McClay Todd: Arms (Military Style Semi-automatic Firearms and Import Controls) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
McClay Todd: Arms (Military Style Semi-automatic Firearms and Import Controls) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 05 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7247. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 The problem is not with those who legitimately and lawfully use these types of firearms; the problem we have is with those who do not. I want to say to the last speaker Richard Prosser whom I do have a lot of respect for—and incidentally I enjoyed your speech on my gang bill the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill so very much more so than this speech but it is good to know that in many areas of law and order we have much in common. What I did want to say to Mr Prosser was that we accept that we must have rules around firearms. I think nobody would say we should go back and get rid of licences and let there be a free-for-all. For legitimate users of firearms I think there is wide acceptance that there is a need to balance public safety and restrictions on controls around these weapons—so that where others would misuse them we can give guarantees and certainty through our police to the public—against unreasonable impositions on legitimate users and the rules around that. 
I know that to the Law and Order Committee so very many people—hunters firearms users and enthusiasts—came who had concerns with this legislation the Arms (Military Style Semi-automatic Firearms and Import Controls) Amendment Bill. But as a hunter and a firearm licence holder myself I do say to the Minister of Police that I think she has the balance about right. It is never easy when you need to change the settings from a policy point of view. But I do believe that in this instance we have been able to balance the need for public safety with the concern that is raised—legitimate concern—by our police around the misuse of firearms and therefore the need for additional regulation upon legitimate firearms licence holders and people who own these guns and do so lawfully within the bound of the law so that we can have some common sense out there. 
Mr Prosser said that there are lots of bad laws that good people do not adhere to. Actually I would challenge that. There are a lot of bad laws in this country. There was 9 years of lawmaking before we came to Government and a hell of a lot of that was quite bad but the vast majority of good people adhere to those laws. Indeed whether you agree with a law or not if this Parliament has passed it even if others would say it is a bad law if you are a responsible citizen you must adhere to that law and you must be law abiding. If you disagree with it you have the ability to come to this Parliament and keep making the case. The challenge we have today is that there are so many good laws that are ignored by bad people and that is where we have the problem. 
To my knowledge I am not sure that there are many cases where these weapons that we are talking about have been used to commit a crime by the lawfully licensed owner. There will be some I am sure but very very few. So our challenge is not around those who are adhering to the law at the moment and who are doing everything that this Parliament says they must; it is about those who have complete disregard for the law and put the lives of our police officers our ambulance officers and the general public at risk. As a hunter I say that although I might if I was to own one of these weapons have to go and upgrade some of my security and so on actually I take my responsibility seriously. I do not believe that I have an absolute right to hold a firearms licence. I accept the rules that this Parliament has put in place. And if therefore that means there is an additional cost to me because of the type of recreation I choose if that means that the public is safer then I will spend that little bit of extra money. I will go and get that licence upgraded as I need to so that I can be assured and more secure in the knowledge that when I do not have that weapon in my control nobody else can easily take it and misuse it and that as a result of my inaction there could be a horrible loss of life. 
I will finish just by saying that I am a great advocate for all those who legitimately and lawfully own firearms in this country and I will continue to come to this Parliament to fight for their rights. But they must realise that if they want to have the ability to continue with their recreational pursuits they have a greater obligation to other New Zealanders than most other people have to make sure that they continue to act lawfully and that their firearms are secure. Therefore I say again to the Minister that I think she has found a very good balance in the legislation. 
Actually there was one thing I wanted to recognise—a change that was asked for by representatives of the New Zealand firearms community so that they could have an ongoing say in relation to the use of firearms and restrictions and the way they are being controlled. The select committee actually recognised this and said it was a good idea and I know that the police have already started to actively explore the establishment of an arms advisory forum. That is the place to continue that debate not to take the legislation away and think about it a bit more deeply over Christmas. We should bring in the legitimate users sit them down with the police and find a way that we can continue this debate to make sure that we do not put unfair restraint upon what they are trying to do but continue to allow the police to target the scumbags who are out there causing grief for everybody harming so many New Zealanders and therefore getting in the way of those who have legitimate reasons to use these guns. Thank you.