Arms Bill

I move, That the Arms Bill be now read a third time.

I am honoured, on behalf of the Government but, most importantly, as a Minister for the ACT Party, to bring to the House today and complete, by way of third reading, the Arms Bill. Before I start, I’d just like to reminisce or think about how we got here. Six years ago, David Seymour saw the potential that I had. He thought that I might be able to come to Parliament and make a bit of a change. With his support and the support of the ACT Party, I’ve been able to come to Parliament and rewrite the Arms Act and modernise it. I thank David Seymour for his support, his trust, and his confidence in me to be able to do so.

Hon David Seymour: All well placed.

Hon NICOLE McKEE: Thank you. I’d also like to take a moment of time to think about and talk about one of the main architects of the Arms Act, Mr Bob Badland QSM. In 1983, he, with a few others, actually went about writing an Arms Act. They spent two years doing it. Mr Badland will be turning 90 years old tomorrow. He is very, very sick. I just want to acknowledge him and his contribution to firearms.

I also would like to acknowledge Matthew O’Connor, my adviser, who for the last six years has helped us get to this place. You have been my rock when it’s come to working through the different clauses and everything we’ve had to do with the Arms Act. It has been quite a trip, especially in the last three years. Thank you, Matthew.

I’d also like to acknowledge the Ministry of Justice firearms team. Wow—what a three years we’ve had. I am so privileged to have such a strong team beside me and behind me helping to get this great piece of legislation that we have before us now. ACT MPs who have also supported us and what we’ve tried to do—my colleagues here; I would not have been able to push as far and as hard as I have been without them.

I also think it’s important to acknowledge my family. For the last six years, they’ve had a mother that’s not been there and they’ve had a lot of abuse—personal abuse, attacks, threats—because of the work that I’ve tried to do. I know they’re proud of me, and I’m proud of them, because they’ve stuck beside me through thick and thin—get that out of the way.

I stand in front of you wearing a korowai that the Council of Licensed Firearm Owners gave to me six years ago. They placed it around my shoulders, and they told me that I had the weight of licensed firearm owners around my shoulders. I have hung this korowai in my office for the last six years, and every time I’ve made a decision about firearms, I’ve looked at the wall and I’ve looked at that, and I’ve had the best intent for all firearm licence holders throughout New Zealand in every decision that we’ve made. I thank them for their ongoing support, I thank them for their submissions, and I thank them for the trust that they’ve had in me.

Firearms are used by licensed New Zealanders to put food on the table, to earn a living, to manage pests, to humanely dispatch animals, to compete in sports, and to enjoy the outdoors. These are all legal and legitimate activities. The process that we’ve gone through to get to this firearms legislation has been robust, and it’s included three years of getting to this state with consultation and with select committee due process—a full six months.

I have commended the Justice Committee for the changes that they’ve made and, also, for the unanimous support that they’ve had on the changes within the Arms Bill to improve it for the future. It’s disappointing that they won’t be supporting it. I think it’s more about politicking when it comes to whether or not they want legislation that will see us through into the future and give us another 40 years of really good arms law. I do not understand their reasoning, especially when they have, as I said, unanimously supported changes. I mean, to vote against this bill is effectively saying that they’ll be voting against stopping gang members from getting licences, and I just simply don’t understand that.

Respect for licensed firearm owners will be made as a point of this bill, especially by separating the Firearms Safety Authority from New Zealand Police, once again rebuilding trust and confidence in the system, and ensuring that the licensed firearm owners are once again treated with respect, because they are fit and proper people. They have been judged to be so, and they must maintain that, continuously, throughout their tenure of having a licence. How hard has it been on them for the last seven years as they have been demonised—demonised—by the media, demonised by others, especially Opposition political parties where they have been conflated as being nothing more than criminals, when the reality is the legislation that went through in 2019 and 2020, rushed as it was, without any consultation, without due select committee process, didn’t address the issue of unlicensed criminal behaviour. Instead, it pointed the finger at those that conform and those that do behave.

These legislative changes that we’re making will do some greatness, I think, towards being able to show and build trust and confidence in a regime again. From 23 September, we will have Firearms Safety and Education New Zealand. Of course, with the education part, it’s not just about educating licensed firearm owners on what their new conditions will be in order to comply, but about educating the general public that lawful use of firearms is actually OK in New Zealand. We’ve been doing it for decades. We contribute to conservation, we put food on the tables, and we win gold medals. We win gold medals at international competitions, and that is nothing to be ashamed of.

We are changing a whole lot of things in the Arms Act. We are ensuring that, for example, large-capacity pistol magazines are being regulated, only being able to be held by those with pistol licences—closing a loophole that was similar to what the terrorist attacker used in the past, but wasn’t closed in the rushed 2019 legislation.

We’re introducing infringement notices so that people can be educated on a pathway of how to comply, instead of just having revocation. We’re extending dealer licence durations. We are making sure that gang members cannot get licences. We’re introducing the Firearms Licensing Review Committee. But at the end of the day, what we’re doing, is giving that trust and respect back to the LFOs—the licensed firearm owners. Most of these changes and supporting regulations are going to come into effect on 23 September 2026, with the remaining provisions by 23 February 2028.

There’s only one party that stood apart from all others, and that same party has come in to fix the Act. We are updating; we are modernising, consolidating, and giving clarity to this law. We’re keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals while making compliance easier for LFOs. We’re giving licensed firearm owners back that respect that they so deserver for being and maintaining fit and proper law-abiding status. We’re fixing what matters, not just for licensed firearm owners, but also for New Zealand.

I have appreciated the opportunity to bring my skill set to this House and effect positive change for our country. I see the Greens member shaking his head over in the corner. I’d just remind him that firearm ownership and public safety are not in conflict; they actually go hand in hand. If the member was able to respect licensed firearm owners for the law abiding, fit and proper people that they are—and he’s shaking his head, even though he is one of them. I guess that speaks quite a lot.

At the end of the day, ACT has done this, and, on behalf of the Government, we will have an Arms Act 2026, and I am so proud to have brought this to this House. I thank my colleagues across the House for their support to bring in one of the best laws in the world again.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Kia ora e te Mana Whakawā —thank you for that. Look, the Labour Party has always supported the responsible use and licensing of firearms. It’s simply not accurate to say that there’s been any demonising of licensed firearms owners. The Minister referred to the reforms that all but one member of this House, at the time, supported, which was to put an effective ban on semi-automatic weapons.

Now, the Minister came to Parliament and said that she was going to reverse that ban. Indeed, to her credit, she came to the Justice Committee and spoke to the committee about this, and, in fact, indicated that it was her hope that the regulation-making power in less legislation would enable her to permit people to use semi-automatic weapons—in particular, I understand, for sporting purposes. That caused real concern at the select committee for myself and other members. We were very careful and queried our officials, who assisted us ably, about this very matter. It was made clear to us that the Minister doesn’t have sweeping powers to deregulate the use of semi-automatic weapons, and such a wide-ranging use of those regulation-making powers would be ultra vires.

Semi-automatic weapons can be used in New Zealand for very limited purposes—pest control being the primary reason—under special license. It’s a restricted firearm, and that’s the way it should be, and that’s the way it will stay. Having said that—and the Minister seemed to be confused as to the Labour Party’s position. Let me put it very clearly: we absolutely support the responsible regulation of firearms, and that’s why—as we went through the bill and, with the cooperation of all parties around that table, improved the regulations, made them more workable, made New Zealanders more safe, and, essentially, made the bill a more effective thing—we supported the changes that were made.

The problem is that this bill is built on a poor foundation. One of the main things—the critical things—that the Minister didn’t really refer to in her speech is the removal of the regulation and supervision of firearms from the police to a new Firearms Safety Authority. She has been very clear that she wants the police to have nothing to do with the regulation of firearms. This new firearms safety authority, which will probably, it appears, sit within the Police—its support services will be provided by Police—this regulator will not have any police assistance, intervention, or support. That seems very strange to me.

Within the Police, we have a huge amount of expertise around firearms. Not only are they one of the agencies that uses firearms and has the technical knowledge of firearms but they also have a long history of being involved in the regulation of firearms—and, look, to be perfectly honest, within the framework of the Arms Act, they’ve been doing a pretty good job. But the Minister, for one reason or another, has listened to the Council of Licensed Firearms Owners—the lobby group that she, previously, was closely involved with—and has set up an entirely new agency. We think the Police are the proper agency to supervise the use of firearms.

Firearms are many things—and I think it’s really important to recognise that firearms can be tools for pest control; they can be recreational, for hunting; they can be sporting, for target shooting. They also, of course, can be weapons—either in the hands of the right people, such as police and armed forces, or in the hands of the wrong people, such as gangs and other criminals and people with malicious intent. This isn’t just about making life good for licensed firearms owners. It’s also about keeping New Zealanders safe. There is a balance to be struck, and the existence of a firearms register is an important part of that, so that we know who owns firearms and where they are at any given time.

We worked through a lot of detail. If you lend a firearm to someone, how long do they have before they have to actually register it? If you give it to a gunsmith to get fixed, how long do they have to do it? What about visitor licenses—what’s the duration of a visitor licence? All details, but taken together, they create an ecosystem of rules that strikes a balance between the ease of use for responsible people who want to use a firearm in an appropriate way and making sure there’s not a gap.

When I speak about gaps, there’s one thing that was raised very late in the committee of the whole House and, to be perfectly honest, too late for us to do anything meaningful about it. That is the emergence of push-button firearms—a kind of firearm that, although it’s not new, has found its way into jurisdictions that have put tough restrictions on semi-automatics. This is a firearm that can be fired roughly as quick as a semi-automatic by the use of a trigger and using the gas of the discharge of the bullet to then reload, and by pushing a push-button, it’s chambered, and then you can fire it again—all in the matter of less than a second. It’s quite different from, for example, a bolt-action rifle.

Now, the difficulty here is that it’s fundamentally or functionally equivalent to a semi-automatic, even though it uses a different mechanism. We hope the Minister will look carefully at these firearms to see whether—and they’re currently being imported at far higher rates than previously. We hope the Minister will look at that, because she does have regulation-making powers, and whilst she can liberalise, in some ways, some regulations, we hope she will look at these and ask the really important questions around the safety and availability of these push-button firearms.

Ultimately, we do support much of what’s in this bill, and we think the rules themselves are by and large workable and appropriate. We could nibble around the edges, but it’s select committee, and it was a good select committee, and we did listen to a lot of submitters from right across the spectrum. We listened carefully, and some of them made some very good points about workability and the balance to be struck with safety. It has been well consulted on, and there’s pretty much a consensus on the regulations themselves.

What we didn’t agree on, and can’t agree on, is the creation of this new agency. We’re not convinced that the agency has the infrastructure and tools to do its job. We don’t know if it’s got the financing. In the committee of the whole House—and it’s worth putting on the record here—the Minister was asked whether things like the information-sharing agreements are in place, and her answer was, “We’re working hard to put them in place.” Now, there’s a lot of work to be done before this organisation, the Firearms Safety Authority New Zealand, is going to be up and running, and is going to have the people and the expertise and the systems and the resources in place. The irony is all of those things exist already, but for a reason of ideology, the Minister doesn’t want the police to be the regulator of firearms. It wants an independent organisation, so the police cannot now go and look and search houses on the basis of the Arms Act; they’ll have to find some other basis.

That’s why we don’t support the bill. It’s a very clear and reasoned basis for not supporting the bill. Having said that, we’ll always be prepared to work with any other party on fair, reasonable firearms regulation that balances safety with responsible use of firearms.

I want to acknowledge the Minister for her work on drafting and guiding this bill through the process. I also want to acknowledge the Government members in reining back some of the more extreme aspects, so we do still have the firearms registry, and we have still ensured that semi-automatic centrefire weapons are not freely available. These are positives in this bill. I also want to acknowledge the Justice Committee and my colleagues there for the work that went into this, the thorough examination that went on, on this bill. It repeals the Arms Act 1983, so it’s something that has been overdue. It’s been needed to be done. I was just listening to the Minister earlier, and hearing about the Council of Licensed Firearm Owners representing just 5 percent of firearm owners. I really heard what I consider nonsense that firearm owners have been vilified. As a firearm owner myself, I have never felt under attack by the current regime. That is just a bunch of nonsense, and it really is irritating to hear the type of conspiracy, really, that is festering in the Government benches at the moment.

I certainly haven’t felt, as a firearm owner, that I deserve any respect, either, and I haven’t felt any disrespect to other firearm owners. I don’t know where this language comes from. It’s some strange idea that’s cooked up by a bunch of conspiracy theorists by the sounds of it. We are in absolute support of responsible firearm use, and we are in absolute support of providing greater protection for public safety. That’s why we took great interest in this bill. That’s why, in the committee of the whole House, I proposed an amendment to the bill that is about essentially using the Arms Bill to ensure that we don’t create more risk for hunters and for other people in our conservation estate. It’s an amendment to deal with poaching by hunters, because currently we know that the law does not enable people to be prosecuted under the Arms Bill for what is incredibly dangerous activity. I can talk from experience. I have hunted in blocks that were allocated to me, and I’ve heard shots in very close proximity—people who were not allowed to be there, firing in my vicinity. One of the submitters John Knight, who submitted on the Arms Bill, has talked about the risk he has seen, and the risk that he fears for his family, on a block of forestry he owns, close to the Clutha River, where it is a known spot for poachers—where poachers come in and shoot animals, but perhaps one day they may shoot someone else.

This is a real challenge we have. There are still gaps in this bill. My amendment was designed—and I heard that the Minister has an intent that poaching will be able to be prosecuted—but I’m really disappointed that my amendment about “Unlawfully carrying or possessing standard firearm, air gun, ammunition, or explosive on private land. A person commits an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine not exceeding $15,000. If the person without lawful purpose carries a standard firearm, an air gun, ammunition, or explosive on private land without the express permission of the owner of that land, or possesses a standard firearm, etc., on private land without the express permission of the owner of that land possesses one.”

This is an essential addition, we believe, to make sure we create a safe environment for people who are out there hunting, and for people who may not be hunting, but who are lawful owners of the land. We have examples that John Knight documented in his submission of a farmer killed on his Hawke’s Bay farm, probably by a hunter—a murder, or an accidental death, that has never been solved. No one has come forward—some camouflaged armed man we don’t know. This is what’s happened in other places around the country.

So our concern with this bill is that it still has gaps. It is still not increasing the safety of Kiwis, and it still exposes Kiwis to undue risk, whether they are hunters out there hunting, whether they are people in our conservation estate, whether they are people on private land. There is still no clear mechanism through this bill to ensure that there can be prosecution for poaching or for unlawful firearm use on private land, or in the conservation estate, or on blocks that have been dedicated to hunters.

I have heard from the Minister that there is some intent to enable that. I would like to see some progress, and some clearer direction from the Minister, to make sure we can improve on this bill, and we can have more safety in our wild areas. Lots of work has gone into this bill, and the most frustrating part is that we almost got there, but the most disappointing part has been the antagonism directed at the police, resulting in the establishment of a new firearms regulatory agency, totally independent of the police. This, as my colleague mentioned earlier, is just nonsensical. This is where we have a problem with the bill. For everything else, we would have seen an improvement, and for everything else this would have had our support, but for that. But for this irrational antagonism, distrust of the police, who have been doing an exceptional job in maintaining the registry, and in maintaining the licensing system, up until this bill. The replacement of the police with an independent firearms statutory body is inefficient. It will be difficult to do, as we have heard, in the time frame that is given to it. It will reduce trust and confidence in our system, and it will complicate the sharing of intelligence.

So we have real questions about how much money—the waste; $65 million of establishing a new agency that no one except for a very small proportion of conspiracy-laden firearms owners are calling for, and the Minister. This is such a waste of resource. There is no need for it, and this is why we are opposing this bill despite our desire to make progress in this space, because we do think that there is real value in much of what’s in this bill. Unfortunately, this little bit has spiralled into the conspiracy zone, and, of course, we can do so much better.

At least we will have a new arms bill, and that arms bill almost certainly will be amended under a new Government to improve it. This is where we had much more of an opportunity to get it right, because this is not 1983; this is 2026. We should have been able to work a bit better to get all of our agreements aligned to make sure we got an arms bill that would endure for another 40 years.

So that’s what’s so ultimately disappointing with where we’ve got to. In my heart of hearts, I would like us to be in full support of this bill, and I’ve said so to the Minister. We think there’s been a lot of good work done. It has just fallen with the unwillingness to compromise on what seems to be an irrational approach to how we manage firearm safety. We think it is very clear that the police should have that responsibility, are the right people for it, and can maintain that intelligence sharing that we so need to maintain public safety for all of us. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I’m not going to wallow in the misfortune of what might’ve been with this legislation. I’m going to firstly credit the Associate Minister of Justice, who has led the charge on this. This has been her baby for a long time. I look up to the gallery and I see the officials who supported and guided both her and us as the Justice Committee through this process as well, and I acknowledge and I thank all of them for their tireless and hard work in this space, too.

The bill, ultimately, has two fundamental purposes that it’s focused on delivering: to promote the safe possession and use of firearms in New Zealand, and to impose controls to prevent the possession and use of firearms for criminal activity. Surely, that is a good thing for public safety here in New Zealand. It’s about recognising those firearm holders across the country who actually follow the law, follow the requirements set to them, and saying, “We trust you. We know that you know what is best, and we’re going to empower you to do what you can.” But, in the same breath, we’re going to remove the powers for the bad people out there who utilise firearms for criminal activity.

That’s why one of the points I want to highlight is ensuring that gang membership automatically disqualifies someone from holding a firearms licence. That is a good thing in New Zealand for public safety and for also recognising those lawful gun licence holders for what they actually do by not being members of criminal activity groups like gangs.

Two other points I really want to highlight are the more flexible rules regulating storage of firearms—that was one of the big things we heard on the Justice Committee, and allowing them also to be secured in locations that are approved by the regulator. Licensed firearm holders often know what is best and where is best suited for them to store their firearms, and so utilising their expertise and getting the guidance from the regulator is a good thing. The other thing this law does is it updates it, because, in 2026, with 3D printing technology, this is a dynamic space and this is an ever-changing space. The Arms Bill is bringing about changes to recognise 3D printing and other changes that are being made in this space so that legislation keeps up with changes we’re seeing in our country.

This has been a substantial piece of work. The Justice Committee took our work on this bill extremely seriously. We worked collaboratively with the officials who guided us through the process, with the public submitters who submitted on the bill, and with the Minister who led the charge on it. Therefore, I commend it to the House.

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in support of the Arms Bill, and I would like to take this moment to reflect on the Associate Minister of Justice, who has driven this work so admirably. She has openly consulted, engaged, and broadly connected with New Zealanders across the country to ensure we do deliver a positive piece of legislation that actually puts at the heart of this an ability to make it easier to enforce this law and it makes it easier to ensure that illegal activity is identified and prosecuted.

I cannot help—and I did this in the second reading. It is encouraging to me that yet again we have a Green Party member celebrating the importance, the integrity, the quality of the New Zealand Police force. I hope he is not a lone rider, that this is the Green Party turning around and recognising how wonderful our New Zealand Police force is and that they will continue to advocate in such a way about our New Zealand police officers.

But, to the bill, I would like to really recognise the fact that having a firearm safety authority, having a system of licensing—it is not so much about where it sits; it is about the fact that it is effective, comprehensive, clearly understood, and makes the process of obtaining a licence, retaining that licence, meeting the criteria that is needed to be a licensed firearms owner. I think that is an encouraging framework to work forward on. Every bill that we pass in this House will never be completely perfect, and the fact that we have members who are choosing not to vote on the fundamental good qualities of this bill because it’s not quite perfect is really unfair to New Zealanders.

I think this is an impressive piece of legislation that has not just been important to New Zealanders; it’s been important to gun safety overall. The fact that we had a 1983 piece of legislation that was just not fit for purpose and for many years has been kicked down the road as something we must get around to—the fact that someone has got around to it and has given us a piece of legislation that will enable us to ensure that we have fit for purpose legislation moving forward that protects licensed, law abiding firearms owners and holds those who would seek to use firearms in a way to harm, threaten, or damage New Zealanders is really important. Therefore, on behalf of New Zealand First, I commend this bill to the House.

Tēnā koe e te Pīka. I rise on behalf of Te Pāti Māori to remind this House that Parliament’s first responsibility is not to make regulation easier; it’s to make Aotearoa safer. The first duty of any Government under Te Tiriti o Waitangi is to protect the people. When there’s doubt, the Crown should lean towards safety, not convenience, and that’s why Te Pāti Māori cannot support this bill. This bill asks the people of Aotearoa to place their faith in a theory, and that is that by making the regulator friendlier, the country will somehow become safer. But when Parliament legislates for firearms, hope is not a substitute for evidence. The Government says that this bill is about modernising the law, but the question is not whether it is newer; the question is whether it is safer.

Throughout this debate, the Associate Minister of Justice has been good at telling us who this bill helps, although she has been far less convincing in explaining how these changes will make our communities safer. Every concern has been answered with reassurance, but reassurance is not evidence. Confidence is not a substitute for proof. The burden of proof doesn’t sit with those of us who want to keep safeguards in place; it sits with those who want to remove them.

At its heart, this bill reflects a particular ideology. Only ACT could look at firearms legislation and decide that the biggest danger facing our nation is too much paperwork. ACT has mistaken deregulation for reform. It sees safeguards as red tape. We see safeguards as the line between precaution and regrets. Reducing regulation isn’t a public safety strategy; it’s a political philosophy.

Let us be clear about something else: this debate isn’t about responsible firearms owners; it is not about hunters, farmers, or sporting shooters; it is about the strength of the system that keeps everyone safe. Firearms regulation works because it’s a connected public safety system—licensing, registry information, inspections, police intelligence, and operational policing all work together. The strength of that system comes from those connections. That’s why the concerns raised about reducing Police involvement really do matter. The issue isn’t whether civilian regulators are capable; the issue is whether vital information and intelligence can flow as effectively when those functions are separated. The question isn’t whether a new system can work; the question is why this House would weaken a proven one before showing that the replacement is actually better. Firearms aren’t paperwork; they are lethal weapons. Good legislation asks, “Will this save lives?”; too often this bill asks, “Will this save time?”

We can’t discuss firearms laws without remembering why many of these protections actually exist. The reforms after the Christchurch mosque attacks were not written in theory; they were written in grief. The lessons of 15 March 2019 were paid for with 51 lives. Parliament should be extraordinarily cautious before deciding those lessons have become inconvenient. Those changes were never intended to be politically fashionable; they were intended to make Aotearoa safer. Mana is never diminished by acting with caution. The mana of this House is strengthened when we choose protection over political convenience. Tikanga teaches us that every action demands balance. If safeguards are removed, the Government must show what protections have been put back in their place. So far, that balance has not been shown.

For Te Pāti Māori, the answer is very clear: this bill lowers the standard of proof while asking the public to carry the risk. Our tīpuna taught us that every decision leaves a whakapapa. The whakapapa of this bill will not be measured by how many forms it removed but by whether or not our mokopuna inherit a safer Aotearoa. We oppose this bill.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Green Party will also be opposing this bill. We have a Government and parties on the other side of the House that purport to be on the side of Police, but, in fact, over many, many years when the Police have proposed tougher regulations around guns, those parties on the right side of the House have opposed those regulations. The most stark and glaring and horrific example being that in the select committee reviewing the permissibility of certain types of very dangerous weapons before the Christchurch mosque attack, the only party in the House on that committee that supported the Police’s call for tougher regulations on semi-automatic weapons was the Green Party. The consequences of this House, in previous iterations, not acting on the advice of the Police that we needed to be stronger on those particularly dangerous weapons was the most appalling atrocity in our modern history, undertaken by a lone actor with a very dangerous weapon. This nation learnt the hard way and didn’t take the advice of the Police.

The removal of the responsibility for managing firearms from the Police has an ideological basis. It is not in the interests of public safety. It is not in the interests of even those who advocate for appropriate gun controls, who made it clear that they wanted the Police to maintain the responsibility. They’ve opposed moving the Firearms Safety Authority from the Police because there needs to be real-time information flowing between the regulator and the Police. Having them separate means that the Police, who are one of the most exposed authorities to the negative impacts and risks of gun violence, don’t have their hand on the pulse of what’s going on, so the Green Party supports the Police maintaining the responsibility for firearms.

We have to be aware of the fact that firearms are a part of our society. They are used for reasonable, legal, and positive uses—pest management and the likes, hunting—but they are also deadly weapons, and there are iterations of those weapons that are more deadly than others when in the hands of actors who wish to act lethally against their fellow humans. It is vital that we have appropriate firearm safety protections, and it is appropriate that it remain with the New Zealand Police. The Green Party will continue to take the advice of those on the front line of managing the impacts of firearms, and we will continue to advocate for the Police being at the centre of managing firearms and their safety. We will not be supporting this legislation. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The third reading of the Arms Bill—this is a colossal piece of legislation, and I congratulate the Hon Nicole McKee for getting this across the line and for actually materialising the dream that you had on behalf of many firearm holders.

The most important change out of this plethora of very good changes for me is that after this bill is passed, gang membership will become an automatic disqualifying reason for holding a firearms licence, because we’re sending a clear message to organised criminal activity gangs that, on this side of the House, they’re not getting a free ride under this Government. Congratulations, Minister. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to take a call on the Arms Bill. This is a really sensitive issue, and it’s a tricky issue to speak on because I do believe that many of the people that have come have spoken on this bill and have submitted to the select committee and have been working on this reform have come to work with good intentions. I want to acknowledge Nicole McKee. This is an issue we disagree on, but I don’t believe that Minister McKee has come to this with ill intentions. I believe it’s a genuine difference of opinion that she has with the Labour Party on this issue. I want to acknowledge that in this way, because this is an emotional issue and this is an issue that we have strong views on, but it is an issue that we differ on.

One of the reasons that, I think, we differ on this is that if you read this Arms Bill, you’ll see that the Arms Bill is older than me. I’m quite old.

Hon Rachel Brooking: No, you’re not.

CAMILLA BELICH: Well, compared to—for a piece of legislation, the Arms Bill is over 40 years old. Possibly, on that fact alone, there could be an argument made for its review and renewal, and that is, I’m sure, why it is included in the introduction to this bill—because of the fact that that appears to be the justification for some of this work.

I hesitate to say, but I think we’re aware that the reason that we’re looking at this bill is because of the changes that were made following the March 15 terrible, terrible, awful tragedy that occurred in Christchurch, where so many people were lost, and the country was devastated by those events. I was so proud of the way the country came together to condemn that, and I know that that is a condemnation that is shared to this day throughout the House, no matter what side of the House that you sit on. I know that is shared by the Minister as well.

Sadly, in the arms community—and this is what I have observed, and it’s not an area that I participate in. I know many rural communities have a the need to have guns; I know there are people who do it for sporting reasons, and I know we celebrate those sportspeople and members of our sporting community—we have the Commonwealth Games on at the moment, and I would be very surprised if there wasn’t a shooting aspect of that, and we wish our competitors in that very legitimate and skilled sport all the best.

There is, I don’t think anyone would disagree, a legitimate use for arms, for guns, within our community. That in itself is really hard to say, because these are weapons that are capable, more easily than anything else, of taking lives, and, sadly, that’s what we’ve seen in New Zealand. Coming to this debate, there is a lot of history, and there are a lot of perspectives and viewpoints, and it is hard to find a way forward that, for myself personally, weighs the gravity and the seriousness of the weapons we are talking about with the communities within New Zealand that value them and utilise them for legitimate aims. That is the task that Minister McKee has taken forward, and that is the bill that we have before us today.

I think it’s important to note that this bill was going to initially be more permissive in relation to arms; it was going to be more permissive in relation to semi-automatic weapons, and it has been limited in that regard. That is important, and I commend the Minister for that retreat. I think that is appropriate, and that is something that we’re very supportive of. The reason that is so important is that from our perspective, gun ownership and firearms ownership is a privilege, and it is not a right. That is maybe something that not everyone would agree with, but it’s something that certainly, I think, needs to drive our regulatory change in New Zealand. It is a privilege, and it is not a right. Whatever regulatory system we have, public safety must be at its core.

In terms of this particular bill, we do have a concern around the fact that the Police are not going to be at the heart of the regulatory system in relation to regulation of ownership. That is regretful, in our view, because of the very high trust that New Zealand Police have in relation to firearms and the proven track record and the work that they have done with communities affected by gun violence. I mentioned March 15 earlier, but that is certainly not the only tragedy that has occurred in New Zealand with the use of firearms. It’s important to acknowledge that that is the reason that we haven’t been supporting this bill—because we don’t think that the right balance has been struck in relation to the involvement of the Police and moving forward with the gun regulation in that place.

For me, this is a heavy subject—you can probably tell. It’s very tricky to talk about this with the recent history that we have. While I have probably talked a lot about that, there are slightly more minor aspects that none the less took a large amount of the Justice Committee’s time on this bill. For example, when we talk about guns, we’re not just talking about new guns that are purchased; we also have regulations and quite a bit of discussion around the requirements for museums and museum workers who work with firearms. The reason for that is because we have to reflect that a firearm is a lethal weapon when it is able to be utilised, and that is true regardless of the age of the weapon and regardless of the speed of the weapon. When we do have these slightly older guns that are kept for important reasons, then we do have to have regulations around that. I know that’s maybe not the main aspect of this bill, but it certainly took an amount of time during the select committee process to look at that.

Another issue that I know my colleague Dan Rosewarne, who’s unable to speak in this debate today, has been looking at is push-button rifles. Another thing that we have to realise with guns and the regulation of guns is the fact that there will be innovations in technology that will change the definitions that we utilise in order to regulate arms. One of the things that has happened recently is that there has been a gun that you can use a push-button for, and the argument is that ends up being very similar to a semi-automatic rifle, although the mechanism is different.

Anyway, this is something that I know the officials on the committee were able to give us very good advice around, and very detailed advice. I don’t want to at all undermine the amount of attention that went into this piece of legislation through the select committee process. It was immense. It hasn’t landed where we would have wanted it to land, but there was certainly a lot of effort to make sure that it was the best possible version of this bill that could have been put forward.

I’ll conclude my comments there and just thank those who have worked on this. We won’t be supporting it but acknowledge the time and effort that has gone into trying to get this piece of legislation to the place that it’s landed at, which I think is an improvement on where it started.

This is a heavy topic for me and people in Mt Roskill. People in Mt Roskill experienced firsthand that gun violence can have serious consequences. A few years ago, a suspected gang-related shooting in Mt Roskill left one person heavily injured. This is why I support this bill—because this bill improves public safety by helping to keep firearms out of criminal hands. I support this bill because it’s making gang membership an automatic disqualification for holding a firearms licence. These are practical steps to help keep our community safe. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think members across the House will probably remember where they were when they heard the terrible news on March 15.

For our family, we were coming over the brow of the hill into the wonderful place of Taranaki, New Plymouth, for a WOMAD festival and heard the news that was mentioned, and the whole car went silent. Even though we knew the gravity of what had happened, I don’t think we appreciated the impact that it would really have on our nation, on our communities, and on our sense of identity as a nation. WOMAD kind of reluctantly went ahead. It was a very sad and sombre event, and it’s one I’ll never forget.

I also was very proud to see the leadership that was shown by our then leader, the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern, and the decisiveness with which she rallied, first of all, to support the directly impacted communities, and then secondly to commit to taking bold action, and then taking bold action. I also then acknowledge the communities in Dunedin who not only had the terrorist live amongst us, and even do surveillance of school children and so on, but we had communities directly impacted who had whānau and so on, and I really want to think of them today.

I really appreciate the comments made by Camilla Belich. I think it is great to see that this is the best version of this possible bill, but I also want to acknowledge the Green Party’s comments about the significance of police not being able to have full control or control over something that is going to directly impact their livelihoods, their lives, their work experience, and ultimately, their safety. In so many ways, it is just disempowering for them. They are at the front line. They are the ones who are dealing with this, and I would refer to some of the comments that they made where they said, “While independence in licensing decisions is commendable, the association is concerned that this legislation will create a regulator that is operationally detached from frontline realities.”

It’s easy for us to get very conceptual in this House and to get very academic about where rules and regulations should sit. Often the unintended consequences on the ground are vastly different, and it is my view that we should have really prioritised the voice of the police, not only because they have that operational knowledge and that day-to-day knowledge, but because they are the very people who are probably most at risk with the unintended consequences of the separation of them and that integral part to the system.

While I agree with Camilla Belich about the sentiment that this has been done in good faith by the honourable Minister, and that it has been panel-beaten with a lot of changes to really try and knock it into shape, my real fear is that one day we will be back in this House and something devastating will have happened either to the community or to the police, to those brave men and women who do keep us safe, as a result of the fact we didn’t listen to them adequately and we didn’t change the bill enough to make sure that, fundamentally, they were able to have that level of input and level of operational integration with the system that we are passing in this House today.

That is my fear, and so with the same respect to the Associate Minister of Justice and with the same respect to all of those who have submitted—because it is an emotional issue—and to all of those farmers I’ve spoken to who may be removed a little from what happened on 15 March, and who are more prescient to the day-to-day circumstances of their farming life and convenience in being able to get on with things, I understand that. But what we’re trying to avoid here is never, ever having to come to this House and speak about something like 15 March again; never, ever having to put our front-line officers in a position where, with a little more listening, we could have protected them further.

With those thoughts, while I appreciate the level of thoughtfulness that has gone into this and appreciate all the submissions, I don’t think we’re getting this bill right today. I think we’re making a mistake, and for that reason, like the rest of my Labour colleagues, I cannot commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. When talking about this bill, I just want to firstly acknowledge the Associate Minister of Justice, the Justice Committee, the officials, and all those who have helped steer this through the House.

I believe this bill has struck a balance between safety and firearm use. I do agree with Camilla Belich that ownership is a privilege, but it’s a privilege that comes with responsibility, and that is why penalties have been increased for more than 60 offences, and new offences have been created. I commend this bill.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. I rise as another member of the Labour Party to take a call to oppose this Arms Bill. We’re at the stage of the third reading where this is kind of, I guess, the end of the line. Unless some changes or some people are willing to come with us on this, it will become law. As has been said, there’s been some thoughtful contributions and engagement on this, and I just want to reflect from my personal thinking. I have family in the police and family who have spent a long time looking after and protecting the people of New Zealand, of our communities. I wasn’t on the Justice Committee, I wasn’t a participant in that, but I did follow along through my Justice Committee colleagues in listening to some of their reports back on what was happening.

From hearing across the floor this afternoon, public safety always has to come first, and it sounds like we are in agreeance on that. It is about public safety, and when you talk about firearms and firearms legislation, it’s, yes, how do we look after and protect our firearms holders, but it’s also how do we make sure that we do protect the whole of our community. We should always be looking at this legislation and all bills that come through the House on how it impacts our communities and how it does make New Zealand a safer place.

Now, I think that our concern isn’t with responsible firearm owners; our concern is what is being seen around the weakening of the role of the police in the firearms regulation. We know that police are responsible on a daily basis when it comes to so many parts of things like family harm, call-outs, gang activities, and organised crime—the police are dealing with this on the daily. They understand the risks. They work hard to understand and know the criminal networks. As I said, sadly, family harm incidents do occasionally—or too often actually, because once is too many—involve firearms. They execute search warrants. They need to have immediate access to information to know what’s going on. As our team was going through the process, they were listening carefully to what police had to say on this bill, and there were concerns around weakening their understanding, their access to information quickly, and how they can actually respond and know what is going on.

I know that, within my family, they have dealt with, sadly, many homicides, many related incidents when it comes to firearms, and so I know through second-hand conversations what it is to turn up to situations and not know what is on the other side of the door, what is on the other side of the gate, and to ensure that they are protected. That’s where I think the police need to stay in this space because they are the ones who earn that space on a daily basis.

Then I want to reflect on the public safety questions. As I’ve listened to my colleagues on this side of the House speak, and some on the other side of the House, it is just some of those unanswered questions around the practicality of the changes that are being made. I said before: will police have real time access to licensing information? Will front-line officers know immediately whether firearms may be present at an incident? These are things that are so often more easily accessed when it is within the police itself.

As I’ve listened, and it’s been acknowledged in this heavy conversation this afternoon, we have to trace our steps back, and my previous colleague, Ingrid Leary, spoke about 15 March. I was also in New Plymouth and Taranaki that day, and yes, WOMAD was also the festival that I had planned to attend. The Prime Minister was also in New Plymouth on that day, and she was attending a youth—well, she didn’t actually attend the youth event. She was going to attend a large youth event on that day, but, of course, her team had to hurriedly move her on and find travel arrangements for her to come back to Wellington to assess the situation and to find a way forward. Those steps from 15 March trace and walk us to where we are today and to what this is all about. So we need to acknowledge the fact that firearms, yes, can be used when it comes to pest control, when it comes to sports that I know the Minister has been involved with, when it comes to all sorts of parts of everyday life, but the challenge is when we have those major incidences within the country and how we do respond and how we make a difference.

I remember recently also watching a documentary around the Tasmanian shooting back in the 1990s and the impacts and the effects that Government regulation made that has changed the nature of mass shootings and harm in Australia, and we need to reflect on that.

I’m sure and I hope that all of us come into this House to make a difference for our communities. For us, as the Labour Party, we feel like this is the wrong kind of difference and we don’t feel that there are the safety balances and checks in place that will ensure that our communities are protected from future harm.

We acknowledge responsible firearm owners, we acknowledge—

Hon David Seymour: If the member hasn’t prepared a speech, you can just sit down.

GLEN BENNETT: Oh, thank you very much, sir. We want to acknowledge the responsible firearm owners, who deserve the opportunity to participate in their sports or their eradication of pests or whatever they do, but we want to ensure that the Police have the resources they need. We want to make sure that they know and have swift access to what they need to know when it comes to situations when it is around harm or incidences in the house. We’ve made our points very clear. Labour will not support this bill, and we cannot commend it to the House.

I’m the last speaker in support of this final phase of the reform of firearms legislation in New Zealand. This law ensures public safety and, at the same time, makes sure that firearms don’t easily get into the hands of criminals. It allows licensed firearms owners to continue to use their firearms safely and responsibly. I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Arms Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 2; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Employment Leave Bill

Third Reading