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

Members, when we were last on the bill, we were up to call No. 7. It’s a National Party call.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this bill this evening. I thought it might be valuable just to reset where we are in this debate. There is a difference between pistol ranges and non - pistol ranges. We hear a lot of hyperbole about this piece of legislation from the Opposition through the discussion, and I think that that understanding of the difference between the two types of ranges is critical to the changes that are being put forward in the House today—and I think that the clock just needs to kick off as well there, Mr Speaker. I wouldn’t want to take more time than required in this discussion.

The Justice Committee heard from a range of submitters, who were all focused on safety, and I think that when we talk about this change in legislation, often safety is thrown in as a massive statement that seems to capture or imply that you can’t change legislation for the better and still keep safety at the centre of it. These changes will make it easier for firearms owners and shooters to participate in their sport in a safe and regulated environment, and I think that is key—a safe and regulated environment. It makes sense to have stricter rules for pistols because they’re a smaller type of gun.

Hunting is also an important recreational and social pastime in this country. It’s important that those who wish to go and hunt and bring home their own meals or who use guns for pest control are able to do that in a safe and appropriately regulated environment. It is better to have a safe and regulated place for them to sight their guns versus, for example, them going out and doing that on farm or down by the river. Because of that and because this is a bill that will ensure safety at the heart of it while making these appropriate changes, I commend it to the House.

Look, this is a really important matter, and it’s important not just because of the material that’s before us today but because this is one part of a programme of review of the Arms Act that the Associate Minister of Justice is engaged in. It concerns me that there’s a sense of polarisation here: that if you think that these reforms are bad, you in some way vilify gun owners, and I want to make it absolutely clear that I don’t. In fact, until recently, I was a gun owner myself and have been hunting on a number of occasions. In my view, most people who are firearms owners absolutely want good, safe regulation, and they want to ensure that the public knows that and they have a social licence to engage in shooting and hunting activities and what have you.

One of my real concerns about this legislation is the process by which it’s been passed through this House and by which the policy has been developed. The Minister has come to this Parliament quite openly—and good on her—with a programme of reform. She is quite open about the fact that she was a spokesperson for the Council of Licenced Firearms Owners, and she was elected, in part at least, on that platform. That’s fine, but when she now holds a ministerial portfolio, she has a lot more to do than look after the interests of a lobby group of which she was a former chief member.

When she came to consult on this legislation, she did that very narrowly, and that became clear as we progressed through the Justice Committee. Even the regulatory impact statement notes that the consultation prior to the drafting of this legislation was primarily with gun clubs. That’s deeply problematic, because if we’re going to come to this House with legislation, we have to come to this House with legislation that has been consulted or socialised or discussed—call it what you will—with all of our community, not just with some of our community. That’s deeply problematic. I mean, it was a real concern that at select committee. Sure, we had a number of operators of gun ranges and so on and sporting gun enthusiasts who vehemently promoted and supported the bill, and good on them—I can understand; most people want less rules rather than more—but critical submitters were deeply concerned with the bill, and I’m deeply concerned when the Police Association comes along and says they do not support the bill and there’s, essentially, a ministerial shrug of the shoulders. We need to discuss this. We need to think carefully about this.

I heard the member who spoke previously saying, “Well, pistols, you know, they’re way more dangerous.” Now, true, they can be concealed, and TV tells us that they’re the weapon of choice for gangsters. Well, it’s not actually true. The weapon of choice for most criminals in New Zealand is an ordinary rifle that you can buy with a standard licence at any firearms store. Of course, a pistol is dangerous at about the distance across this House, but if you’re at a thousand metres, then a rifle is much more lethal, and we need to remember that. This idea that rifles and shotguns aren’t dangerous or are in some ways less dangerous—they’re differently dangerous. The idea that we don’t need to regulate—because that’s fundamentally what this bill does—rifle and shotgun ranges, that they can have rules of their own that are inspected only once every five years, is deeply concerning, because it is a really significant backward step.

We want gun ranges. Let’s get this right. Absolutely, we need gun ranges. They serve multiple good purposes, one of which is as places where people can learn in a responsible manner and a controlled environment how to use firearms. That’s an absolutely good idea. But we also want gun ranges and rifle ranges which have uniform rules, where how we use a firearm and what a safe gun range looks like is actually understood—but we don’t have that. We’ve got some rules around pistol ranges, but every single rifle range can set its own standards. Sure, there’s five-yearly oversight, but why is there no uniform set of expectations? Now, I’m no ballistics expert, but I’m pretty sure about the length of the range or the arc of fire—they’re going to be things for which there could be some universal standards.

That’s all we want. We just want a situation where we have widely understood and consistent rules for ranges and where there can be inspections by the appropriate authorities, not in some invasive way, but let’s remember: firearms are dangerous. They’ve got perfectly useful uses, but they’re dangerous. This is not a country where you have a constitutional right to bear a firearm. This is a country where you have a right to bear a firearm because you meet the requirements set out by this House, and one of those requirements should be that if at any time there’s a concern or inquiry by the police or whoever ends up administering this Act, they should be able to go in and check—not some sort of area free of supervision, a blank zone for regulation. It’s a real concern.

This is part of a programme of reform, and this isn’t the most concerning thing we’re likely to see in this Parliament—I get that—but I’m also concerned that it does shift the authority for firearms across Ministers. The police have built up expertise in this area. The Minister of Police has been the Minister in charge, the Minister who can categorise different firearms and can grant exemptions, make regulations, consult on these things, and so on and so forth, and they’ve been well advised. There’s a reasonable discussion to be had about exactly how that should be framed, but why we are moving the administration of the Arms Act from an operational entity—the police, who deal with firearms every day, who have tangible expertise in this area—to the Ministry of Justice, which is a policy ministry, essentially moving it from experts in firearms to a Government-run thinktank on justice, is beyond me.

I’m deeply concerned that the real reason that that’s happening is because the Associate Minister of Justice has a single track of reform, that where we’re going with this is predetermined. Don’t get me wrong: I’m really happy for a review of the Arms Act. I am sure we can improve it, but if that is no more than cover for a liberalisation of gun laws and a retreat, a rolling back, to where we were before March 15 in Christchurch, I find that deeply, deeply concerning.

I think it’s very important that when we come to this next reform, that is being consulted on as we speak, we consult widely and we approach the question with an open mind. I want to engage with this not in a party political way, because we’ve come across this in a bipartisan way before and we need to do it again, but let’s remember what’s at stake, because guns in the wrong hands can cause immense harm. They can be tools for good, but in the wrong place at the wrong time they can cause immense harm, so let’s get this right.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’ll be adding my kōrero to the second reading of the Arms (Shooting Clubs, Shooting Ranges, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. After the member opposite, the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, just finished his contribution, I’m still wondering when we’re going to be seeing the opening of “Webb’s Wine Bar.”

Just to reiterate, because we did start the contributions on this bill last week, the purpose of the bill is in essence to reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens on shooting clubs and ranges. And why are we doing this? We’re doing it because back in 2020, legislative changes took place and they added significant regulatory burdens on clubs and ranges. These are just people that just want to practise their sport and have a good time in a safe and not too burdensome environment.

I understand we have to take care and have measures in place for safety. What I really appreciate about the Hon James Meager, our current chair of the Justice Committee—one of the busiest committees in the House as we speak—is the fact that when he spoke on this bill last week, he recognised that he really thinks that a lot of the members haven’t even read through the bill. He emphasised how new section 38X, inserted by clause 5, when it talks about inspections of shooting clubs and shooting ranges, there’s also another subsection (2), in new section 38XJ, which says, “Yes, OK. It’s once every five years unless there is a change of circumstances that may affect its safety.”

We really need to read through the whole bill before we open up our wine bar, and I commend this bill to the House.

Just before I call the next speaker, I’m sure any wine bar opened by Mr Webb would have some very good reds in it.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand to take a call on the Arms (Shooting Clubs, Shooting Ranges, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, and I stand to oppose the bill, and to strongly oppose this bill, because next month it will be six years since the tragic events of 2019 in Christchurch. I and everybody in Christchurch and across Aotearoa can never forget how we felt, what we learnt, and what we did in response to those actions, and what we did right here in this House, because we recognised that we should be here to make communities safer.

This bill takes steps to undo that. It takes steps to remove the safeguards put in place to make communities safer, and it threatens the respect that was shown by the then Government to the families and communities who suffered such unimaginable loss almost six years ago in Christchurch.

Now, we should be here to make communities safer, but this bill does the opposite, because it takes us backwards. Other members have referenced and spoken to the term “self-regulation”, which seems pretty strange. It’s a very difficult concept to give communities safety and assurance and, at the same time, to talk about this notion of self-regulation for shooting clubs and shooting ranges in New Zealand.

This bill has multiple loopholes that will endanger communities and also place at risk law-abiding gun users. There’s nothing in this bill that sets out to stop a club or a range opening in a community next door to your home or in an area where it’s simply not appropriate. If we’re here to make communities safer, then these are not the actions of a responsible Government that cares about keeping people safe.

There are a number of other issues with the process associated with this bill. If we’re here to make communities safer, then the rushed consultation that went with this bill does not do that. The number of submissions received was not that high, but the skew of submissions was immensely high; 91 percent of submissions were skewed towards firearm users, as opposed to the communities and the individuals that could be affected by the very actions that will come about as a result of this bill.

The QA panel stated that the process of consultation only partially met the criteria—partially met the criteria. And the Police Association, on behalf of 98 percent of sworn police officers in New Zealand, said that this was politics over safety—politics over safety.

If we’re here to make communities safer and the very people who spend their days and their nights on the front line—making sure New Zealanders can be safe and working with Governments to make sure that we have legislation in place to keep our police force safe, our communities safe, and people safe across New Zealand—say that this is politics over safety, I don’t think that that’s a message that should go unheard or unchecked. It certainly shouldn’t be unheard by a responsible Government.

We’re here to make communities safer. That’s not what this bill does. I cannot and I will not commend it to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise in support of this bill tonight. I just want to talk a bit about the number of firearms licence holders in New Zealand. There are around 200,000 licensed people in New Zealand, which means that there are 5 million that don’t have a licence. The debate around this issue has been dominated by people who really don’t understand, and have a total anathema, I guess, to firearms at all. Unfortunately, firearms owners have been demonised a little bit.

I’d like to go through a statement from Gwyn Thurlow, who is the CEO of New Zealand Deerstalkers Association. Now, Gwyn Thurlow addressed concerns over parliamentary rhetoric, which he described as “occasionally misguided”. “Debate is an essential pillar of democracy, but it must be grounded in fact. Some of the views expressed recently risk misrepresenting the safety records of our ranges and the responsible nature of our members and the licensed firearms community who use shooting ranges.”, he added. Thurlow emphasised the need for decisions to be grounded in solid evidence and factual data. As the bill progresses, we urge lawmakers to rely on facts and the demonstrably low risk profile of New Zealand shooting clubs and their members.

One of the critical aspects highlighted by supporters of the bill is the role of clubs and ranges as venues that significantly contribute to public safety. These spaces provide structured environments where individuals can learn and practise shooting under the supervision of experienced professionals. The changes proposed in this bill will make it easier for these clubs and ranges to operate and thus continue to promote safe firearms practices. As the MP for Waitaki and someone who lives rurally, I know for many in our rural community shooting is an integral part of the rural way of life, and the first thing we learn—and, might I say, have drummed into us—is safety.

Shooting is more than just a sport. For many of us, it represents a tradition passed down through generations as a means of sustenance, a tool for pest control, and a form of recreation, and it brings families and communities together. With that, I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to say a few words. The overall substantive point, I think, from our perspective on this side of the House, is that the Arms (Shooting Clubs, Shooting Ranges, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill fundamentally just undermines public safety, and we’re not a fan of that. It does so by rolling back essential firearms regulations, which we believe are essential, and it does so in three main ways. That’s by weakening the police oversight, by creating loopholes that either criminals or extremists can take advantage of, and, essentially, by ending up with an inconsistent and unsafe standard for rifle and shotgun ranges.

If we look at each of those points, with regard to weakening the police oversight of shooting clubs and ranges, the reduced inspection frequency was the first point that came to mind. As others have said, the bill limits police inspections of shooting clubs and ranges to once every five years, which we believe makes it much harder to monitor ongoing safety compliance. Without regular inspection, there’s really no way that you can depend on ensuring that safety standards are being upheld. We’ve heard from other members across the House talking about, essentially, personal responsibility and a trust system. That’s all very well and good, but apply that to almost everything. There are some things that warrant suitable and risk-appropriate regulation, and we think that this leaves room for negligence and misuse.

With regard to self-regulation instead of independent enforcement, the bill, essentially, shifts that responsibility for safety from law enforcement, where it rightly belongs, to shooting clubs themselves; so, effectively, creating a voluntary compliance system. Again, other people have talked about that at length tonight. I just don’t think that that is the appropriate way to go. There’s no guarantee that clubs will implement proper safety measures, as self-regulation has historically led to inconsistencies and weak enforcement. And speaking of enforcement—that lack of enforcement tool—police, essentially, have no authority. They don’t have any authority to impose penalty or to conduct surprise inspections if they suspect violations, making that oversight, essentially, virtually meaningless. Without the power to enforce those safety rules, without the independence, and without the frequency of inspection, law-abiding users as well certainly don’t have any assurance that ranges are opening in a safe and responsible manner.

The second point was that it creates loopholes that could be exploited by criminals and extremists. I don’t think that many of us need to use our imagination too deeply to see how that could manifest. Easier access to shooting ranges for unlicensed and dangerous individuals—the bill certainly reduces those restrictions on who can access shooting ranges, and it creates opportunities for gang members, for instance, or extremists to train without that police oversight. We have had indications and feedback and evidence of that happening. Certainly, the Christchurch terrorist was able to practise rapid-fire techniques in an unregulated range, and this bill risks repeating that scenario and that situation. There are also weakened ammunition controls—so the bill reduces record-keeping requirements for ammunition sales—making it easier for criminals to obtain that ammunition without detection and being able to stockpile it and being able to traffic it, and all sorts.

Unregulated pop-up shooting ranges was another point that came up and, I think, was relatively well traversed in previous contributions, but the bill, essentially, allows temporary shooting ranges to operate without certification as long as only two events are held per year. That doesn’t necessarily, I don’t think, within the confines of a regulatory framework, provide much safety and much strength of conviction, I suppose, for lack of a better term, that within those provisos of those two events everything is running according to plan.

The third point is the inconsistent, unsafe standards. The lack of a national safety standard for rifle and shotgun ranges—the bill removes the requirement for non-pistol ranges to follow national ballistic safety guidelines, making those standards, as my colleague the Hon Dr Duncan Webb said, really inconsistent between those types of activities. Rifles and shotguns have long-range firing capabilities, so weak regulations—or any type of weak regulation—increases the risk of accidents and increases the risk of stray bullets causing harm. Also, it undermines the firearms registry. The bill weakens those record-keeping requirements, which could be used as a stepping stone—and I don’t think that it’s inconceivable that that could happen—to removing certain firearms from the firearms registry altogether. And that is actually something that we should all be relatively mindful of.

Police have stated that 70 percent of firearms seized from criminals are standard hunting rifles and shotguns, meaning reducing oversight of those. Whilst the vast majority of times they may be used by law-abiding people who are responsible, that nevertheless is the case and reducing oversight of these weapons is, by definition, absolutely dangerous. Ignoring expert advice on safety data—I think the regulatory impact statement found no evidence that the current regulations are causing problems at all or forcing shooting clubs to close. That is often stated as the impetus for these measures, but that just simply doesn’t stack up. Consultation on the bill was heavily biased towards firearms users, ignoring broader public safety concerns and the recommendations from various other experts.

In conclusion, we think, on this side of the House, that the bill prioritises the interests of gun owners over public safety, and we’re not a fan of that. We think it undermines police enforcement, which is rightly where that should sit, creating loopholes, or potentially creating loopholes, for people who seek to exploit those loopholes by the very definition of their existence, and the Government should focus on strengthening, not dismantling, firearms regulations to ensure that we’re all protected from gun violence. Just good old-fashioned preventable harm—why would we not be seeking to do that where possible?

Certainly over the last few months, at the market stalls and the like that I’ve been attending where we’ve had our petitions out, this is the one where people will come over; this is the one that catches their eye, that will bring them to the table and have those conversations. It may be particularly salient in Christchurch, but, certainly, of all the conversations I’ve had, which are many in the Christchurch region, people are really keen not to go backwards with regard to firearms safety and firearms regulation. Rolling back these protections in the way that this bill does certainly does that, and it hasn’t gone down well in my neck of the woods.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. The second reading’s a really good opportunity to reflect on the work that was undertaken by the Justice Committee in this case and the work that they did hearing the public submissions and then making the amendments that they have made to the legislation. I’ve had a read through the departmental report, and it said the committee on this piece of legislation received 558 submissions, 39 people supported their submissions through making oral submissions to the select committee. Overall, 304 people submitted in support of the legislation and 86 were opposed.

One of the things that really caught my eye was, as my colleague Miles Anderson said in his contribution before, there is a small amount of people in New Zealand who are registered gun and firearm owners. Many who supported the bill were from that community—those that actually are directly impacted by this legislation and the impact it has on them. They submitted that clubs and ranges are venues which support public safety and they welcome changes that would make it easier for these places to operate. There’s a number of fantastic amendments proposed by the select committee, supported by the member in charge of the legislation, and I look forward to those being enacted and for us to have a further discussion on this in the third reading. I commend it to the House.

The question is, That the amendments recommended by the Justice Committee by majority be agreed to.