McLellan TraceyDr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Mālō e le lei thank you Mr Speaker. OK it's the Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Amendment Bill and today we're at a little bit of a crossroads I think on this legislative journey because on one hand it's a moment where we're actually making decisions that potentially have a profound implication on the safety and on the wellbeing of various communities but probably not in the way that we think so. We're here to discuss the Government's proposed changes to firearm protection orders (FPOs) but I think we have to be really clear from the outset and let me be clear from the outset that these changes aren't what they seem. They're not robust and we've heard from several people today that have pointed out reasons as to why that's true. They're not safety-enhancing measurements that the Government's contributions to date would have you believe and instead actually they're just a bit of a smokescreen. They're a diversion from the real and dangerous agenda that's at play here which is simply a loosening of the gun laws to make military-style semi-automatic weapons more widely available.Now when we begin by acknowledging the existing framework the FPOs as has been discussed are already in place or the laws surrounding it—the current conditions—are already in place and they are functioning effectively. As my colleague the Hon Dr Duncan Webb said they haven't been there for that long and we don't have enough empirical evidence or enough data to show whether this is doing as good a job as it could be. But why bother ramping that up and doing something else before we've had the chance to discuss that or just to really get to the bottom of whether that was working? By doing this we're introducing a whole another set of variables that actually have detrimental effects on other people.These orders are a critical tool that the courts currently use to prevent individuals—particularly those involved in criminal activities. The current legislation we believe certainly on this side of the House is comprehensive. It covers not only the firearms but also ammunition restricted weapons and other related items. So I think that the system is working as is. It's designed to protect the public by ensuring that those that actually do pose a risk—because let's be clear there's some people that do pose a serious risk—are kept away from firearms.So when we think about it we could ask why therefore is there need for change. I think the answer is quite simple and that's just that there isn't one. The Government's proposed amendments add almost nothing new. They extend the FPOs—sure—to a broader group of people including those over 18 who are either members of gangs or organised crime groups or they may just be mere associates or in the wrong place at the wrong time. It's supposed to be for those convicted of certain offences but let's be honest this is not going to be about that. It's not groundbreaking and it's open to misuse. It's open to all sorts of things going wrong and the tools to protect our communities already come from the Search and Surveillance Act. The police already have I think the powers to conduct warrantless searches to the extent at which we should be affording them the opportunity to do so in the first place. So this is not entirely new but it steps over a line without actually fixing something that it purports to do so and I think that that's a dangerous combination. So it's certainly not innovative. It's not going to do any of the things that I think it has been said that it will but it introduces a level of uncertainty and a level of potential risk that I think is just not worth it.That again brings us back to what the true intent is behind these changes. This is one of four bills or potential bills that will be making their way through this House. Together they're leading us in a direction that I don't think in retrospect we'll be very pleased with. The Government's real agenda here is to loosen gun laws. I think that that can't be said in a light way and that shouldn't be perceived in a light way. The Government's real agenda is to loosen gun laws in a way that will make things more accessible. Now that might end up being an unintended consequence but if you don't take notice of the unintended consequences and if you don't take notice of the advice and of all the information that's what can happen. So it's not just conjecture and it's not just me saying that; it is in fact supported by police advice that these weapons will inevitably end up on the black market. Who benefits from that? Actually it's the gangs and the criminal organisations that you're purporting to crack down on—so the very people that we're supposed to be trying to protect our communities from—and the irony of that is actually quite palpable.The Government claims that they're tough on crime and we've heard them say that on many occasions. So there's a lot of verbose talk about it but when push comes to shove and they've actually got opportunities to put bills through this House and to create legislation—when you actually look at it it doesn't do what it says it's going to do. Their actions will put more dangerous weapons in the hands of criminals and that's not something we should take lightly.Now let's consider the practical implications. The bill proposes to extend the FPOs and we've talked about that today and other people have gone through the specifics of that but it doesn't achieve anything. It creates this illusion of action while actually doing nothing to address the root causes of gun violence. I know that other people have said that but we should think about that more deeply. It's not a time to be shallow. It doesn't do what it says it's going to do but it provides the opportunity for the Government to point to a specific example of them being tough on crime. While that might not seem like a bad idea to many it also prevents them from doing the things that they should be doing to be tough on crime. It's a false sense of security.So it's not all just benign things—it's not doing anything—but as I said it also introduces some variables that actually can have some pretty profound implications not only on individuals and not only on certain communities but it's a slippery slope to degrading the types of standards that we should have in some of that surveillance and some of that police work. I think that the best example of that is surely the bill introducing without-cause search powers. Almost every speaker on this side of the House has chosen to highlight that and that's no accident. That absolutely is our number one concern when we think about this. On the surface it might sound like it's a small thing but when you start looking at the ways in which it could be misused it's quite frightening to think of the ways that could manifest.So as I've said if this bill was making our communities safer we wouldn't have a problem with it but because it's not we can't support the bill. It's not about preventing gun violence; it's about creating a distraction—a distraction from the fact that the Government is quietly working to loosen gun laws and making our streets more dangerous not less and this bill does nothing at all to address the issues around gangs or around all of the things that the National Party in particular has campaigned on so hard for. Instead the bill weakens the very protections that keep most of those communities safe.In contrast Labour in Government was the one that introduced the firearm registry and that was a critical tool in reducing gun crime over time. We're the ones that have taken actual meaningful steps to address the root causes of violence and keep those dangerous weapons out of the hands of the people that we don't want having them—out of the hands of the people who could very easily misuse them. So when we look at that contrast it just beggars belief that the National Party are being led by the ACT Party here and introducing a piece of legislation that they must surely know doesn't do what they're being led to believe in.In conclusion I really think that anybody listening and people considering this—and I want to acknowledge the people that submitted on this bill and gave their time to lend their expertise and their lived experience. It was informative and it was really interesting to hear something from as many different perspectives as we were able to during this process and I urge people to think about this bill for truly what it is. It's a dangerous distraction from the real issues at hand—not just in the manifestation of this bill but what's yet to come. The Government has proposed changes to FPOs that I don't believe enhance our society in any way shape or form—in fact they undermine it—and let's not be swayed by empty gestures. This is one of several bills that are going to be finding their way through the House in this genre in this particular sector. I think it's the first time that we have a real reminder that we should be looking through the lens not be blinkered and realise the fact that this is another empty gesture and a hollow promise. Our commitment actually must be to the safety of those communities and on this side of the House we are committed to the safety and security of all New Zealanders. So we don't support this bill in its current form we don't believe it achieves anything at all and we do not commend this bill to the House.