Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Madam Speaker. I enjoyed that speech from Julie Anne Genter; thank you very much. It's important I think to just affirm what she said which is that what's needed here is not some chest beating and she used the word I think dog whistles" to a pretty vile image which is of brown people in South Auckland and that isn't the problem here. Gangs across New Zealand come in all shapes and sizes. It's a pity and I hope I'm allowed to say this in these unusual circumstances that Mr Brown isn't able to present his own bill here in the House because I would very much like to be able to eyeball him across the room and say that we are tired of him at every opportunity—even the opportunity when someone bought a prisoner a hamburger for a great kapa haka team performance; he leapt on that and what a vile vile approach to crime and justice that is.No what we want to do is to take a careful a measured and a balanced approach and that's an approach which isn't just leaping at a moment's notice onto firearms prohibition orders. Yes there is something in it; yes the approach and the theme is correct; but it's not fit for purpose. This bill is simply not fit for purpose. This Government will be introducing work on firearm prohibition orders. The work it's done on firearms is well known and some of that work has been done with cooperation across the House but there's more work to do and it isn't just a knee-jerk reaction.Look the Justice Committee here—and I've got the select committee report—did a Herculean task; I've never seen so much red ink. But the fact of the matter is that you can't make the proverbial silk purse out of a sow's ear and this bill which admittedly I understand wasn't drafted by Mr Brown—it was Mr Hudson's original bill—is just not a workable framework. I accept that as I know as a humble backbencher drafting a member's bill doesn't have the resources of Government but that's why the Minister needs to be given the space to properly prepare something which addresses all of the thorny issues and there are thorny issues in firearms prohibition orders.One of those which needs addressing is exactly who they extend to. What is the reach of a member of a criminal organisation? Is the trigger for example as I understand is in here some kind of serious criminal offending or should it extend a little bit further perhaps? Should it extend to associates people who are members of what is essentially a criminal organisation but have managed to escape the long arm of the law to date? That's an inquiry that we need to have and I suggest that it's something where we need to perhaps look a little more carefully because if the policy underpinning this is firearm safety as it should be—and everyone's policy is firearm safety—then we need to ask the question: where is the risk coming from? Is it coming from only those people who have done hard time—Hon Simon Bridges: It's coming from gangs.Dr DUNCAN WEBB: —for criminal offences or is it coming from a wider group of people including—Hon Simon Bridges: Oh come on!Dr DUNCAN WEBB: —to the future mayor of Tauranga—recent recruits.Hon Simon Bridges: Point of order Madam Speaker. It's out of order to refer to a member who's not in the House and Jan Tinetti's in the Beehive at the current time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I thank the member. That is not a point of order. While I'm on my feet I just want to reflect on some of the behaviour and language that has been a feature of the last couple of interventions. I'm relying on Speaker's ruling 44/2 to with regards to the use of the word "racist" being used in an insulting and demeaning way and I note that towards the end of the Speaker's ruling "the presiding officer must make a judgment." I'd just like to warn the House that in a couple of previous interventions I believe that threshold was getting very close. I'm very confident that speeches to this debate in the future will not be skirting into that dangerous territory.Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Thank you Madam Speaker. I was of course in my earlier contribution referring to my views of the underlying policies and not to the values of any member that may be involved in it.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! The member will resume his seat. I thank the member. I don't need to be told and given an explanation of where I may have been wrong in my ruling. I have ruled; I am now inviting the member to continue with his speech.Dr DUNCAN WEBB: So we absolutely need to look at the reach of these firearms prohibition orders and of course we need to look at not only to whom they may attach—gangs the gang associates—but also the locations involved. As the select committee rightly pointed out and wrestled with there are very much New Zealand Bill of Rights Act issues about entry into premises whether they be you know gang pads if you like gang houses houses that are known resorts for gang members or whether in fact they be ordinary residences. Of course once we extend if we look at extending the reach to people who are gang associates not necessarily convicted criminals then we do have to think very carefully about the right to enter into premises.Having said that you know the rights issues in respect of this legislation have to be seen against the background that there is no human right to carry a gun. This is not a right such as that entrenched in the American Constitution; this is a privilege which is conferred by the Arms Act and therefore the granting of a license or the ability to obtain a licence that this legislation if passed would take away—which a firearms provision order is—that is essentially a discretion a benefit extended by Government to citizens. It's not the case to say that not having the right to bear a firearm is some fundamental breach of rights. However the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure is and that's something which isn't sufficiently worked through in the legislation before us. The balance must be carefully struck. The threshold the evidential burden that needs to be shown before a police officer or other authorised person can enter into a residential premises must be high and there must be a safety threshold.But the other thing is this: that standing alone a piece of legislation like this doesn't do it. It's got to be part of an integrated response. We all know I think on both sides of the House that gangs are not—they are the symptom not the disease and we absolutely have to address the disease as well not only by addressing the activities of gangs but by the drivers of poverty of alienation and so on as well. This bill if passed wouldn't do the job. It's clunky unworkable. In some places it doesn't go far enough; in other places it doesn't deal with human rights issues satisfactorily.Look obviously all parties in the House want to work on this from the Greens to the ACT Party. We do have different approaches but the idea that we shouldn't allow people who are known dangers to the community to have guns goes without saying. Absolutely we're committed to it on this side of the House and it's great to know that it'll be supported when a fully-fledged bill is introduced. But until we get to that stage it's no good putting a half a bill—a half a bill—into law because it's only going to create more work and we know that you can't build a strong house on a foundation of sand and this would be a foundation of sand. It would be washed away; lawyers would drive a truck through it. It would be ineffective and it would become a laughingstock. To be honest it wouldn't do justice even to Simeon Brown so we're actually doing him a favour here.So look the fact of the matter is that there is work to do. It's part of the wider programme of police and justice in the gangs sector. This is a bill which arguably shouldn't have gone to select committee because it was never really going to work but you probably couldn't know that until the select committee did its work. I must say to the chair of that select committee—done a fantastic job. Of course we're following select committee advice when it said "Look we don't think it should be passed but if you must here's some tidy-ups." The select committee itself came to that conclusion.So look Simeon Brown's had a fairly good run out of members' bills and I suspect we're going to hear from him again in the not too distant future but this isn't one that should go any further. But I do look forward to discussing constructively a much more thorough thoughtful and well-planned-out firearms prohibition orders bill in the near future. Kia ora."