Clendon David: Arms (Military Style Semi-automatic Firearms and Import Controls) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Clendon David: Arms (Military Style Semi-automatic Firearms and Import Controls) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 22 May 2012. Volume:680;Page:2283. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora koutou. It probably comes as no surprise to anyone to know that the Greens will be supporting this legislation the Arms (Military Style Semi-automatic Firearms and Import Controls) Amendment Bill. Given that we are a party of principle and that one of our four core principles is a commitment to non-violence it would be odd in the extreme I think if we were to not support legislation that seems well intentioned towards creating more public safety and putting some further constraints on the use of a particular style of weapons.  
Clearly there is a legitimate place for firearms in our community. I believe there are in excess of 220000 - odd New Zealanders who are licensed firearm users: hunters of course; competitive shooters; people involved in pest management; farmers—these are all people who can legitimately use weapons and routinely do in the course of their daily business or their recreation. That is as it should be but we also need to balance that with a recognition that firearms are lethal. They can inflict lethal damage; they can kill people. For that reason they need to be carefully managed and regulated and we think on balance that this bill takes us a few steps in a better direction.  
Substantially this bill seeks to provide greater clarity about the definition of what exactly constitutes a semi-automatic military-style weapon. It was evident from the case law that has been mentioned the  
Lincoln 
 case that there was sufficient ambivalence in law that there was too much grey between the black and white and that the situation did need to be tidied up to ensure we are not constantly caught in these legal battles which do not really serve anybody’s interests.  
I think to the layperson clearly what defines these semi-automatic military-style weapons is simply their rate of fire—their ability to do a great deal of harm in a very short time with a rate of fire much in excess of single shot or the old-style bolt-action weapons. And we know from experience that these are the most dangerous weapons when they are in the wrong hands.  
We know that many of the tragedies that have occurred internationally with gun use have been as a result of military-style automatic weapons. In one horrific instance I believe something close to 20 people were killed in under 2 minutes by a person wielding one of these weapons. There is no legitimate use for that sort of firepower in private hands and I think this bill is admirable to the extent that it seeks to ensure we do not have these weapons in the community.  
It has been very interesting. I certainly was not on the Law and Order Committee. I am not sure that the Greens were routinely present on the committee despite—as no doubt members will know—my friend and former parliamentary colleague Keith Locke having some very strong views about gun control which he was never shy to express. But I know despite not having been on the select committee that there has been a great deal of lobbying around this bill and some of it in quite recent times.  
Advocates for a more relaxed perhaps approach to gun control and particularly to the importation and allowability of these weapons have been active. The usual complaint is that this will put up a lot of red tape and bureaucratic barriers to responsible owners without actually doing much to limit the criminal use of these weapons or the availability of them.  
I have to say that some of the attitudes and some of the tactics of the lobbyists have actually done their cause no good. I am sure other MPs would have seen similar emails to the ones I have seen where they begin with several paragraphs explaining why they know that politicians will be of limited intelligence or experience such that we will not be able to make good gun law but nevertheless these people will do their best to instil good sense into us. I would suggest to those people that that is not a very promising approach if you are trying to persuade anybody.  
But more seriously yes I certainly read those emails I took the trouble to inform and educate myself a little bit about some of the issues around these weapons and the features that define them and on balance I think that this bill will add a layer of clarity and a layer of certainty to definitions and so on and so for that reason we support it.  
The bill—again as has been commented on—does allow for the use of regulations to update and modify the legislation on gun control and gun management and we think that is appropriate not least of all because technology moves at an alarming rate. I am sure there are weapons available today that were only dreamt about a relatively short time ago. Technology can change and so too can public tolerance for particular sorts of weapons wax and wane over time. I think allowing for the use of regulations to amend these definitions without the necessity of a legislative change is an appropriate mechanism acknowledging also that there is the built-in backstop if you like of a degree of parliamentary scrutiny of those regulations after they are made.  
Mr Ross Robertson who just resumed his seat also mentioned that there is a provision for a District Court appeal. If any person is determined that the police or whoever got it wrong in terms of defining that person’s particular weapon or the features of their weapon there is that avenue of appeal to the District Court. I would actually hope that some of the people who have been quite vocal advocating for a different or arguably a less constrained approach will take that opportunity. Clearly for an individual to go to the District Court could be a costly venture but one would think that some of the major gun clubs some of the associations representing gun users or indeed some of the industry—some of the dealers stores and gun shops—might see it as being in their interest to take these challenges to the court. It is appropriate that they have that avenue open to them.  
The other aspect of the bill of course is that it does put some constraints on the importation of airguns that look like real pistols or military-style weapons. The old-style slug gun might not have done people harm but modern airguns and air pistols are certainly capable of inflicting quite serious harm on people. Indeed they are a danger to the people wielding them to the extent that if the police are called to a situation and somebody is waving something around that looks like a real weapon then the police are obliged to treat it as though it is. That is likely to end very badly for the individual foolish enough to be waving one of these things about. So I think we are identifying that these airguns in their own way can be almost as conducive to a threat to public safety as the real weapons could be.  
The issue of an arms forum or some sort of standing consultative group has been brought up and I have read the Labour minority report with interest and also I have heard the comments of the Minister of Police and some of the Government speakers. It is important. Clearly weapons and firearms will always be contentious and the best way to deal with contentious issues is to create a platform where all sides of an argument can be heard. Clearly the police will always have very strong views on these matters and that is as it should be. But equally community interests need to be represented and they need to be assured that even if they do not win an argument at least they have had the opportunity to have their points heard. So along with others we will be interested in seeing just what does evolve in terms of creating that public space that forum for the ongoing discussion about what is always a contentious issue.  
That is probably sufficient from me. I just in closing would say that the Greens have some views on other matters about gun use gun ownership and gun control which we would like to see Parliament bend its mind to on occasion but that is for another day. For the minute we believe this legislation is well intended and is likely to give good outcomes and for those reasons we will be supporting it. Thank you.