Russell DeborahDr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): We're very familiar with the concept of licensing in New Zealand. We apply it in an extraordinary number of places. We are licensed to drive a car second-hand dealers are licensed electrical workers are licensed you have to have a licence to go fishing early childhood centres are licensed building practitioners are licensed sale of alcohol is licensed immigration advisers are licensed. Running a casino—it's a licensed activity. All sorts of activities where we think that properly it should be regulated and supervised. Why? Because of the harm that can be caused to other people. It's a tricky thing with licensing putting in place rules and regulations versus the freedom to act and each time we must weigh up the concerns of the whole community; not just those who would engage in the activity but also the concerns of those who are affected by the activity. There's a reason why we license people to drive cars: driving 1.5 tonnes of metal down the road in an irresponsible manner can cause serious harm. And there is a reason why we license firearm ownership; it is because firearms cause death—firearms kill people. Yes every shotgun and every rifle that can be used for hunting for pest control even for sports activities is used for hunting for pest control for sports activities but they can also be used to kill people. It is for that reason that we need to impose very strict and very careful controls on who is allowed to own firearms what sorts of firearms can be owned and where those firearms can be used. Our legislation is 36 years old. It is out of date and it does not control firearms to the extent that ordinary everyday New Zealanders want. March 15 was a shocking and terrible event and one of the many deeply sad lessons that came out of it was that our gun laws did not actually control firearms to the extent that the great majority of New Zealanders want. So we need to do something about that. In the aftermath of 15 March we quite properly acted very very quickly to take the worst weapons off the street. So far we know that 25000 weapons—firearms—have been handed back in the gun buy-back. We acted swiftly and now we are taking the next step to ensure that those who have earned the privilege of owning firearms may continue to do so and to ensure that lethal weapons that can kill people are not just freely available in our society. I want to address some of the concerns that have been brought up by Mr Brett Hudson in the first speech for the Opposition. Mr Hudson was concerned that I guess this new law is going to criminalise gun owners. It is not. I think one of the best examples of this in this proposed legislation is to do with where firearms are stored. Under the old regime police officers could check the security of weapons once every 10 years. Under the new regime—under the new rules which are proposed by this legislation—the storage of firearms can be checked at any time by police with adequate notice; no surprise visits. But if someone does not have their firearms stored properly the first step that police will take is an improvement notice. Police will give firearm owners an opportunity to improve the security of their weapons. There are no Draconian measures here; what there is is a concerted effort to improve the control of firearms in this society.Let me have a look at some of the rules that this particular piece of legislation brings into place. What it does is it seeks to reassure New Zealanders that we are properly licensing firearms owners firearms dealers and shooting ranges.Let's look at clause 36 of the bill and of course there will be time to debate this in select committee and to understand exactly how it works. But one of the things we will need to do under the new rules is see whether a person who holds a firearms licence is a fit and proper person to hold that licence. Police will be invited to assess a number of issues. Now none of these will rule a person out from holding a firearm all by itself but there are a number of issues which police ought to consider to holistically consider whether that person is fit and proper to hold a firearms licence—for example whether or not a person is dependent on alcohol or a person is a habitual drug user; perhaps whether sadly they have significant mental health issues; or whether they have engaged in behaviour that promotes violence hatred or extremism. These are the sorts of issues that might suggest to police that perhaps the person is not a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence.The same sort of principle applies under this proposed legislation about a fit and proper person to hold a dealer's licence. Does that person have a firearms licence in the first place but are they competent; do they have the resources to be a dealer; have they ever had any convictions; do they have a sound knowledge of firearms—all the sorts of issues which might demonstrate whether or not a person is fit and proper to engage in selling firearms to other people.I want to talk a little bit about the new rules that are proposed for shooting clubs and shooting ranges. We're actually proposing that these entities actually have to have a certificate of approval. Now the previous speaker Mr Hudson thought that this would impose a fair amount of work on people who are essentially volunteers—and in fact I think the suggestion was possibly too much work. But it's worth looking at people like the Deerstalkers Association who already have a voluntary regime in place in terms of regulating their own membership. And why did they do this? Because they understand that owning a firearm is a privilege that firearms have huge safety issues around them and that they want all their members to be very very careful about how they use those firearms. So they have a whole set of rules that they already administer themselves and that is what responsible gun owners do.As a member of the governing party we have focused on the idea that gun ownership is a privilege not a right. If this bill goes through then someone who has a firearms licence will know that she or he is truly trusted by their fellow citizens—truly trusted to hold a lethal weapon. That is a real mark of honour: that the rest of us would trust someone with a firearm that can kill. So I suggest that rather than criminalising people what this legislation does is it gives an opportunity for a badge of honour—that anyone who owns a firearm under these rules is someone we trust. That is why this is good legislation. As the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee it will be my privilege to work this legislation through the select committee process. I'm looking forward to working with the members of the Opposition on this. If I heard it correctly I think I heard that the Opposition is willing to perhaps agree to this bill in due course if we can work through some of the issues that might be there in the select committee. May I assure the members of the Opposition and members of the public who may be listening that I will do my best to ensure that it is an open process where we truly engage with the issues and I hope that we can come up with legislation that we can all agree with. I commend this bill to the House.