SpeechARMS (FIREARMS PROHIBITION ORDERS) AMENDMENT BILL (NO 2)First ReadingBRETT HUDSON (National): I move That the Arms (Firearms Prohibition Orders) Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill. Firearms prohibition orders are intended as an additional tool in the tool box of police to help keep New Zealanders safe. The National Party campaigned on firearms prohibition orders at the 2017 general election and we have championed them in this 52nd Parliament ever since. Regrettably although the Government had the chance in its own Arms Legislation Bill which was recently enacted they did not take up the opportunity to work with us on this regime that will help to keep firearms out of the hands of the most dangerous threats to the public of New Zealand.It is true that because this bill was crafted some time ago there have been a few changes—most recently of course the Arms Legislation Bill. They would necessitate some updates to this bill and the select committee is the perfect place for those updates to be made—for instance they are as small but significant as numbering changes to sections because that previous bill introduced some more. There is certainly the element of ensuring that the bill now captures all categorisations of firearms particularly for instance firearms which are now prohibited explicitly under law.But without question this bill and what the heart of it is will help to keep New Zealanders safe. I'd like just to give some background context to that particularly at this time. This bill was drawn from the ballot from the biscuit tin in February. The backdrop in New Zealand at that time and in the months leading up was a prolific amount of violence including murder involving gang members and firearms; stories such as a mother in South Auckland who was killed on her doorstep because her son who had gang connections wasn't at home; homes being shot up in Tauranga and multiple homicides in that town. There are far too many stories in recent times with gang members possessing most likely and most often firearms that they were not lawfully entitled to possess at any time using those firearms to commit crimes and regrettably too often to cause physical harm or death to New Zealanders. Something needs to be done.There are offences of course under the Arms Act for unlawful possession for unlawful discharge of firearms. We argue that there is a place—and in fact a much-needed place—for a very tough regime for those that do present the greatest risk to New Zealanders should they be in possession of or around firearms. Firearms prohibition orders are not intended to be widely issued across the general body of people who might possess firearms or have licences but who may also pose some sort of a risk to the public—they are intended for those who pose the greatest risk. That's why the criteria are quite narrow and quite strict. Firearms prohibition orders can only be issued under this bill against gang members who have already been convicted of a serious offence under section 86A of the Sentencing Act. That includes things such as murder such as manslaughter or attempted as such. It also includes sexual violence and other sexual crimes. These are crimes which are by their very nature and by legislation deemed to be serious.Part of the reason for that I will come to around the eligibility is about the impact that has been assessed over time on these measures against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act but the intention was all along to make sure that there was a narrow definition and that it was addressing people who posed the greatest risk. Now should members across the House agree for this to go to select committee I would welcome the opportunity not only to fix things such as section numbering and firearms categorisations but members might wish to discuss the eligibility criteria. It has been put to me by in fact a colleague and others that it's not only gang members that might present that greatest level of risk to the public. If members across this House in what would then be the next Parliament wished to look at that eligibility criteria and perhaps broaden it somewhat I would be certainly open to that discussion.But I contend and reiterate that it is important that we have an extra tool in the tool box of police to make sure that we keep guns out of the hands of those that represent the greatest danger to New Zealanders. This bill creates new offences with very harsh penalties for those that are subject to such orders who are in possession of firearms who are sold or supplied firearms—the seller or supplier is subject to those same very harsh penalties—or indeed who without reasonable defence are residing in premises where firearms are held.This is an opportunity to do what we as a Parliament should have done over the last 12 months. It was a criticism from us that the Arms Legislation Bill placed more cost regulation and rules on law-abiding firearms and did little if anything of substance to deal with genuine criminal behaviour and gangs. This could have been a part of that bill it is important that it becomes part of our statute book now and I certainly would call upon members across the House to support this.I just want to talk about the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act connotations because it is true that this does impact arguably rights for people and that has been reported in section 8 findings on more than one occasion now but I would draw the members' attention to section 4 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the sovereignty of this Parliament to choose to make laws that do impinge on people's rights. It is an explicit permission under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act that this Parliament can do so.I also just for context draw members' attention just a few weeks ago to the prisoner voting bill. Had we said the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act trumps everything the Government would have presented a bill that gave all prisoners the right to vote. It's actually what the court said in its assessment of the previous law but instead Parliament and the Government proposed one that still constrained rights to some. So even most recently we have a real-world example in this House where the Parliament gets to decide that it will pass legislation that does impinge rights. So the mere fact that there can be a finding that firearms prohibition orders do impact rights is no reason why this House can't or should not still look to enact legislation to put this regime in place.I'd just like to finish up with an acknowledgment of a news report I saw last night and that was that New Zealand First had signalled that they will support this bill to first reading. They had signalled that there are elements of it that they wonder are already taken care of through that Arms Legislation Bill that was enacted and certainly the eligibility for a gang member to have a licence is but as I say the heart of this bill is actually about new offences with very tough penalties around prohibition orders. But I would like to take this opportunity—I have never in fact in six years so looked forward to a contribution from a New Zealand First member in this House than I do this morning. But I acknowledge that report I look forward to their contribution and if it is the case—and I'd like to believe that report is accurate—then I'll take this opportunity to acknowledge New Zealand First for placing public safety ahead of politics and I welcome and thank them for that support. I pledge—and obviously this is all subject to an election in just a few weeks' time—to work constructively with all members of this Parliament on this bill should it progress to select committee. I say that's exactly what should happen this is something New Zealand needs and I commend this bill to the House.