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 (Maureen Pugh): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the parliamentary website.

Hon NICOLE McKEE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move, That the Arms (Shooting Clubs, Shooting Ranges, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

I am pleased to bring this bill to its third reading, therein completing the second phase of our work programme to reform New Zealand’s firearm laws. Shooting clubs and shooting ranges throughout the country play an important public safety role in New Zealand’s firearms regime. They provide spaces where individuals can learn how to safely operate firearms in a controlled environment. Clubs and ranges are mostly run by volunteers who give up their time to ensure that clubs and ranges are well-maintained, safe venues—a place where members of the firearms community can take their families and friends to practise, to compete, to learn, and to have legal and legitimate fun.

Without these spaces, firearm users will not have safe places to perform shooting activities, to train for international gold medals, or, most importantly, a safe place to sight in their rifles before they go hunting. Without these clubs and ranges, we will be creating risks that people will engage in these behaviours in areas that could put the public at risk, like down at your local riverbank.

Legislative changes introduced in 2020 placed a heavy regulatory burden on these volunteers. Some of these changes went beyond what is necessary to ensure public safety. I’ve heard from club members and range operators that this regulatory burden is unnecessary and repetitive, it does not contribute to public safety, and it may force more to consider closure.

This bill simplifies the regulatory requirements for clubs and their ranges to reduce the unnecessary burden on the mostly volunteer operators, all while maintaining safety requirements and helping these places to stay open, which is, ultimately, in the interest of the public because it is an excellent public safety initiative. This bill represents a shift to a more collaborative approach—to work with the club and range operators—to boost compliance, and to produce regulation that is fit for purpose while keeping members, range users, and the public safe.

I’ll now cover the specifics of what the bill does. The bill splits regulation of clubs and ranges into two categories: pistol and non-pistol. This reflects the distinction between how pistols and non-pistols are already regulated in other parts of the Arms Act. For pistol ranges, the settings are largely the same, with one minor change to the timing of their annual reports. For non-pistol clubs and ranges, the existing approval and certification systems are replaced with a new system of enrolment. The new enrolment systems are designed to be a more streamlined system that makes sure the regulator has the necessary information to ensure public safety, while reducing unnecessary operating costs for clubs and time spent by operators on things that do not enhance public safety outcomes. I expect that this change will increase compliance.

Non-pistol clubs will continue to be incorporated if they sell firearms and/or ammunition. However, if a club only sells ammunition and that ammunition is used on the day of sale or is not taken off the club premises, then the incorporation requirement is waived. This change will ensure that ammunition sales are only recorded when necessary for public safety.

The bill enables the operation of temporary non-pistol ranges by removing the barrier of certification. Those persons with the appropriate experience will be able to establish a temporary range for two events per year, each event being for no more than four days. They must notify the regulator of that event.

Regarding compliance, the bill specifies the time at which inspections are to occur. This will be when the shooting range’s initial application is submitted, and every five years thereafter. This includes the inspection of clubs where they are connected to a range. This is a welcome change for many clubs and ranges throughout the country which are operated by volunteers. An inspection often means volunteers having to take time off occupational work to make themselves available for the inspection. This change provides them certainty as to when they will be inspected. Importantly, additional inspections can take place if there is a change in circumstance which impacts the safety of the range, such as weather events like Cyclone Gabrielle.

The regulator will have suitable powers for monitoring and enforcement in relation to non-pistol ranges to ensure the safe operation of these ranges. This includes improvement notices, temporary suspensions, and cancellation of enrolment, if required. During an inspection, only hard-copy documents will be able to be removed from the premises. This will reduce the burden on volunteers, who often have limited funds and access. Finally, the bill will amend the Act to complete the transfer of the administrative function of the Act from police to the justice portfolio.

I would like to reiterate why these changes are so important. There is a clear need for safe, modern firearm laws in New Zealand. We were told that the changes made in 2020 introduced a wide range of measures to ensure public safety. While some of these have been positive, others have gone beyond what is necessary, and officials have said that it is unknown how far these measures have increased public safety.

The majority of clubs and ranges in our country are run by volunteers. I’ve heard that they have struggled to come to grips with the new requirements and they feel unfairly targeted. It is important that our regulatory regime strikes the right balance to regulate well, without being overcomplicated and burdensome on those regulated with no clear benefits.

This bill takes us towards a more balanced and collaborative approach. It recognises the important role that clubs and ranges play in our communities. Keeping clubs and ranges open ensures that firearms activity takes place in safe, well-regulated areas, where there are minimal safety risks involved.

I wish to take this opportunity to thank all of those who have worked on and contributed to this bill. I thank the Justice Committee for its comprehensive scrutiny of the bill and all of the submitters who took time to share their views. Finally, I wish to thank all those volunteer club and range committees from the multiple disciplines that they all cover. Their endless dedication to their disciplines, their members, and their communities is recognised here and I hope these changes go some way to helping their continued operation.

The result of all this work is legislation that is a step in the right direction towards a better, modernised firearms regime, and I look forward to returning to the House later this year to introduce legislation rewriting the entire Arms Act. I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Members, it is time for the dinner break, so the House is suspended until 7 p.m.—please note that that’s 7 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 5.57 p.m. to 7 p.m.

Good evening, members. The House is resumed. When we left at the dinner break we were in the third reading of the Arms (Shooting Clubs, Shooting Ranges, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. We are at call No. 2, and it’s a Labour Party call.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. We find ourselves here once again debating under urgency a process that suspends time in this Chamber but does not suspend scrutiny. We may not be measuring time in this House but the people of New Zealand are, and they are watching now. They are watching a Government that claims to be tough on crime but today takes its first deliberate steps towards weakening our firearms laws. People are watching tonight, from home, a Government that promised to keep our communities safe but now puts politics before public safety. They are watching a Government that with this bill has officially chosen to forget what happened on 15 March 2019.

This is a dark day for our Parliament, because today, through this legislation, the Government begins a slow and systematic dismantling of the very laws that were put in place to prevent another attack like the one that happened in Christchurch on 15 March.

New Zealanders know what happened on 15 March 2019. It was the darkest day in our modern history. Fifty-one innocent lives were lost in an act of terror. We know why it was possible—because for decades, successive Governments failed to act on the warnings we were given. Warnings from experts, warnings from police, warnings from former judges even were ignored for years. Justice Thomas Thorp, as far back as 1997, told us our gun laws were weak, riddled with loopholes and vulnerable to exploitation, yet no action was taken. So on that day in 2019, the worst came to pass, and as a result this House took action. MPs across the political spectrum came together, and by 119 votes to one we voted to ban semi-automatic weapons, to tighten our licensing laws, and to establish stronger oversight mechanisms. We made a commitment not just to the victims in Christchurch and their families but to all New Zealanders that we would never allow such an attack to happen again.

Yet just 71 months later, this Government has chosen to wind back those hard-won reforms. The arms amendment bill before us today is not simply a technical update to the law, as the Government would have you believe. It is a step backwards towards the dangerous, unregulated firearms environment that enabled March 15 to take place in New Zealand.

This bill weakens the oversight of shooting clubs and ranges, precisely the place where the Christchurch terrorist was able to train. The royal commission of inquiry into the attack found that he was able to practise rapid-fire shooting techniques on an unregulated range with no scrutiny, no accountability, and no intervention. We fixed that. We introduced laws to regulate shooting clubs and ranges to ensure that those using them were monitored properly, and to ensure that those clubs and ranges were able to prevent extremists from accessing the training grounds that they seek. And now this Government wants to undo that work. They are handing control of shooting ranges back to the very groups that failed to ensure safety in the past.

The Government says this is about cutting red tape and being practical. But this is not about practicality; it is about ideology. It is about appeasing those who believe that firearms’ ownership is a right, not a privilege, and it’s about a Government that is willing to trade public safety for political convenience.

We do not have to look far to see the hypocrisy of those sitting opposite us today, because the very same National MPs who are now weakening our firearms laws stood in this Chamber and supported them. Let us remind them of their own words. The Leader of the House, Chris Bishop, was overseeing this shameful reversal of the legislation today. Six years ago, he said, “I want to, on behalf of the party, acknowledge the Prime Minister for her remarks in opening this third reading debate, and also acknowledge her leadership in the hours and days and weeks following the shooting. I have received many comments in the last few weeks around your leadership, Prime Minister, and I think all of New Zealand has been impressed by your steadfastness at a time of great trial for our country.”

Let’s not forget the contribution of New Zealand First in 2019, either. Here is Mark Patterson, “We stand behind our Prime Minister, and I would like to acknowledge her and the leadership she has shown. It has been comforting for us all. New Zealand First, right from the get-go had absolutely no trouble falling in behind what was, in one word, leadership. In this time of national crisis, our own leader the Rt Hon Winston Peters’ initial reaction was that at 1.30 p.m. on 15 March our world changed forever and so will our gun laws.”

I even found a quote from the current Minister of Police, from six years ago, which was lucky because he hasn’t uttered one single word in the debate on the legislation before us today in this House. There is silence from the Minister of Police when briefing after briefing through the Official Information Act reveals that the Police and the Police Association, representing front-line officers, have been urging him to intervene. [Interruption] It’s true from what front-line cops say. Mark Mitchell will turn up in a heartbeat if there’s a photo op with a blue uniform somewhere but he will run a mile if he’s actually doing any hard work to back them. Here’s what he said back in 2019, “Can I acknowledge the Prime Minister first of all. I was very grateful of the fact that she shared with us some insights around how it crystallised in her mind, the leadership that was required, and then, of course, the Parliament coming together to bring this bill to the House to make the changes that we needed.”

Here is another, from former Minister of Police, Judith Collins, “I’m so proud of us. This is one of the most important pieces of legislation that we will pass during Parliament because it is not only about keeping people safe, but it’s about putting a marker in the sand of our New Zealand culture.” That was a mark in the sand for the National Party and it’s obviously been washed away very conveniently when a political deal had to be done to form a Government.

The weakening of our gun laws that is happening today is the price of the political deal done with the ACT Party. But what has changed? Has the threat of extremism disappeared? Have our police stopped warning us about the risks of firearms in our community? Have the lessons of 15 March suddenly become irrelevant? No. The only thing that has changed is this Government’s priorities. The truth is this is not about what is best for New Zealand. This is the price of a political deal with ACT. This is the cost of appeasing a minority ideology that places gun ownership ahead of public safety. And for that, the National Party is willing to betray its own past positions, its own past commitments, and the very principles it claimed to stand for.

The weakening of firearm laws is not the only thing contained within this bill. What is buried deep within this bill under “other matters” is something deeply concerning. It’s a transfer of power from the Minister of Police to the Associate Minister of Justice, Nicole McKee, and it takes control away from police and into her hands. And that is the framework for the Firearms Safety Authority being taken out of Police. It is a real concern that that is being done without even the review of the Firearms Safety Authority even being made public.

Let me talk in conclusion on this bill. Labour’s commitment in this area will be clear. We will not stand for this. We will not allow the lessons of 15 March to be simply erased. We will not allow New Zealand to return to the weak, ineffective firearms laws of the past, and we will not stand by as this Government prioritises politics over human lives. So let me make this commitment today, here in this House. We will overturn these changes. We will restore the protections that are being dismantled in this House today because we stand with the police, we stand with the communities who have suffered from gun violence, and we stand with the people of New Zealand who deserve a Government that values their safety over political expediency.

This bill is a betrayal of the progress we made as a nation after 15 March. It is a betrayal of the promises that were made to the victims, to their families, and to the people of New Zealand. And it is a betrayal of our history that we will never forget. We oppose this bill. We will fight these changes, and we will make sure that when the time comes, this dangerous, reckless legislation is repealed.

Just before I call the next speaker, I did hear a few comments in the House during that speech about reading the speech. There were a lot of quotes in that speech, and I wouldn’t expect anyone to be not reading quotes at the risk of getting them wrong. So there’s a good level of acceptability around quotes.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m in alignment with my colleague from Labour, in that this piece of legislation is not a minor thing. It’s not minor stuff. What we’re talking about is a relaxation of gun safety. As a gun owner, as a firearms owner, and as someone who hunts, I can’t see the sense in relaxing the rules we have, particularly when we have had the crises that we have had—15 March and Aramoana.

This bill is, essentially, a rushed bit of legislation. It is something that we don’t need. And we’ve seen switching from the Minister of Police to the Associate Minister of Justice with no support—no support—from the wider communities of interest and no consideration about how people feel—how this makes our vulnerable communities feel after the massacre of 15 March.

Now, some people might say it’s only making things a little bit simpler. The Arms Amendment Act 1992 made some changes to gun laws in response to the Aramoana tragedy, but it did not include a ban on military-style semi-automatics, despite one being proposed by the then Opposition, Labour. And we know what happened: the Thorp recommendations were not implemented. We know what happened on 15 March. After that point, after that moment—as has been pointed out—Parliament did come together and did put in place mechanisms to safeguard our communities. They were thoughtful. They were done in response to extreme trauma. What we have got in response is a shockingly slack, rushed, messy process to meet political contingency, because a soap salesman wants to be Prime Minister. This is absolutely shocking in a civil society where we value democracy—that we’ve sold out simply for political contingency.

We in the Greens do not accept that amending Part 6 of the Arms Act 1983 will meet any legitimate need of any firearm owners or provide greater safety and reassurance to the general public. There is no sense to stopping the police from doing checks on gun ranges except every five years. Why would we want to limit the checking of gun ranges? Who is that going to benefit? I would like the members opposite to consider who that will benefit. Anyone who is a legitimate gun owner should not be afraid of the police checking a gun range, should not be fearful of having to present their firearms licence, and should not be worried that somebody will be selling ammunition when they shouldn’t be, because we all want to live in a safe society. We all want to live in a society where we can trust our neighbours—not like Aramoana and not like the situation that we had on 15 March.

I’ve certainly read here that the bill amends the Act so that non-pistol shooting ranges may be inspected when the range is first applying for enrolment, then subsequently at 5-yearly intervals. As I’ve said, this just seems ridiculous. It might be a small thing, but it is—as my colleague said—a slow, inexorable dismantling of hard-won safety measures. This is what we’re facing.

I just don’t understand how anyone who purports to support our communities, our most vulnerable, can be comfortable with this—can do this with a clear conscience. Is this what it means to be in Government—that the Government will hold their nose and do the most odious things, simply to be in power? As we’ve seen, this legislation is not thoughtful, it’s not considered, it has not gone out to the wider public, it has not considered the broad variety of views, and it is narrow, rushed, and quite frankly—I don’t think I can use that term, but it is a very poor process.

This bill is, essentially, retrospective legislation to try to fix something that was not wanted by one party in the coalition Government. As a consequence, it bears all the hallmarks of that party, but it is owned by the whole Government. This is something that we will all remember. This is something that we will ensure the public knows as well.

As a firearms owner and as a hunter, I talk with our firearms community and I talk with other hunters. Nobody wants there to be nonsensical firearm legislation. Nobody wants rushed, poorly thought-out legislation either. This is what this is—this is exactly what this is.

Liberalising gun ranges is about rolling back necessary controls on firearms. Rolling back safety measures makes our communities less safe. This is very simple stuff. This is exactly why the Green Party wouldn’t come near this bill with any kind of support. We certainly support a rewrite of the Arms Act, but we support doing this in a way that involves our wider community. This piecemeal approach is breaking down all the safeguards that we have had in place and that we have agreed through time across the House. This is why it is so difficult to stomach—because I know, in my heart of hearts, that through previous Governments we have been able to work together. This feels like showing us the finger again and again and again. The Government knows that this is not palatable, this is not sensible, this is not good for our communities, and this is not addressing the trauma of our most vulnerable communities, and still the Government seeks to proceed to do something that they know is deeply unpopular and has no merit.

It is a sad day. It is a sad day to be speaking on the third reading of the Arms (Shooting Clubs, Shooting Ranges, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I would like to work with the Government on ensuring that we have safety in our communities and ensuring that legitimate firearm use is supported. Actually, I’d quite like to be out chasing deer in the roar. But we’re not; we’re here, and we’re debating this very poor bill, and that’s something that I don’t want us to be doing again and again and again. I would like there to be much more listening and much more dialogue, and more consideration of the real concerns that we have on this side of the House.

This is a dog’s breakfast of a bill. We have had plenty of time to debate, but we have not had any listening or dialogue with the Government.

This not entirely a sad day; I understand this is a birthday. Rā whānau ki a koe. Although I have to say, technically it’s not, because while we’re in urgency, while you’re in this Chamber, you are actually ageless. Rā whānau ki a koe e te Māngai o te Whare.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you to the member. I’ll excuse you on this one occasion for bringing me into the debate. Thank you.

GREG FLEMING: It is my honour to rise on the third reading of this bill. It has been well canvassed. It has been well debated. There are clearly very different positions on this bill. On this side of the House, we are happy with the balance that is struck here, and so I commend this bill to the House.

I rise to speak in support of the Arms (Shooting Clubs, Shooting Ranges, and Other Matters) Amendments Bill, on behalf of the New Zealand First Party. I would like to clarify a few points. It is the duty of this House to consider legislation and to review its effectiveness. It is the duty of this House to take time to look at laws that were passed and see if they are still relevant. To quote members who supported a piece of legislation when they responded to a horrific incident that brought the whole country to its knees, where we all stopped and responded to the fact that this was something we needed to deal with quickly, and, therefore, that legislation was passed exactly as was criticised across the House—in rush, without consultation, without thinking about what the implications were going to be. Therefore, we are now in a position of having the time—the six years since this horrific event occurred—to consider if this legislation is still appropriate, if it is still effective, if it is still right.

In the midst of this firearms legislation that you believe solved all the problems, we have had escalating crime that we have never seen before in this country. We have had violent crime at an unprecedented level. Therefore, it is perfectly legitimate to sit back and look at where our responses should sit, where we have the duty to ensure that law-abiding citizens can be allowed to do lawful activity without the restrictions and inhibitions that bad legislation puts in place.

In response to the members across the House, we do care. That is why we were passing legislation that helps reduce violent crime. We have seen violent crime come down because we are the Government that cares, because we actually understand what the front line needs, we actually understand what crime means, and we actually understand what victims want, and we don’t advocate for the fact that the Police is a terrible organisation and we don’t promote the fact that prisons are full of hungry people. We actually understand what law and order means in this country, and, therefore, we have approached a piece of legislation that is very simple. It’s very clear that we are reviewing a rushed piece of legislation and we are making changes to ensure that lawful activity can continue. That is why this party will support the legislation and we commend it to the House. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

The next call is a split call.

Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. In my view—in our view, it is more than a sad and bad day. It’s utter madness. It’s deeply disappointing madness made legal, is what I want to share. When this bill is removing safety regulations, surely you can see the madness in that whole idea. Why would you make something less safe? Why would anyone in their right mind do that? It’s mind-boggling, dumping the need for non-pistol shooting ranges to be certified and—adding insult to injury—scrapping all penalties. As you get into the detail, it’s definitely where the devil resides and clearly the devil on the other side of the House will land a point.

When we’re measuring this against our own tikanga and our own tools, we talk about mana motuhake. Kore he motuhake i roto i tēnei whakaaro. [There is no self-determination in this idea.]

Nothing enhances, nothing elevates, and nothing honours the life of every precious individual. Why on earth would we give the rule, and the regulation, and the power to a former gun lobbyist? Well, I don’t know how “former” former that is, but it seems very current, just saying.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think we should just broaden it out to the Government. It is a Government bill. Thank you.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: I will—yes. All right. When it reflects clearly the loosening of the regulations on firearms—again, loosening regulations on firearms—surely, for anyone in their right mind, if you were looking up and listening, that cannot be smart thinking, and it astounds me and disappoints me deeply.

Then I want to bring us home. On 4 March this year, if you read the Northern Advocate you would see the opening “Whangārei Fatal Shooting” and then you’d see the sad and terrible shooting of a woman on Beach Road in Whangārei, and then there was another piece to that. But just “fatal shooting”, that heading, it shocked us all in our small community in Whangārei, as it should across our whole motu. But clearly people aren’t reading enough.

I want to take us back again; I’m going to take you back to Tai Tokerau. In July 2017, a mum and her daughter go to work—this is the heading in the New Zealand Herald: “Mother and daughter die as repair visit turns to tragedy.” The tenant in the house comes out—disgusting, horrible—and both the mother and the daughter die. They were shot by this man.

These are important points because it’s the same reality that was shared when we’re talking about the events of 15 March. Our memories are clearly very, very short that you will only remember—and you’re selective in what you recall, because why would you want to even think about that? You might talk about it on the other side of the House, but does it resonate today? It might have back then, but where is the memory now? Where is that discussion now? Where is the serious debate in this?

We too want to work with whoever—the other side of the House, ideally—to have you understand what works. This makes it much, much more detrimental and difficult for our vulnerable families. In fact, it makes it blinking detrimental for any blinking family—for all families, for all mokopuna, particularly our mokopuna and families that live in in vulnerable communities.

So it’s nuts. This is nuts. It’s madness. It makes no real sense in any way, in any social justice—even like giving the guys a gun to go out and have a little bit of a play and a hoot. I was just listening to my Greens colleague here and he’s a hunter, he knows what it takes, and he’s saying, “Cut it out.” My army mates are going, “This is utter madness, Meno. Stop this Minister, and stop this thinking, and stop this person.” I wish I could. If I could, I’d just tear this bill up too. Kia ora, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. We have heard, from this side of the House, the grave concern that we have for this bill—not simply the repercussions of this bill but the process of how this bill came about in the first place. This bill is a solution without a problem; there was nothing that suggests that this is needed other than the prioritising of a small lobbyist pro-gun group instead of public safety.

In the regulatory impact statement, literally every single option that has been proposed said that it would have a negative impact on promoting public safety. So there is no positive aspect to public safety with this bill. What’s even more concerning is that because of the narrow scope of this bill, in the regulatory impact statement itself it says that for this bill, the Minister shared insights with officials in order to identify her key areas of concern. Combined with the time restraint, we have a limited scope of options consulted on with stakeholders.

This is literally one person’s hot take of a legislation. We hear from the Government parties that, yes, we are here about bills and we are here about legislation and we are here about the New Zealand public. Words have meaning. We do not and we should not be introducing legislation based on one person’s hot takes.

If you’re looking at the list of stakeholders that is being introduced into the regulatory impact statement, literally most of them are gun groups: let’s say, the Arms Advisory Group, the Arms Engagement Group, the Firearms Community Advisory Forum. Only one of them was the Muslim Reference Group, because they have to include them. Whether their feedback was taken on board, and I can hazard a guess, it’s probably going to be drowned out by all of the other voices and all of the other stakeholders that were consulted as a part of this bill.

So 15 March—and we just had the six-year commemoration of that a few weeks ago—was one of the worst tragedies in Aotearoa. It was something that the Muslim community had told the Government over and over and over again of the risk to their lives, of the risk to their communities, and we did not hear them at that moment.

It’s Ramadan right now. We have people here in this very House, currently, who are celebrating iftar. Could anyone from the Government party dare show their face to that group of people and look at them in their eyes, saying, “This bill that we’re debating in the third reading right now is for you, it’s for your benefit.”? Can we, hand on heart, tell that to all of the people currently celebrating iftar?

This is not something we need. This is not something that is going to be beneficial. This is going to hurt more people within our communities. This is going to put lives in danger. You are going to see parents who will never make it home to see their children. You’re going to see children who are never going to make it home to see their parents. Do we really want to go down the same track that we see in other countries like the US, where all they manage to say whenever there’s a mass shooting of any sort is, “Thoughts and prayers”? Is that something that we should be identifying with and working with and looking forward to and seeing ourselves being reflected in what is happening overseas? We should not be a part of that. We should hold on to our values and our people and the best way to protect them. That is what this House should be doing when we are looking at this bill.

Other than that, we have heard from multiple people and organisations and committees, even the police themselves, who said that this is not going to be good, that there are going to be concerns about this. So this is not a bill that the Green Party will support under any circumstance, and we are appalled at how this bill was introduced and the repercussions that this bill will create.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This bill’s part of our plan to reform the 40-year-old Arms Act. It modernises the Act. Its purpose is public safety and best regulatory practice, and I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to stand and take a call on the Arms (Shooting Clubs, Shooting Ranges, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I stand to oppose this bill—and I stand to oppose this bill strongly. Very recently, earlier this month, it was the six-year anniversary since the tragic events of 2019, which compelled this Government to step up and take responsibility for the tragic and hideous crimes that occurred in Christchurch. And earlier this month, our Prime Minister—or the Prime Minister, as I prefer—and members of this Government went to Christchurch for that anniversary and stood with the families of those victims, to support them in commemorating that tragic day. At the same time, in the same month, only a few days later, we are here under urgency to undo one of the very laws that was put in place to make sure that tragedy could never happen again. As someone who was in Christchurch the day of that tragedy, you can never forget what the feeling was like in that city on the day and immediately afterwards. This bill sets out to undo the immediate response by this Government and, as we’ve heard from earlier speakers, a response that was acknowledged and supported by other leaders in this House and by other members in this House, with the exception of one.

An earlier speech went through very accurate and precise quotes that detailed not just the support but the reasons for it. Ultimately, we should be here in this House to make communities safer, but that’s not what this bill does. This bill does exactly the opposite of that. Now, there’s been a range of speeches in the House in this third reading of the bill. There’s been members calling out. There’s been members who’ve chosen to use their call for birthday shout-outs. And there’s been claims from a member that crime is spiralling out of control. At the same time as crime is allegedly spiralling out of control, the suggested solution is to enable access to firearms and to practising the use of firearms. In a nutshell, the statement is: take away the patches, but don’t take away the guns. Doesn’t seem like much of a solution.

If we are here to make communities safer, this bill does exactly the opposite of that. It actually makes us less safe; it makes our communities less safe, and it creates a very real sense of danger and a sense of a lack of safety for some of our most vulnerable communities. There are multiple issues with this bill other than the principle of it, but the idea of self-regulation or no regulation of shooting clubs and shooting ranges—and there are multiple loopholes that endanger communities and that put at risk law-abiding gun users. We’ve heard from members in the House tonight who’ve spoken against this bill but have been very clear to point out that they are gun owners, gun users, and that they are not comfortable with the changes and the shift that this bill puts in place. There are not clear enough provisions in this bill to stop a club or a range opening somewhere near you some time soon. These are definitely not the actions of a responsible Government that cares about keeping people and communities safe. These are instead, under urgency, a rushed shift backwards to reinstate the very environment that allowed such a tragedy to happen in this country.

The process throughout the journey of this bill has been flawed. Rushed consultation—it did not enable communities to be involved in this bill. It was skewed, through its consultation, towards firearm users—91 percent of submitters. The panel stated that the process that this bill followed through select committee only partially met the criteria. So it’s a terrible, terrible rushed process. The Police Association spoke on this bill—and represents over 98 percent of sworn officers—and they described this bill as being politics over safety.

If we are here to make communities safer, and surely that’s what we should be here to do—amongst other things, but we shouldn’t be here to increase risk, to make communities feel less safe, to dial back the very laws that were strengthened and put in place to make sure tragedies couldn’t be repeated. So in closing my speech tonight, I want to echo the words of the Hon Ginny Andersen, who spoke at the beginning of this third reading, who took us through and reiterated the quotes from members in this House when the original bill was passed. She said not only do we oppose this bill but we will repeal it and put back in place the very protections that our communities need and that they deserve. Thank you.

We’re in the third reading of the Arms (Shooting Clubs, Shooting Ranges, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I find it quite absurd the notion that the National Party, when one of our 10 values is national and personal security, would be comfortable with allowing a bill to become law that is apparently as loose as the other side of the House is saying. We went through a robust process in select committee. If the members of the Justice Committee didn’t show up for that robust process, that’s their issue. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is with absolutely no pleasure at all that I take a call on this bill, and I’m actually quite shocked at the fact that we’re having this debate and the fact that I know there are people who are sitting opposite me in this Chamber right now who in their hearts do not believe that this is the right move for New Zealand, that do not think that the legislative change that our Parliament should be prioritising is to get more guns in more hands more easily.

The priorities for New Zealanders are the fact that recently they’ve had increases in the cost of living, a lot of people are losing their jobs, they’re concerned about the health system, and they want to have a secure future. It is not the priorities that seem to be upheld by this current Government. It is not the deregulation of gun control; it is not the repeal of the Plain Language Act. It’s simply getting quite farcical to be turning up to this House and seeing the types of laws that this Government is putting forward.

This couldn’t be a more serious matter. We will all remember, those of us—and we’ve had many Christchurch colleagues speaking tonight and will have others to come and to speak on this debate, but I think those of us, no matter where we were in New Zealand, remember 15 March, remember the horror of that day, remember how terrible it felt to lose 50 New Zealanders in that way, remember the shame of the fact that there is something that we could’ve done to do with regulation and the way that people access guns, and, too, the pride that we felt collectively as a country in the fact that this House stood up and voted for a change that would mean that that would never happen again.

To be standing here looking at this bill only six years later fills me with shame. It fills me with shame, and I will use my vote that I have in this House to vote against it. It should fill those of you who are voting for it with shame, because this will lead to more violence. It will lead to more situations where there could be mass killings in this country. Whatever you say about the fact that this is looking at the regulatory—not you, Madam Speaker. Whatever one is to say about the purpose of this bill, you simply have to look at the introduction of this bill to see what it actually does. Simplifying the regulatory requirements—well, what does that mean? It means fewer regulatory requirements. It means it’s easier to get access to guns. It says different levels of regulation between pistol and non-pistol shooting clubs—different levels of regulation. There should be regulation when it comes to firearms. Owning a firearm is a privilege and should only be used with the maximum amount of safety, and I think most New Zealanders would agree with that. So it is shocking to be standing here and seeing this law being passed.

When I was preparing for this speech, I was looking at the regulatory impact statement, looking for a reason why this could possibly be coming through our House, and I could not find it. Then, looking at the people who would be supporting it—the Police, the Police Association, some of whom members of this House have had a long history with. The Police Association opposes this bill. They say it will make matters worse, and I say that we on this side of the House believe the Police. We know that they are experienced in making sure that New Zealanders are kept safe.

To see this go through under urgency, to see people I respect, colleagues on that side of the House—we may have different views, but, fundamentally, I believed they were good people—stand up and take short calls, not even justifying to our Muslim community, New Zealanders who saw so much pride in the fact that our Parliament was able to come together against gun violence, against that tragedy, to even justify to New Zealanders why you are doing this. It’s shameful, and I encourage those of you who truly believe that to think it’s not too late to change your mind and to vote against this terrible bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I commend this bill to the House.

I know there was a groan when Paulo Garcia resumed his seat, but don’t be too hard on him: he’s got nothing to say. There’s a reason he’s got nothing to say, because there is nothing good to say about—

Rima Nakhle: Stop being a bully, man!

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: And you, too, Rima Nakhle. You stood up to talk here in this House on this bill, and you had nothing to say, because this bill is indefensible. I can accept your shame. I can understand why you so hastily resumed your seat and hung your head, because you should.

Hon Simon Watts: School-yard bully.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Well, you take a call, Minister Watts, because I will yield my time to you if you will use it usefully to defend your party’s position. Will you explain your party’s position? Because I will yield. You will not. You will not, because you haven’t got the fortitude to stand up and defend your party’s position. Don’t pretend.

You know what? This is the policy document underpinning this bill. It is the coalition agreement. This is how much policy work went on. This is how the National Party sold its members down the river—one line in this document which says the price of Christopher Luxon becoming Prime Minister is to immediately begin the repeal and replacement of Part 6 of the Arms Act relating to clubs and ranges. That is the price of power. And here’s the true irony: not only is it only 8 percent of this Parliament, which is the ACT Party, which made that demand, but it’s only a fraction of their support. It is a fragment of New Zealand, a splinter of New Zealand, that has made this demand, which is wagging the National Party dog.

This bill is flawed in so many ways. The process alone is shocking. The idea that the evidence upon which this bill is based is, and I quote, “the Minister’s lived experience” is shocking. You are liberalising gun laws, you are allowing the freer use of firearms, and the evidence base of it is the Minister’s lived experience—her reckons, her memories. And if that’s how you’re going to run a country and if that’s what you’re going to do with firearms law reform, then woe betide us. And the consultation: was there a broad and deep consultation on this? Was the community asked what it thought? No. Gun ranges were asked what they thought. The wolf was asked what it would like to do with the hen house, and that’s what we’ve got here. No wonder the consultation suggested a liberalisation, because the very people who were being regulated were asked if they’d like fewer rules.

But there’s something more important going on here, and that is actually a struggle. The National Party appears to have changed sides because over on the far right, the shrinking of Government, the rolling-back of the State, and the leaving of citizens to do whatever they want is pretty much the playbook. But, on that side of the House, usually, we’ve had responsible government and responsible regulation, and a balance has been struck. It might not be exactly where we would put it, but a balance has been struck between personal freedoms and responsibility and responsible government. Well, they’ve just given up on that. They’ve said, “You want to deregulate gun ranges? Go for it. You want to have rifle ranges where there are no rules, where the ranges make up their own rules? Go for it. We don’t mind.”

No wonder the Police Association said this was a terrible idea. And we hear—we have evidence—that the Minister of Police has, in papers that he has seen, evidence of gang members using gun ranges for target practice to sharpen up their skills. Does that change their mind? “No, no, no, we’ll still keep on this fateful road.” It is absolutely unbelievable that, even in the face of that kind of evidence, they still say, “Oh, no, we don’t think the Police should have a right to inspect gun ranges once every five years.” The idea that it is some kind of huge incursion on the liberty of a citizen for the police to pop down and check that the ammunition is stored securely, that the range is being run in a safe manner, and that the people who are attending there are people of good repute—there’s nothing wrong with that, but, no, straight out of the far right playbook, they say that is the State intruding on to the rights of private citizens.

Well, the private citizens do not have a God-given or a constitutional right to shoot rifles. They have a privilege conferred by the law under the Arms Act if they meet the appropriate criteria. And one of those criteria should be that when they are using firearms on a gun range, a police officer can pop down and check that everything’s all right. But, no. The idea that there’s some distinction, some important distinction, between pistols and rifles is fatuous. In fact, sure, pistols are smaller and more easily concealed, but in terms of lethality, rifles are by far the more dangerous weapon. They have an incredible velocity and need just as much regulation.

The fact of the matter is that what we’ve got here is a failure of leadership. I don’t know if the failure of leadership occurred in the coalition negotiations or if it occurred later down the road. But I look at the National Party members; the backbench is sitting there, and I can see that they’re uncomfortable with this. And I can see that they’ve been told, “Shut up. Don’t say anything. Just say a couple of words and sit down.”, because at least Casey Costello—you know, to her credit—stood up and said what she thought. She thought that we have a duty to allow law-abiding citizens to do lawful activities. Again, that’s that entitlement argument. But at least she said it. Now, she’s wrong because, yes, it’s a lawful activity, but it’s not an activity which you have a right to undertake—to use a firearm. It’s a privilege under which you should be subject to reasonable and proportionate rules.

And that’s what we have. That’s what the National Party in 2019 agreed to. Look where we have come. Look from a place where we understood and came together and together worked on a set of rules in a totally bipartisan way, with support across the House, except from the ACT Party. We now have the National Party doing a U-turn in their thirst for power.

You know, as the Christchurch Central MP, I must pay homage to what went on there on 15 March and the fact that the tragedy that occurred to the Muslim community, which shook Christchurch and New Zealand to its core, was one which was facilitated because we had failed to do the right thing once. We were shown at Aramoana what was wrong, and John Banks, in fact, said that his greatest regret was not fixing up the law and prohibiting semi-automatic weapons.

So we stood up, and we did what was right. We came together, and we agreed. And, in that contract, I believed that we had resolved that that was where the law would lie, that that was the agreement that we had made across the House, both in honour and in respect for those that had fallen. But that’s not where we’ve ended up. We’ve ended up with a National Party that will do whatever is expedient at the time. And if that means giving a gun lobbyist the pen over gun legislation, that’s what you’ll do. And so when you do go home tonight, think about that. And if a tragedy does occur—and I pray that it won’t—think about that. And just think about what’s coming because this gun lobbyist in charge of gun reform wants semi-automatic weapons back too. Will you do that? Will that be the next price of power? Think about that.

This is a good bill. It’s fit for purpose, it returns to practical common-sense regulations, it balances the needs of personal freedoms of law-abiding citizens versus the safety and regulations required. All three parties agreed in the direction of travel and campaigned on such changes at the general election. I commend this bill to the House.