Bishop ChrisCHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Thank you very much Mr Chair. I just want to respond to some of the Minister's comments around my Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 203 around the exemptions for international sporting shooting competitions. The Minister's comments ranged from the I suppose reasonable but wrong through to the stupid and ridiculous and I want to go through some of those comments. The first thing he said was that international three-gun competitors could just use .22s and he said that that was the advice to the committee. I don't remember that advice being given to the committee and in the event that that advice was given—Michael Wood: Yes it was given by police. CHRIS BISHOP: OK well the chair is saying that's correct. The chair is saying that that advice was received. My point to the committee is that I'm advised by those in the international sporting shooting community that that is categorically wrong and that .22s are incapable of being used for the international competitions we are talking about. They're not effective on the ranges they're not used internationally and also you need shotguns with more than five rounds. So that's the first point. The second point the Minister made was that people could still use them overseas in competitions which is true I suppose but of course neglects the fact that people are unable to practise with the very weapons they're going to use overseas. So we get this silly scenario—which actually Australia is in as well to be fair—where people would be able to travel overseas and use weapons in countries where the prohibited weapons we're talking about are legal but because they're illegal in New Zealand they're not able to practise with them. I think that is a strange scenario. Then we heard the third point—that there are very few people affected by this—and Chlöe Swarbrick yelled out It's just 10 people." Well again that's wrong. My understanding is that there are about a thousand people affected—[Interruption] Well I'm just responding to what your Government member said Mr Nash. Chlöe says there are 10 people affected. Actually it's more like 1000 and even if in the best case scenario it was 10 people affected by the provision firstly—Andrew Bayly: Why should they be affected? CHRIS BISHOP: Exactly—the quantum in some ways is irrelevant. Ms Deborah Russell during the select committee process was very concerned about the quantum of people affected as if the gravity of the harm done depends on the number of people—but anyway. So the number of people affected is in some ways irrelevant but secondly even if it is relevant 10 people being affected is an argument for my SOP because it affects such a slim number of people. That's actually an argument for the amendment. It's for the SOP. It's not an argument against it by simply saying "Oh it's just 10 people." as if these 10 people are the only people affected by it. Firstly as I say that is wrong—it's far more than that. It's actually 100 times that number. It's 1000 people give or take a few and secondly even if that is correct—if Ms Swarbrick is correct—that's an argument for the SOP because the whole genesis of this bill and the whole genesis of the Government SOP towards the bill is to reduce the number of guns in circulation. If it's true that it's just 10 people that's certainly better than 1000 so that's an argument for my amendment not against it. The fourth point is to say that the Government went through some careful process around working out what competitions would be affected and what wouldn't. The Commonwealth Games didn't have these three-gun competitions and neither did the Olympic Games. As I already made the rebuttal to that point in my contribution earlier on that is true but irrelevant. Then the fifth point from the Minister was—and this is the really ridiculous one—that you could drive a truck through the regime proposed and that the National Rifle Association are going to come down here and set up some fake sporting competition to allow all the American gun nuts to go around and use these military-style weapons. Hon Stuart Nash: That's not what I said. CHRIS BISHOP: It's literally—don't frown your face at me. That's literally what you said. Hon Stuart Nash: The NRA is—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The Minister in the chair does not interject from the chair. That is to cease. CHRIS BISHOP: Thank you Mr Chair. The Minister can get upset about stupid remarks that he makes but he shouldn't be upset when members decide to call out Ministers on absurd things they say. So that's not the regime that's not what we were proposing and actually that's rebutted by the official advice that was given to the committee around pistol clubs. What we're seeking to do is essentially replicate the exact same regime that exists around pistol clubs and if it is correct as the Minister says that you can drive a truck through all the exemption regimes around regulated sporting shooting clubs if that is correct that any old Jo Schmo can come down and set up a shooting club and essentially get around—[Time expired]"