McKee Nicole; Hipkins ChrisNICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. Minister I'm looking at section 39C where the standard conditions for a firearms prohibition order (FPO) have been set out specifically (1)(d) of section 39C where it prohibits a person with an FPO upon them from attending a shooting range or a gallery. I had asked through the select committee: what determines a shooting range? The reason why I ask this Minister—you probably know about Remutaka Forest Park yourself. It's an area—along with TECT Park in Tauranga is another example—where you have not only a shooting range but other public facilities happening at that same place.At Remutaka Forest Park for example there's gliding—aeroplane gliding—there's also walking tracks there's also a go-kart facility there as well. And where the range actually is some people cannot access the range and a kilometre away is where they have to park their vehicles and take their firearms from their vehicles down to the shooting range.I had asked the question during select committee: what is being defined as the shooting range? Because we don't want people going go-karting and because they've parked their car where the guns are they then are deemed to have gone against their FPO or their order.And what I was told during the select committee process Minister was that the regulations regarding clubs and ranges were still in process and that it will be determined exactly what this means after that process has been finished and then a judge can decide what or whether that person was breaching their FPO.I'm a little bit unhappy with that because we have these areas where people could inadvertently breach them and not realise. So I'm hoping Minister that we can have recorded in Hansard the intent here to ensure that we don't have people accidentally happen upon an area where there is not just only the go-kart or the gliding but there happens to be a shooting range there as well. Thank you.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Police): Again I thank the member for a very pertinent and reasonable question. Perhaps if I refer her to page 6 of the bill section 42A(1) in clause 10 basically a person commits an offence if the person breaches a firearms prohibition order … (b) by failing without reasonable excuse to comply with any condition of an order."I think the point that the member raises would in my view be a reasonable excuse. So if someone didn't know for example that someone was going to be walking past carrying firearms in order to access a range that was some distance away that to me would be a reasonable excuse. The fact that someone happened to be in a car parking building where somebody else had firearms in a car for example; again they wouldn't know that they were there. It fails on the reasonableness test for someone to be pursued or to be deemed in breach for those things. But I think it's absolutely a legitimate point where clarity is useful for those things; happy to put that on the record.NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. I'm on a roll now!Clause 9 of this bill is moving current section 41A in the Arms Act and renumbering to section 59AAA and placing it after the Part 9 heading. It's a tidy-up clause there. I have produced a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) where I have suggested that perhaps subclause (3) could be removed and that is regarding the marking of certain types of firearms where the Crown absolves itself from having to pay any compensation for the devaluing of those items by this directive. I wonder whether or not the Minister would be prepared to support ACT's SOP which would make the Government—or the Crown—have to pay compensation for the devaluing of goods having to be marked?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Police): I thank the member for her honest attempt there in her Supplementary Order Paper which is rather opportunistic if I could put it that way. I do think it's wide of the intention of this bill which doesn't really deal with those issues at all.The renumbering and repositioning done under clause 9 is a direct result of the other amendments that this legislation progresses to make sure that the legislation as a whole continues to be coherent and have a logical structure to it. The provisions in clause 41A which is now being renumbered and repositioned haven't actually been changed; so there's been no policy intention to change any of that with this bill."