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

Members, we now come to the Arms (Shooting Clubs, Shooting Ranges, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. Members, we start with Part 1, which is the debate on clauses 4 to 10—“Shooting clubs and shooting ranges”—and the Schedule. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

I’m pleased to be here for this stage of the Arms (Shooting Clubs, Shooting Ranges, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. This bill forms phase two of the Government’s four-phase approach to firearms reform, which will provide for greater protection of public safety by simplifying regulatory requirements to improve compliance. The bill signals a change of approach from the current punitive regulation of shooting clubs and ranges to a more collaborative approach that supports public safety.

Shooting clubs and ranges play an important public safety role. They are places where firearm users can learn, practise, and compete in a safe environment. Ensuring these facilities are well supported to continue is important, as without these spaces, firearms users will not have safe places to perform shooting activities or to sight-in their rifles, creating risks that people will engage in these behaviours in areas that could put the public at risk.

The bill aims to improve the regulation of clubs and ranges by repealing and replacing Part 6 to make several key legislative amendments. This bill creates a distinction between the pistol and non-pistol shooting clubs and ranges. This reflects the distinction between how pistols and non-pistols are already regulated in parts of the Arms Act. In recognition of the higher regulatory requirements that are associated with pistols, the regulatory requirements for pistol clubs and ranges remain largely the same. The only change is to streamline the annual reporting requirements for pistol clubs by requiring that annual reports be submitted within two months of the end of the financial year.

For non-pistol clubs and ranges, the current approval and certification systems are replaced with a new enrolment system. The enrolment system is designed to ensure that the regulator has the information necessary to ensure public safety while reducing costs and the time burden for operators, many of whom are volunteers. I consider this will improve compliance and continue to provide for public safety.

The bill supports the operation of temporary non-pistol ranges by persons who have specialist knowledge by removing the barrier of certification. Instead, the regulator must be notified of the event. The temporary range can only operate for a maximum of two events per year, and each event can be for no more than four days in duration.

The bill seeks to reduce compliance burdens where there is no clear public safety benefit. Under the bill, non-pistol clubs will still have to be incorporated if they sell firearms and ammunition. However, they will not have to be incorporated if they only sell ammunition at the club range or event which is used on the day of the sale and is not taken off club premises.

The bill makes changes to compliance requirements. It specifies the timing at which inspections can occur. For pistol clubs and ranges, this is upon application for approval and certification and then at renewal dates. For non-pistol clubs and ranges, inspections can take place upon application for enrolment and then every five years. In both cases, additional inspections can take place if there is a change in circumstance which impacts the safety of the range. This helps clarify requirements for volunteers while ensuring inspections are still able to occur when necessary to ensure public safety. The other change is to specify that the regulator can only remove hard-copy documents during an inspection. I consider these changes will ensure that clubs and ranges are not unduly burdened with compliance requirements while providing strong incentives for operators to maintain high safety standards.

Lastly, the bill makes a series of changes to existing references to the Minister of Police and the commissioner to reflect the shift in the policy responsibility for the Arms Act from the police portfolio to the justice portfolio. Ultimately, the bill addresses the over-regulation of clubs and ranges by reducing requirements which have no clear public safety benefits. By supporting shooting clubs and ranges to comply with the Act, we can support better public safety outcomes.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you very much for the opportunity to take a call on the Arms (Shooting Clubs, Shooting Ranges, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I have a number of questions, but the primary one I’d like to really understand from the Associate Minister of Justice Nicole McKee is about the proposed enrolment system which is contained within the bill.

The bill provides to return, really, to a system which was here in New Zealand before 2019, and it appears to be largely voluntary to allow safety practices set by the shooting governing body. The concern that we have in the Labour Party is that it provides no ability for Police to enforce the rules unless breaches are drawn to their attention by a third party. The Police Association have raised this issue during the select committee stage, and also Police, the organisation, has raised these issues in their briefings, both to the Minister and in their briefings to the committee.

The proposals contained within this bill will, effectively, limit police inspections of clubs and ranges to once in every five years—at the first application for enrolment or certification, and then at a five-yearly application for renewal. The reduced ability for police to carry out inspections, we consider, undermines the ability to enforce safety. While the primary purpose of this bill is to increase public safety, it seems disingenuous that we, through this legislation, are disempowering the New Zealand Police to be able to enforce safety.

This bill also increases the opportunity for unsupervised shooting ranges by people without licences, and it does create multiple loopholes for gang members and extremists—such as the one that happened in Christchurch on 15 March. In that particular instance, we had someone who was able to practise their shooting skills without police oversight, and our concern is that this legislation returns us to a system which would enable that terror attack to occur again in New Zealand.

It increases the opportunities, also, for the supply of ammunition, and so that is a real concern—for criminals who unlawfully hold a firearm to be able to potentially access ammunition. We know that ammunition is a form of currency in the criminal underworld, and it creates a very dangerous precedent in this space, for where these pop-up ranges can now occur. You could, effectively, have a shooting range appear over your back fence if you live rurally. There’s absolutely no ability for police to enforce safety measures or even inspect these facilities. If there are only two events per calendar year, there is no oversight. In our view, this is, effectively, a Wild West approach to firearms regulation in New Zealand.

Police are, effectively, locked out of doing inspections of either pistol ranges or non-pistol ranges for five years. It’s for that reason I would like the Minister to consider the amendment that I’ve proposed. That amendment is to enable police to conduct those inspections. The amendment removes subsection (2), so that the provision is the same as the existing Arms Act, would provide that police are able to inspect any shooting range, both pistol and non-pistol, with a minimum of seven days’ notice, to inspect compliance with Police Shooting Range Manual requirements. And that would be for ballistics, for safety, and for general public safety.

We believe that the self-regulation of something as dangerous as a firearm is not appropriate for New Zealand. We’ve learnt in our past that this can cause devastating effects to our community. We really would like to understand from the Minister why Police are being shut out of the ability to have oversight of something that is an incredibly dangerous area, and when Police themselves have repeatedly asked for the ability to have oversight in this area.

Furthermore—I’ll just wind up quickly—in 2024, Parliament’s Petitions Committee questioned the ability of operators of shooting clubs and ranges to be able to monitor and screen criminals—

Hon Nicole McKee: Madam Chair.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: —and I’d be interested to hear—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’ll just let the member finish this question.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I’ll just finish. If the Minister would also like to answer that. In 2024, she may be aware that Parliament’s Petitions Committee questioned the ability of operators of shooting clubs and ranges to be able to monitor or screen for criminals and extremists who use the facilities. I want to know if she’s read that petition and if she’s aware of the advice within that petition. It also noted that Police and security agencies needed oversight of club internal processes, which this bill cuts them out of.

Thank you, Madam Chair. There’s a lot to unpack in there, especially the pure amount of misinformation that has just been read out on what this bill does and why this bill has amendments. Bear with me while I try to go through everything that the member, the Hon Ginny Andersen, incorrectly said in her five-minute contribution. I expect that it’s going to take me a little while to go through this. Should I not have captured everything that the member had said, I invite the member to stand up again so that we can address some of that.

I’m going to, first of all, move to the enrolment system that we have introduced. The member has made the allegation that we are going to be returning to what it was before; we are not. Before, we did not have any enrolment system whatsoever, except for the pistol clubs, where police would go along and check on the ranges. What the member has failed to understand in her time sitting in the committee and listening to submitters is the fact that parent organisations from across the country already have their range standing operations: how they’re going to create a range, and how they’re going to operate that range.

I’m going to, just now, speak to the petition that the member spoke to about a range volunteer’s ability to monitor extremists. That is not a volunteer’s job, and the moment we start putting that on to volunteers in New Zealand, then I have to have grave concerns about what the role of New Zealand Police would be, because that’s for them. That’s for them to make sure that any person who gets a firearms licence is actually fit and proper to be in possession of it. For those that may be watching this at home, licensed firearm owners—and there’s just under 250,000 of them—are under watch for fit and proper behaviour every single day of their lives.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: No, they’re not.

Hon NICOLE McKEE: If they come to the attention of New Zealand Police for any reason whatsoever, even if it’s for being caught in a car accident—ask New Zealand Police because they will confirm it: they get, every night, every 24 hours, a list of licensed firearm owners who have come to the attention of New Zealand Police. That has been in place for quite some time, and that, Hon Dr Duncan Webb, is a fact.

What else have we got here? We have talked about—well, the member inaccurately, once again, said that police have been locked out of ranges. Police have not been locked out of ranges. In fact, if the member bothered to even read the legislation, it says we will ensure that the five-year ability is there, unless there is a change in circumstance. Now, that change in circumstance could mean, for example, a weather event that may have potentially done damage to the backstop on a range.

I think what is really important here is that, for some reason, that member thinks that all those volunteers that run the ranges and deliver the service for their communities are not interested in maintaining their range or making sure that they are operational. That, in itself, is a discredit to the volunteers in the country who have kept so many people safe by keeping an eye on those that are coming in—teaching them safe firearms handling skills and making sure that they are keeping an eye on them. Once upon a time, we had a position where those that were in charge of firearms activities had a relationship with New Zealand Police and were able to go knock on their door and tell them when they had concerns about an individual’s behaviour. That is still there, but that is something that we need to encourage more of, because the trust and confidence has, unfortunately, been lost. This is a way of being able to repair it.

When we’re talking about the supply of ammunition—and, in fact, the member, for some reason, has mentioned that non-licensed people could open up a pop-up range and practise shootings at schools. I have no idea what this has to do with the Arms Act, because non-licensed people don’t come under the Arms Act; they come under the Crimes Act, right? If they’re going to go ahead and do that—open up a range—then they are committing an illegal activity in itself under the Crimes Act.

Also, the fact that there are these pop-up ranges—I know, the member is not really interested—I’m losing my train of thought; there was so much there. There is legislation around the pop-up ranges which requires that not just anybody can create a temporary range—it’s not a pop-up range; it’s a temporary range. In fact, those that can create a temporary range are only those that are either a member of a club or organisation that is already considered to be a part of the fraternity. It’s not Joe Bloggs, and anyone else that goes about doing that will, effectively, be committing an offence.

The ammunition side of it—this is really important, and I think, again, it speaks to the member not having any understanding about what actually happens on a range. The member is making accusations of innocent members of the public, who are volunteers, that they will potentially be giving live ammunition to people to take away from the range and not record it. That’s not how it operates. If the member knew the law, she would also know that a firearms licence is required in order to buy and sell ammunition—

Hon Ginny Andersen: Not if you’re with a mate. That’s not true, Nicole.

Hon NICOLE McKEE: —and when they are not in possession of a firearms licence, then they must be under the immediate supervision of someone who does have a firearms licence. If the member had ever even attempted to go to a club and see how it operates, she would know that what is dispersed is the number of rounds required to finish or compete or complete an actual event. Any spare rounds are taken back to the club. It’s almost like the army, where the army must account for all of their rounds—that’s exactly what the club has done, too. I invite the member to actually read the legislation and stop misleading and scaring the public, because this legislation is actually going to create a really good regime, which Labour failed in.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise to take a call because I have heard a number of statements from the Minister which are inflammatory and inaccurate, and there is much I want to address in this bill.

When I look at the regulatory impact statement, I see that there’s a statement here that “Continuation of the status quo may contribute to the closure of shooting clubs and ranges where the volunteers who run them are unwilling or unable to comply with the regulatory requirements”. We know that the current regime has only been in existence for a year. Further on in the regulatory impact statement, it says there is “little evidence of any positive and negative impacts of the requirements.”, of the current requirements, but we’re told in the regulatory impact statement that in fact there has been very little engagement—there’s been incredible time constraint on the development of this bill, because of the Minister’s desire and knowledge of the firearms sector. It’s been compacted.

I say this as a firearms owner: I was astonished to hear—I’ve had my firearms licence since I was 16—that I’m now observed by the police day and night for my behaviour because I have a firearms licence. I can tell the Minister, that is not true. It is certainly not true.

To the point that there is very strict control of what happens on shooting ranges, we would have to put our faith in the good nature of the volunteers on every shooting range. While I do go to shooting ranges and I do know really good people, I couldn’t confirm that every single volunteer at every single shooting range will operate with protection and safety in mind and not behave in a way or make something possible for the criminals in our community, the criminal fraternity who may well want to access ranges, and we can’t identify them. The Minister is correct that the police should be notifying or keeping tabs on those who are in the criminal underworld, but, of course, our volunteers who run the ranges should be able to notify the police and should be keeping tabs on that as well.

There are many, many points I want to make. In particular, I’ve heard how the current regime is so punitive, how it’s been so burdensome on people, and yet there is no evidence for that. What we have here is a solution in search of a problem. We’ve got now a situation where we don’t know when the police are going—well, the police have to give notice for when they will be able to check on a range, and they can only do so within a certain period. If we think about that, should our traffic officers as well give us notice when they are going to be on the roads? Should they let us know, give us five years’ warning, when they’re going to check whether we’re speeding or have a licence or a warrant of fitness or our car is registered? Should the traffic police also give us notice, seven days’ notice, that they’re going to going to turn up to check the speed cameras? This is what this amounts to. It is absolutely ridiculous that we have taken away the ability of police to investigate, just to check, just to make sure things are OK. We have removed that from this bill.

This bill claims to want more safety. It claims to be working for public safety, and it is doing the exact opposite. I’m very much in support of Ginny Andersen’s amendment, and I would ask the Minister to consider and explain whether she will accept it, the amendment to clause 5 amending section 38XJ to delete subsection (2). I think that is an absolute necessity and it should be done, and I’d like the Minister to respond to whether she will at least do that. Thank you.

Just before I call the Minister, it’s come to my attention that one of the members heard someone calling out “lies” during one of the Minister’s sections, and I’m just wondering if there is a member in the Chamber that actually said that, who would like to withdraw and apologise?

Yes, Madam Chair, that was me, and I withdraw and apologise.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you, and I hope that won’t be repeated this afternoon or any time soon.

Point of order, Madam Chair. Thank you very much. I raise an issue that I’ve been reflecting on for a wee while now, and that interaction made me think that perhaps now’s a good time to raise it. An accusation of misinformation or disinformation is akin to accusing someone of lying. We haven’t actually had any clear ruling on that, but it is an interjection that we hear relatively regularly in this House. You cannot call a member a liar; we know that. I’m conscious that you’re in the Chair, but as presiding officers, could that be something that you could reflect on and maybe come back to us on?

Absolutely. I’ll commit to do that. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and if I may speak to that point of order—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): You can speak to the point of order if you wish to. I’ve committed to go back and see what the ruling is around it, but if you feel like there is something you’d like to say about what you said, then feel free. It’s your time.

Hon NICOLE McKEE: Yes, I would just ask, in the Chair’s reflection on that word “misinformation”, if we cannot use a word that accurately describes what has just been said in the Chamber, could the Chair then suggest what would be appropriate?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We’ll review the Hansard and what has been said today, and we’ll come back. I commit to coming back with a decision on that one.

Hon NICOLE McKEE: Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m going to speak to the Green member’s points. The Green member referred to the regulatory impact statement, which said, in his view, that there is no evidence for change of the status quo. I’m going to ask the member to reflect on the statements that were made when the legislation came in that said there was no evidence there was a problem that needed to be fixed. We are not going to back to what it was. We have taken some of the safety aspects of the introduction of Part 6 and maintained them. What we are looking to do here is stop some of the duplicative work and the burden that is on those volunteers to maintain it.

We have carefully gone through what it is that we are repealing or changing to ensure that it does not have a significant impact on public safety, and we are confident there are no changes there that do that. In relation to who can open a range, what we never had, as I mentioned before, was an enrolment system. We now have that, and there are consequences if a gang member goes and starts up a range and does not enrol with New Zealand Police or the administrator that they have opened that range. That’s a consequence. Before this legislation, we did not have that, so I am at a loss as to why the left side of this House are constantly saying that we’re rolling back when, in actual fact, we are making things stronger.

Also, as part of that enrolment system, anyone that enrols a range must, as I mentioned earlier, fit the criteria that is required in order to be able to open up what is referred to as a temporary range. Anyone that wants to start a whole new range must also comply by having range standing orders implemented and approved at that time as well—actually, not approved, but they must show they’ve got range standing orders. Now, if there is an issue, and a safety issue, that does not stop the administrator or the regulator from allowing the administrator to go and have a look. Quite frankly, a lot of clubs—most of the clubs and ranges I’ve seen around—have put their hands up and want to comply, want to be a part of the solution, and what we are doing is ensuring they can, because they are finding difficulties in so many places. We have not removed the ability for ranges to be checked on, so I don’t understand where you’re coming from with that.

In relation to the tabled amendment—it’s amendment 12.30.02, and it’s about removing section 38XJ, deleting subsection (2)—I’m again quite shocked that the member actually wants to remove the ability for Police to be able to go and check on a range every five years, because that’s what it says. Section 38XJ(2) is talking about when a Commissioner is considering an application for certification or renewal of its certification in respect of a non-pistol range, “the Commissioner is considering an application for enrolment, and then at intervals of not less than 5 years.” By removing that subsection, we’re actually removing the ability for the range to be checked, and I’m at loss as to why, when the left are saying they’re looking at public safety, they would want to remove that provision. I will not be in favour of voting for that amendment, because I think that would create a public safety risk.

Madam Chair, thank you for the call. This is the first time I’ve had a chance to speak on this bill in this House, but certainly not the first time I’ve engaged with this legislation. Al Noor Mosque is in my electorate. I had friends that died on March 15. I have friends to this day who are walking around with lead in their bodies and are still undergoing surgeries to have that lead removed, so when I hear a Minister sitting in the chair talking about the burden, I want her to understand a very clear burden: and that is walking around with a body full of lead, or for children walking around without their parents, for wives walking around without their husbands, and for a community that is grieving.

My first question to the Minister is: Minister, what engagement will you commit to doing with the Christchurch Muslim community in terms of these changes? We know, and it’s a matter of public record, that that community feels they have not had the ability to talk to you as the Minister in charge of this legislation; that you have not engaged, you have not met, and you have not entered into dialogue with the people who are literally walking around with the burden of the consequence of us not having gun law right in this country. What commitments will you make to that?

One of the pieces that I want to talk to is a tabled amendment that is in the name of my colleague, the Hon Ginny Andersen, and that is to clause 5, new section 38XIA, and clause 2, after 38X(1), to insert that non-pistol shooting ranges are to comply with the Police Shooting Range Manual—non-pistol shooting ranges must comply with requirements and guidance set out in the Police Shooting Range Manual. I think that this is a really important amendment that my colleague has put forward and I’d like to hear the Minister’s views on it and whether she’ll comply with it. What my colleague Ginny Andersen is doing is inserting the police right back into the equation around our gun laws, as the changes that we made post-March 15—for a reason—did.

If the Minister had spent time with the Christchurch Muslim community and had entered into a dialogue with them for more than 15 minutes, what she would know is it is the police who have that trusted relationship with the Muslim community. It is the police that those communities look to for their assurance of their safety. It is the police who they feel are keeping them safe. The ability for the communities to understand that the police have a role with the clubs is vitally important for part of the work that needs to happen in terms of earning back the trust of a community.

We don’t have to look much further than the pages of the royal commission into March 15 when we hear that a few “members of the Bruce Rifle Club said three aspects of the individual’s”—that being the terrorist’s—“behaviour was slightly out of the ordinary and, with hindsight, [might] be significant: (a) The individual usually shot while standing up. He went through a large amount of ammunition and his primary interests appeared to be firing at extremely fast rates and changing magazines quickly. (b) The individual displayed considerable interest in the military background of one of the members, an interest that made that member uncomfortable. (c) Sometimes the individual made remarks that were interpreted as indications that he had access to a large capacity magazine. According to two members, the individual was of the view that it was lawful for him to own a large capacity magazine”. It’s important that I read those into the Hansard because it speaks directly—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Can I just ask the member: is that currently publicly available information? Because some of this is before the coroner, so—

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Yes. No, it’s publicly available.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): —if it’s publicly available, that’s fine.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: It’s from the royal commission’s report that was released publicly, and what I thought the Minister would be familiar with given it is so pertinent to any changes that we would be making about gun law. I do encourage the Minister, if she has not read the report of the royal commission—they are chilling words but none the less they are important words and the very basis for why we have to make sure that our—[Time expired] Madam Chair?—the very basis for why we—I’ll just conclude—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yep.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: We have to make sure that our gun laws in this country are safe. It speaks directly to why I’m asking the Minister to support my colleague’s amendment that puts the police right back at the centre of what needs to happen to ensure the safety of our communities; and that the burden of that safety, keeping our communities safe, which is something that our gun laws need to do, is carried as well.

I’d also ask the Minister a very simple question: how many gun clubs have shut down since the change in law?

I understand the emotion there is around what occurred on March 15th, and I think what is really important to put into the Hansard right now is that those under 250,000 licensed firearm owners were not that one individual. Those 250,000 licensed owners—who have been checked by New Zealand Police, as I’ve mentioned, for fit and proper status every single day—is something that actually should be celebrated because these people have been seen to be fit and proper.

When we talk about March 15, we also need to actually weigh up the legislative changes that were made then and the impact that it’s had, including the confusion within certain Acts and the inability for people to be able to provide safe venues. What I hear from this side—and it’s unfortunate—is that they look at every licensed firearm owner like they are a criminal, and they are not. That’s just exactly what I have heard from the left-hand side. I have been to Christchurch, I have met with the Muslim community—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: For 15 minutes.

Hon NICOLE McKEE: —I did not meet with them for 15 minutes—and I have met with a number of groups. Not only that, we have a Muslim reference group that we meet with, as well. We have the firearms community advisory group. We also have the Minister’s Arms Advisory Group, which there are Muslim members on. I request, in respect for the Muslim community, that we actually look at moving forward instead of moving backwards, because the legislation that was put in place has errors in it. We’ve had judges, we’ve had lawyers, we’ve had barristers, and we’ve had people impacted by this saying that we are going to be in a not better place because of the legislation. We want to update it, upgrade it—this is part of phase two—and all that we want to do is increase public safety.

The member had made mention about the New Zealand Police, like we’re leaving them out of the equation—we are not. What we are removing from New Zealand Police is the administration and regulation of the Arms Act. New Zealand Police will still be there for the enforcement.

What we are doing is ensuring what Labour should have done in the last Government when they created the Firearms Safety Authority, which was make it the truly independent authority that the royal commission of inquiry—which I have read—outlines that it should be. Instead, it became an organisation that was run by police and staffed by police and it wasn’t really truly independent. Our goal is to ensure that that organisation still stays; it’s just going to be administered by another agency, and it will support New Zealand Police with the enforcement of the Arms Act. They are not being excluded in any way.

No one here wants to see the sort of atrocity that we saw on 15 March 2019, and, I think, certainly no firearms owner would either, but the reality is that the Arms Act is over 40 years old and it needs updating. This is part of the beginning of the reforms that this Government has promised to do. It will create part of the outcomes that we have said that we are after, which is increase public safety, which is make sure the regulatory requirements are fit for purpose and able to be complied with, which is looking at compliance, because once we have compliance, we have people within the box.

What that side have done is brought in a whole lot of legislation that has been hard to deal with, hard to implement, and is actually costing people their time and, of course, their money. Clubs are volunteers. I would like to see from that side of the House an agreement that we would be able to at least have the provision for some of those safety aspects that they have introduced remain, and allow and support clubs and ranges to be able to operate so that they can continue to provide oversight and safety, training, education, and handling, not only to firearm users but to their families, as well.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you to the Minister for engaging so well in attempting to answer so many of our questions. The area that I’d like a bit more information on—and we heard a lot of this at committee in terms of submitters—is around the lack of national standards for rifle and shotgun ranges. We did actually hear from a number of club members from different ranges who were advocating for having a standard. It was equated to a road code—like, one single standard of safety that would apply.

The Shooting Range Manual, which was issued by the Commissioner of Police, is seen as somewhat of a road code of how to use firearms safely. A lot of effort, I understand, went into compiling that and having that information in one central place. That seems to me, and I’d be interested to hear from the Minister, to be a very useful tool for firearm safety in New Zealand.

This bill undermines consistency and public confidence in those safety standards, because it removes the current adherence to national standards for non-pistol, rifle, and shotgun ranges. This, quite strangely, too, is at odds with pistol ranges, that must use the guidance issued by the Commissioner of Police. We have two different standards under this legislation: we have the pistol ranges that have to use those standards, but the non-pistol ranges don’t need to; they develop their own. It basically means that those non-pistol ranges will be able to set their own standards, and police will only get the ability to inspect them against the operator’s own rules—so they make their own rules up and police come and say, “Did you comply with your own rules or not?”

That doesn’t seem right. It is not any law or regulation set by Parliament; they are completely looking after themselves. On this side of the House, when we have a resource such as the Shooting Range Manual, issued by the Commissioner of Police, why would they not use that as a central reference, a road code for firearms safety in New Zealand? It seems strange that one half of ranges are required to use it, and the other one does not.

Also, I would like to point out as well that I think, as a bare minimum, they should be required to adhere to the ballistic safety guidelines in the Police Shooting Range Manual. That would seem to make good sense. We heard many examples of where stray bullets had gone into sheds or farms or other areas, and we heard instances where, under the previous regime, before it was regulated, there were unsafe areas where there were not barriers or banks built, so if someone was riding a horse or partaking in mountain bike riding at a distance, then there would be the risk that a stray bullet could potentially hurt a member of the public.

Those ballistic safety guidelines outlined in the Commissioner of Police - issued Shooting Range Manual protect the public who are operating in and around those ranges, so it is a real concern that this legislation removes the requirement for non-pistol ranges, which will be able to set their own standards. Many of those—not all of them, but a good few—members of those clubs actually thought there should be one code, one road map for firearm safety. We heard from those who supported the bill, but when we asked that question to them—“Do you think we should have non-pistol ranges to be able to use the guidance in that Shooting Range Manual?—many of them agreed with us, so I’m interested to know why the Minister is making that change.

The other point I’m interested to know about is that rifles and shotguns still present a serious safety risk; they’re still firearms. There are suggestions in the bill that pistols are more of a serious safety concern, and I think the rationale is—and correct me if I’m wrong—that they can be concealed, and so they are a higher safety risk and therefore they need to comply with this Shooting Range Manual. I don’t understand why that occurs when rifles and shotguns still have the ability to shoot over a long distance and also should require a shooting range to comply with some ballistic safety standards, particularly if things have changed around that area, or new developments have occurred.

The other point I’d like to make is that Police have publicly stated that about 70 percent of the firearms seized from criminals are the A category, or the non-prohibited firearms. That would include a .22 rifle or a normal rifle and shotgun. [Interruption] Madam Chair, can I just finish. I’ve only got a bit more to go.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes. Finish your question.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: The Firearms Safety Code provides insight into the lethal risks from rifles and shotguns commonly used on non-pistol ranges. The long-range firing capacity is marked as a contrast to a pistol: a bullet fired from a common deer hunting rifle, such as a .308 rifle, can travel 4 kilometres; a .22 rifle, common for shooting possums and rabbits, can fire rounds that travel up to 2.5 kilometres. We need to be reassuring our communities that if these ranges are operating, there are adequate safety protections in terms of ballistic—looking at where bullets can go and making sure that there are banks, and that’s exactly what Police did when they issued a number of safety notices under the first regime. There were a number of ranges not complying with those safety requirements. We were reassured when police went in and looked and required them to make those changes so that those ranges were operating safely.

Under this legislation, they do not have to comply with ballistic safety. That is a risk for rural communities, it is a risk for people who are partaking in recreational activities in rural New Zealand, and it is a real risk that if they’re not complying and there’s a stray bullet, someone from the public could lose their life or be injured. I’m interested to understand the Minister’s rationale as to why pistol ranges have to comply with this requirement but non-pistol ranges do not.

I’ll start this by apologising to the member the Hon Megan Woods, because she asked me a question about this one as well and I didn’t address it in that one. So I thank the member for going further into this, because I think it’s actually quite an interesting topic and one that should be traversed.

The New Zealand Police Shooting Range Manual has been in existence—I think Inspector Joe Green was the one that first wrote it almost a couple of decades ago, and more recently, since March 2019, it has been updated. It has been and always will be a very good go-to guide for those that wish to start a range. The reason why we won’t be encouraging it to be the be-all and end-all is for exactly what the member had just been talking about, the different ballistics for different types of projectiles. When we do our licence certification as part of the safety training, we are told a .22 rifle has the ability to go 3 kilometres, not 2.5 kilometres, and a .308 rifle has the ability to go 4.5 kilometres if there is no backstop.

The ranges that are currently operating have always looked to their parent organisations who have the expertise and the skill set to know exactly what the cone of fire is for their particular range that they are going to be utilising and whether or not there needs to be a restriction on the calibre. For example, at Trentham Rifle Club, which shoots back to 1,000 yards, there is a massive, big hill behind there—the ballistics that are required being that anything over 8 millimetres cannot be shot on that range. The maximum amount of powder that you could possibly put into a case is also looked at and considered when they are establishing what the cone of fire needs to be. What that cone of fire is will not be the same cone of fire that would be required for a .22 Target Shooting New Zealand indoor range. In fact, the cone of fire is drastically different, and none of that can be put into a shooting range manual.

The Shooting Range Manual established by New Zealand Police gives you the basics—the basics of what your baseline establishment of a range should look like. The parent organisations, for example, for shotgun, for indoor .22 shooting, and for long-range outdoor shooting, that actually is established by those that have that expertise to know what is needed, and they did this before March 2019. In fact, many of these organisations, at their own expense, had volunteer range officers go through education and be qualified to certify the ranges in their own disciplines, and this is extremely important.

The member made quotes from what those in the select committee had suggested about the Shooting Range Manual. I think everyone who wants to establish a range will always go to that Shooting Range Manual in the first instance to see what is required. Everything else on top of that has actually been placed on them by those parent organisations. Where we have, perhaps in the future, someone who does not have a parent organisation and wants to operate a range, they must ensure they have range standing orders in place and that they meet the minimum requirements.

I would just like to make, I guess, a clarification, because I’m not sure if I said something incorrect. I’m just going to make a clarification to something that I said earlier. The range standing orders will be able to be approved by the governing body or the parent organisation, as I had expressed, that the range is affiliated to. This will mean that a shotgun range will not go to a 4 bore range and ask them to certify. If the shooting range isn’t affiliated to a governing body or a parent organisation, the Police must approve the range standing orders. And, of course, this means that we won’t just have these pop-ups unless there is somebody that has oversight about how they are to operate.

When we’re talking about safety notices, I did watch some of the submissions on this bill and I did see club members who were interviewed—and the member herself had asked them, “Have you been issued a safety improvement notice?” The answer to that question by a few of the submitters was, “Yes, I have.” When queried further, one example that was given was of a man who said, “We were told we had to put tyres as backstops in behind our range, so we spent $10,000 of club money to put these tyres in, and then, when we were reassessed and they came back to reassess what we’d done, they said, ‘Oh no, actually, you can’t have tyres there now.’” That was a waste of time, effort, and money for what was already in place, something that worked well and operated well.

What we need to ensure is that we’re not wasting this, that we actually support these clubs to continue to operate, and when there was not a problem that needed to be fixed in the first place, it’s allowing them to actually use that skillset, to use that expertise, and to put it into the club, because, as I mentioned earlier, no club wants to see their range closed. These are good people. These are really good people in our society, those that have been judged to be fit and proper by New Zealand Police. They are not criminals. They are not potential terrorists. When the finger is pointed at licensed firearms owners, the licensed firearms owners point back at who gives these people the licences and the fit and proper journey that must be maintained in the time that you have it.

When we’re talking ballistic safety guidelines, the reason why we cannot just have this one shooting manual is because, if we did that, we would create a public safety risk, because by only having that, we can’t put over the top of it the knowledge, the skills, the expertise, the extra danger zones that the parent organisations require of their members. I have seen a lot of good work that has been done by these volunteers to maintain their ranges so people have a place to go, especially when it comes to sighting in their rifles, because, quite frankly, if these ranges close, what we will see is people going down to the river bank to sight their rifles, people not getting oversight and safety education from those in the know, people who are not getting advice on the ballistics of their firearm and also the ammunition, and advice on what is the correct type to use.

There is so much that can be lost here but so much that can be gained, and that’s what this Government is going to ensure happens: that we gain public safety as a result of these changes.

I’m just going to make the comment, before I take the next call, that we’ve traversed a fair—I know this is a really important bill, and I’m not trying to cut anyone off at this point, but I just want to say that I want specific clauses and very specific questions from here on in, because it’s been quite a broad-ranging debate.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have listened carefully to Associate Minister of Justice McKee and been astonished sometimes to hear that this side of the House considers all firearm owners as criminals or terrorists—or something like that—when I am a firearm owner and I respect other firearm owners, certainly those who are correct in their practice and who are safe. This is not about condemning firearm owners, but I do take issue with the Minister who made the statement that all firearm owners are good people. Clearly that is false.

Hon Nicole McKee: I didn’t actually say that.

SCOTT WILLIS: Not all firearm owners are good people, otherwise we would not have shooting of other people in this country. We would not have 15 March.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Minister has just—

SCOTT WILLIS: I would like to come—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Minister has just said that she didn’t make that second statement; she did make the first one. Thank you.

SCOTT WILLIS: Yeah—it was a paraphrase; I can’t remember the exact words.

Carl Bates: Words matter.

SCOTT WILLIS: The words do matter, and they will be noted in the recording of this discussion.

I want to come back to replacement section 38XJ, the compliance section, “Inspections of shooting clubs and shooting ranges”, because we have had an amendment proposed, and I’m unclear how the proposed amendment would reduce safety. If I look at subsection (1), it says, “For the purpose of ensuring that a shooting club or shooting range is operated in accordance with this Act, a person who is a member of the Police and authorised in writing by the Commissioner may—(a) enter and inspect—(i) any shooting range (including any shooting club that is part of the range); and (ii) any place where the shooting club stores firearms or ammunition: (b) inspect, print, or copy documents that the person believes on reasonable grounds to be those of the shooting club or shooting range: (c) remove any hard copy documents that the person believes on reasonable grounds to be those of the shooting club or shooting range.”

Now that seems very sensible. What has been proposed is that subsection (2) is removed, and subsection (2) puts limits on when that can happen and ensures that Police can only do it when a commissioner is considering application for certification, or renewal of certification. It actually negates the safety aspects of that previous section. That’s why this proposed amendment is only about increasing safety. That’s my question to the Minister: why not accept an amendment that increases safety, that ensures that the good firearm owners are the people that we support, and that we have the ability to check? It is a very, very simple question. That’s my first question. I have a have a couple of others, but I’ll sit down now.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Fire ahead and ask—it’d be good if you could ask.

SCOTT WILLIS: My further question is we’ve heard that there are costs and benefits in this bill, and that’s a question I’m not clear on—the size of those costs and benefits is something I’m really not clear on. I may have missed something. I’ve been looking for it; I can’t see any evidence of costs and benefits noted down. I’ve had arguments for it, but I would like the Minister to give us some idea of where they lie.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): When you refer to the costs and benefits, the Minister’s unclear as to which section you’re referring to.

SCOTT WILLIS: I’m actually referring to the regulatory impact statement, which says here that—is there an analysis available on the size and potential costs and benefits? We’re told that there is, yes. But I’m not aware of where that lies, and I’d like some information on it, please. Thank you.

In answer to the Green member Scott Willis’ first question, the effect of new section 38XJ(2) is to provide certainty to clubs and ranges on when their inspections are going to occur while still allowing the police to actually carry out those inspections. That could be in response to safety concerns that they may have or, as I mentioned in my opening speech, also in regard to a change in circumstances. The reason why I said that this could create a safety issue if it’s removed is because removing the clause creates uncertainty for those volunteers who run the clubs and ranges, and it places a regulatory burden on them. It also means that the police can’t go in there for those reasons, which is when there’s a change in circumstance or safety concerns. It does not allow them to go in and do it.

I’m going to actually, as I’ve mentioned before, come back to the fact that these are trusted people with expertise. If there was an issue, these ranges would have been shut down, and if we look at what happened with the Bruce Rifle Club, for example, they were not shut down. If you look at—

Hon Ginny Andersen: Some of them were. They were given 238 safety notices.

Hon NICOLE McKEE: The member to my left is yelling out that there were 238 safety notices, and the majority of those safety notices were to do with administrative stuff. It had nothing to do with—

Hon Ginny Andersen: Ballistics.

Hon NICOLE McKEE: No, it didn’t.

Hon Ginny Andersen: It did.

Hon NICOLE McKEE: It had nothing to do with ballistics. I invite the member, again, to actually read the documentation. You’re so fixated on chastising the volunteers that keep our clubs and ranges and our communities safe, and you’re obviously not interested in supporting them to be able to do that. Those changes that were made in 2020 have had this flow-on effect, and the lack of support is expected from them.

Just while I may, while I’m on my feet, I’m looking also at the tabled amendment 1.50.03 about new section 38XI. I don’t agree with that amendment, which is making the Shooting Range Manual compulsory for everybody. Again, as I’ve mentioned earlier, it’s about guidance, and we would have safety issues if we made everyone conform to what is meant to be the basis and did not allow the oversight of those parent organisations to be a part of it. I do not support the amendment with regard to new section 38XJ(2), because I do believe that that would create safety issues, and I’ll come back to the Green member shortly on his second question that he asked me.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’d like to speak to another amendment that I’ve put forward, and that’s in relation to the commencement of this Act. There’s a couple of points I would like to make in this space. Firstly, both in the Justice Committee and then again during scrutiny week, Police themselves made the comment that they would like an extended commencement date for this bill, and so that was important to enable—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The commencement date’s actually in Part 2.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Is in Part 2, sorry?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): In clauses 1 and 2, sorry.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: OK, I thought we were doing a general—we’re just not doing—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No, to my knowledge, no one’s agreed to take it as one part.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Sorry, I’ll make another point, Madam Speaker. What I would like to talk about—sorry, I thought we were doing it all as one. So not title and commencement?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No, we’re just on Part 1.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Part 1, OK, sorry about that, Madam Speaker. In terms of what I would like to discuss, then, is to talk about other matters as well? That’s as well?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Part 2.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: OK, right, back into it. So, in terms of some of the issues that were raised with the select committee—and I’d really like the Associate Minister of Justice to answer in relation to the policy problem that’s been identified in the regulatory impact statement, and that was the fact that there would be a risk that the overburdened nature would cause clubs to close down. There was quite clear information provided both in the regulatory impact statement and also through advice of officials that there was no clear evidence that the additional administrative requirements put on volunteers would actually lead to any clubs closing.

Then, when further information was asked for, there was actually no evidence that any clubs had closed at all as a result of those additional administrative requirements that were put on clubs post-2019. The whole purpose of this piece of legislation is that it’s going to improve safety by stopping clubs shutting down, and if they shut down, then people would be practising with firearms in an unregulated or an unsupervised manner. The problem that we have on this side of the House is that we feel that the Minister has not demonstrated anywhere through the policy process or the legislative process that there is an actual problem here that needs to be solved, because what the officials said is that there was no clear evidence when they did their assessment in the regulatory impact statement. In fact, a lot of the evidence that they relied upon was the life experience of the Minister and information that the Minister herself had gleaned from going out and speaking with different rifle ranges. I think it’s important that, if we’re changing the law, if we’re changing safety requirements in and around firearms in New Zealand, we’re actually fixing a problem that has been identified.

The irony is that the same party that the Minister represents has got a Regulatory Standards Bill, and in that Regulatory Standards Bill—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I think we’re actually moving on to a bill that’s not relevant to—

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I just wanted to highlight a contradiction that is problematic for this legislation.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah, but I also want to point out that this has had the discretion of a select committee as well.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: True, OK. Can I make this point?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): One point.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: One point. In the other bill, it says no law should be passed without showing what problem is being solved, whether the benefits outweigh the costs, and who pays the costs and gets the benefits. I apply that to this: can the Minister please tell us, for this bill, what is the problem that she’s actually trying to solve? Where is the evidence for the problem that she’s trying to solve? What are the benefits that outweigh the cost? On this side of the House, we actually think the costs lie with the general public, who have a greater risk of ballistics not being done properly and of people unsupervised on ranges. We believe that risk, that public safety risk, is far greater than the risk of a club potentially shutting, which hasn’t been done.

The final point in that same quote from the other bill is: who pays the costs and who gets the benefits? I would say that it’s that member’s supporters who get the benefits, and the cost is the safety of the New Zealand public.

Thank you, Madam Chair. To the Green member who asked me about the costs and benefits in the regulatory impact statement (RIS): information for the costs and benefits is available in the ministry’s RIS. I think what you were asking me is—there were actually no numbers there and you were looking for some numbers, have I got that right? Right, OK. There’s no additional costs for pistol clubs and their ranges, and the reason for that is it’s, basically, status quo.

The only thing that we’re changing there is their reporting date, so they have two months at the end of their financial year. There’s no cost in that, because they would be doing that anyway. The cost savings are actually for the regulator. The regulator, at the moment, has it within legislation where they can go and see every five years a particular club. Some of them have been turning up every six months, doing the same sort of thing—or not necessarily every six months, but in under the five years. This will actually relieve some of those costs.

Of course, my understanding is that before this comes in, those clubs that were waiting to be inspected should all be inspected by then, so I think that the cost savings for clubs and ranges is the certainty of when they have to interact with the regulator. Also it’s personal cost, because—I’ve mentioned that they were volunteers—they’ve been having to take days off work at their paid employment to turn up at the club whenever they’re asked to by the regulator.

There is a benefit to society—and this is speaking to the other member’s point as well—if we have these clubs and ranges operating. Two clubs have actually shut down, and there were a series of individuals who had approached me before the legislation came in to tell me they were shutting their clubs down as well. There is a cost to society if we don’t have safe places for people to be able to participate, to get safety education, to have the oversight of those with the expertise. There is a cost to society if we don’t have this implemented, and I think that far outweighs the cost of a regulator turning up outside of their five-year time frame. In my humble opinion, the cost to society by not having clubs and ranges operating is absolutely huge. The benefit of this legislation is to the public, and it has a public safety impact because we keep these ranges open.

These ranges are still looked at. This is not just “anyone can open up a range”. It clearly states within the bill how a range must be established, what oversight there must be—including the fact that those that do not have a parent organisation are actually still having to come under the umbrella and approval of New Zealand Police. I think this is a good thing. This is not about just allowing anyone to be able to open up a range. I think, again, I see the benefit to society by having these ranges open, and I think we should have more of them. They should be in every town all over New Zealand, because then we know where everybody is going to be and we know that the oversight and education that they get will also be consistent with the safety education that they get at the time of applying for their licence. You cannot put a number on that, but I’m hoping that just what I’ve expressed, whether or not the member agrees with it, explains a bit of it.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to clause 5 to insert new section 38XIA be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment clause 5 to delete subsection 2 in new section 38XJ be agreed to.