Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I want to return back because the debate we're having on Part 1 and this entire vigorous argument about appropriate gun laws comes back to that awful tragedy that occurred on 15 March 2019 in Christchurch in which 51 New Zealanders lost their lives. The entrée for determining what is the right legal change must first be to establish what occurred and it's not that difficult. Now I ask the question: the murderer in Christchurch did he get his gun licence appropriately under the old law? A pretty basic question. What we have found out is that in November of 2017 that individual got a gun licence but only this week we have found out that the checking of the referees did not occur according to the law and I just simply want to know what the truth is. It's very simple and I actually find it quite appalling that 17 months after that tragedy basic important facts about what occurred are not being disclosed. So I'm going to ask the Minister again: were the proper referee checks carried out on the gunman who killed all those people in Christchurch? What is alleged this week is that the referee checks were people that the gunman had had an internet-based chatroom with—really? Fifty-one New Zealanders lost their lives as a consequence of police not doing their job of vetting that man under the existing law and why that matters is that there is all this effort and work about rewriting the law and actually it was a failure of the old law that brought that tragedy to New Zealand. The requirement of the Minister in the chair the Minister of Police is very very simple: who was the referee for Mr Tarrant? Was it as alleged an internet chatroom friend from more than a thousand miles away and at the other end of the country because if that is true why has this Parliament—which over the last 18 months has debated arms laws extensively—not had access to that most basic fact. There's a piece of paper in the police department that will show the paperwork of who the referee was. Does the Minister in the chair know who the referee was? It's a very simple question: who was the referee that provided the evidence to police in November 2017 to issue him with a gun licence—does he know? Hon Stuart Nash: Do you want me to answer the question? Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It's very simple: does he know—yes or no? Hon Stuart Nash: Do you want me to take the call? Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No no—the last time you wouldn't answer the question. Just answer the question—yes or no—does he know who was the referee for Mr Tarrant's gun licence issued in November 2017? It's a very basic question. Hon Stuart Nash: Do you want me to take the call? Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well in answer does he know? CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I think it would be really helpful—Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I'm happy to—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): —if members tried to address the legislation that we're considering. Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well actually it's fundamental to the—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Sorry it'd be really helpful if you didn't talk over me. Could you please resume your seat. You'll have the rest of your call. Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well the last time I did that you took the call off me. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): That's correct because you didn't take it. It's not helpful to the process of the committee for the member and the Minister to have a cross-bench conversation. If the Minister wants to answer the question he can stand and take a call and that's the process that the House has agreed to and that's why we've surrendered the four-speech limit. So you can have as many calls as you like and keep asking the same question. It's up to the Minister to determine whether he answers it or not but it is expected of a Minister to answer it. Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I'm happy to yield to the Minister providing the Chair will enforce the Standing Order that he'll keep to the answer that is required and the call is returned to myself. If the Chair gives that reassurance I'm happy to yield to the Minister to answer the specific question: did—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): OK if the member could just—Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —he know—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): If the member could just resume his seat and I want to correct the assertion that Mr Seymour made on the same point. During the debates in the House a member can yield a part of their 10-minute speech—their one 10-minute allocated speech—in order to have a specific question addressed. The process during the committee stage is different. With the four-call limit removed members should not yield but rather a series of short calls enable questions to be answered and members can be confident they will have multiple short calls. Hon Dr NICK SMITH: There is a very important question pertinent to Part 1 as to how the murderer in Christchurch got access to his firearm. The law of the time required a referee. What we know is that a police officer has alleged that the referee was not a family member nor a close associate as required by the law but a person who lived more than a thousand miles away and who had only met the killer via an internet chatroom. That is extraordinary and what is even more extraordinary I would say to Mr Seymour and others in the committee is that Parliament has spent months debating arms laws but it has not had access to that very basic fact. We asked the Minister—and I'm just going to keep asking the Minister because I say that we owe it to the memory of those 51 people who lost their lives—for the answer to the very basic question: was the referee for the killer in the Christchurch tragedy a person who lived a thousand miles away and who had never met the killer? Why that is so pertinent is because it would show that that tragedy was not caused by a flaw in the law but was caused by the law not being followed. So while we can have all of the debate about the provisions in Part 1 if this Parliament is to be true to the memory of those 51 people we owe it to get to the bottom of the facts of what occurred and we owe it to ensure that we go after the failures that occurred that resulted in that tragedy because of the old law being breached in the event that that was the justification for the issuing of that gun licence that was pertinent to the killer gaining his arsenal of weapons which he used so abhorrently on 15 March. So again I say to the Minister in the chair that he's got access to the information. He should share it with the committee. A very simple pertinent point and that is: who was the referee who enabled police to issue that gun licence and was the issuing of that gun licence done lawfully? I would contend to the committee that it could not have been issued lawfully if it was for someone who had only met the murderer via an internet chatroom and someone—Michael Wood: Completely irrelevant. Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well Mr Michael Wood interjects that he thinks it's irrelevant. He thinks it's irrelevant as to how the killer in Christchurch got to get a firearms licence because it's only through getting a firearms licence that he was able to get the arsenal that enabled him to kill 51 people. I would say to the chair of the select committee—who's far more interested in ramming legislation through than getting it right or in protecting future New Zealanders—that he has been negligent. Mr Michael Wood has been negligent in his duties as chair of the select committee and in not wanting the answer to that question. I ask Mr Michael Wood: does he know who the referee was for the Christchurch murderer to gain a firearms licence in November of 2017? He doesn't want to answer the question. New Zealanders want the answer to the question and whether it be the chair of the select committee or the Minister of Police I say this: what are they wanting to hide? How can they look New Zealanders in the eye and say of the most open and transparent Government ever—we know there's a piece of paper in the police department that will very simply answer the question as to who that referee was. Before this Parliament advances legislation of this sort we need that answer because we need to know and we need to be absolutely confident that in the arms laws that we are passing we are fixing the errors that let that tragedy occur in Christchurch. I say that the Minister in the chair has been negligent in the 15 months after that tragedy in not being able to answer that very pertinent question and I invite him to do so now.