard-working Minister who is to my right, and she is the Associate Minister of Justice, indeed. This amendment that we’re having kōrero on today is part of the ACT - National Party coalition agreement.

National supports this bill. We support it for a number of reasons, but, first, I’d like to direct the attention of listeners at home, those that just tuned in right now, as to what the essential purpose of this bill is. This bill aims to support public-safety outcomes by improving, in our strong opinion, compliance with the Arms Act 1983, and how we feel this is going to happen is by simplifying the regulatory requirements for non - pistol-shooting clubs and ranges and changing some—not all, but some—of the requirements in relation to inspections.

The Act currently requires all shooting clubs to hold a certificate of approval issued by the Commissioner of Police—the commissioner, for our references—and for all shooting ranges to be certified by the commissioner. Now, one of the things that this bill aims to do is to create a distinction and, indeed, different levels of regulation between pistol-shooting clubs and non - pistol-shooting clubs and between pistol-shooting ranges and non – pistol-shooting ranges. What this distinction does is it recognises that, due to the ability to conceal them, pistols are more strictly regulated than non-pistols, and licence holders must hold an endorsement on their licence that means they are eligible to apply for a permit to possess a pistol. These are additional to processes that are not required for possessing non-pistols.

I know there’s been some strong words utilised tonight, this afternoon, with respect to the different views about, in particular, the dissenting views with respect to this bill, but what I’d like to do is just bring us back to some of those key messages.

Cameron Brewer: Get it back to the facts.

RIMA NAKHLE: Yes. Now, these changes are part of the Government’s plan to reform the 40-year-old Arms Act, and the reason why we want to modernise this Act is so that it is fit for public safety and the best regulatory practice. I’m proud of the fact that our Government has been doing quite a lot in the law and order arena, and this is one of them indeed.

Some of the actions that we’ve taken recently that I’m particularly proud of is banning the gang insignia in public places. If we can just remind the House that last week, the Labour Party, as much as I respect many of its members, did not vote for this bill. I know people in Takanini spoke to me over the weekend saying they were actually horrified that some parties did not vote for the gangs legislation. We’re giving police the power to issue dispersal notices to get rid of these groups that are intimidating many people. Families with little children feel they can’t even go out and enjoy their Sundays.

Another thing we’re doing, which I’m really proud of, is we’re introducing powers for courts to issue non-consenting orders with respect to this gangs bill. We’re introducing sentencing reforms. We are doing so much in the law and order arena—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The member is not only reading her speeches, but she’s also drifting quite far away from the bill. Can I ask you to address both.

RIMA NAKHLE: Yes. This amendment bill is just another one of the suite of changes we’re doing in the law and order arena that we’re very proud of, and I commend this bill to the House.

The question is That the

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Justice Committee.

Instruction to Justice Committee