Shirley Ken: Arms Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Shirley Ken: Arms Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19787] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party strongly opposes this legislation. It is unnecessary as the New Zealand First Party member has just pointed out. Indeed it reminds me of the Arms Amendment Bill (No 2) and the disgraceful fiasco this House experienced with regard to it. That bill was brought to Parliament over 3 years ago now. I was on the Law and Order Committee as was Ron Mark and Simon Power. It was a disgraceful piece of legislation and there were 6000 submissions on it. It was quite clear that it was unworkable and that it was foolish. Even the police in the end—Mr Green I think was the name of their representative—advised the committee that yes that legislation would not work and there was no way the police could run the system that was proposed. So that bill was put on the back burner. But it was clear that this Government still wanted to put some runs on the board because it pledged to implement the Thorp report. Now if ever there was a foolish report it was the Thorp report. But this Government actually campaigned on the basis that it would implement that report so I think that in part this bill is all about trying to assuage those who still want the Government to be seen to be tough. 
I remember the Minister of Police being led by the nose on the previous bill. That was clear when it went on to the back burner because the select committee did not do a report on it in order to save the Government from its own embarrassment. The Government’s own members on the select committee then chaired by Janet Mackey conceded in the end that the legislation was a nonsense and an absolutely farcical situation so the select committee did not do a report on the bill and the Government just left the matter on the back burner. The Government was waiting for another sort of Aramoana situation or another Port Arthur or Dunblane situation where it could rush in with the support of public sentiment and legislate again against firearms. 
In this country we actually have quite good firearms laws if only we did not fiddle with them and as the previous spokesperson said as long as we actually enforced the existing laws rather than rushing to legislate for more controls. Here in this bill we have a classic response of the Labour Government in trying to curry favour with yet another United Nations committee. As if trying to wear the thickest hair shirt in the world on Kyoto is not enough the Government is rushing out here to sign up to the firearms protocol. We will probably find that the committee is chaired by a Nigerian—and there are incredible human rights issues in Nigeria—or by someone from the Ivory Coast or Liberia perhaps— 
Ron Mark 
: Mugabe. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Or by Mugabe. Yet New Zealand is rushing out to wear a thick hair shirt and say that yes we will comply with the letter of the protocol of the UN committee. 
 I think we have had enough of that nonsense in this country. It is time the Government woke up to the feelings and sentiments of the voting public who have also had enough of the politically correct claptrap that keeps coming into Parliament. There are many law-abiding citizens who own guns in this country and who are very responsible people. The point has been made about the folly of the earlier legislation which tried to move to the registration of firearms and firearm owners. Will gang members rush in to see that their firearms are registered before they hold up a bank? Will they rush in to make sure that they are registered before they do that? I do not think so. But somehow the Labour Government thinks we need more firearms legislation. There are many more pressing issues facing the country as we all know than the bill that is before the House tonight. 
My colleague Stephen Franks who is out on the campaign trail would have dearly loved to take part in this debate. He has already tabled Supplementary Order Paper 345 in his name and I draw that to the attention of members because he is using that opportunity to introduce some things that would be worthwhile to include if we are hell-bent on amending our firearms laws. In particular I refer to the fact that back in 1983 a right was taken away from New Zealanders by a law change regarding the legality of the use of force in self-defence—that is when victims reasonably feared that they were at risk of harm from an unprovoked offender or that a crime would continue if self-defence was not used. In 1983 we stripped the legal use of force in self-defence away from people when protecting themselves their families and their property. 
The ACT party says that we should restore the right to use force in self-defence. It is a fundamental right of citizens to defend themselves. The State says that people are not allowed to do that because it is illegal and that the State will act on behalf of people—that all they have to do is to ring 111 and the police will be there forthwith. We know that that is a lie. The Government cannot offer the protection to its citizenry that it purports to offer. Therefore citizens should have the right to defend themselves. We have the incredible situation whereby a Northland farmer could lose his farm because he has to meet the legal costs over charges he faced for defending his property and his family against an intruder who was committing theft on his property. Even though the farmer has been acquitted by a court the Crown continues to persecute him and he could lose his farm because he has to pay those legal costs. That is not right and that is what the amendment in Stephen Franks’ Supplementary Order Paper will address. We will be hearing a lot more about that as we move to the Committee stage of this bill. 
In summary we do not need this law. It should not be a priority. The Government has gone into urgency—the Leader of the House Dr Cullen acknowledges that the House has gone into urgency—and has put up bills like this one which nobody wants. Why is that? 
Ron Mark 
: Kofi Annan wants it. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Kofi Annan wants it and so does Robert Mugabe. A United Nations committee has written a letter to someone in Government and George Hawkins our Minister of Police—who championed the Arms Amendment Bill (No 2)— 
Ron Mark 
: The “Minister of Silly Ideas”. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: He certainly is the “Minister of Silly Ideas” as Mr Mark points out. George Hawkins perhaps looking for his swansong failed with the Arms Amendment Bill (No 2). Even his own colleagues on the select committee would not support it. The chair of the committee at that time Janet Mackey who is one of the most sensible members in the Labour caucus recognised that it was nonsensical and foolish legislation. Mr Hawkins was defeated and humiliated over the Arms Amendment Bill (No 2) so we have had this little token gesture to the Thorp report and to a committee of the United Nations return to Parliament. It beggars belief that Parliament will consume time on the consideration of this foolish bill. The ACT party will not even give it the dignity of voting for it to go to a select committee. Parliament has already considered the arms issue in the Arms Amendment Bill (No 2). There were 6000 submissions from the New Zealand public and I would say that 98 percent of them opposed it. Overwhelmingly submitters said that the existing laws were all right and that all we required was for the courts to enforce the existing laws. We do not need to rush new laws into Parliament that are foolish in concept.