Andersen GinnyHon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much Mr Speaker. Look in situations like this I think it's always good to go back to a good problem definition and look at what the proposed solution is doing to that. And that's exactly also what the Police have done quite a good job with with the supplementary analysis report on firearm prohibition orders (FPOs) which is tabled.So the problem definition in this paper states that Violent crime involving firearms is a significant source of harm in New Zealand." We agree with that and we agree that we would like to do something about that problem. "The objective" as it says in here "of the FPO regime is to improve public safety by reducing the likelihood that individuals who are high risk of violent offending are able to access firearms" something that we also agree with. The problem comes when it goes to assessing what the solution to this problem is and Police are pretty frank in their advice: "Given the newness of the FPO regime" the one brought in by the previous Government "which only took effect on 15 November 2022 Police consider that it's too early to evaluate if it is improving public safety. However"—this is the good bit—"there is a perception expressed in the National Party 2023 election manifesto and subsequent ministerial discussions that several legislative design features of the current framework limit the efficiency and the effectiveness of the regime." So Police say "We do not know whether the previous regime is working because it's too early" and furthermore the only evidence we have is a "perception" expressed in the National Party election manifesto and that is the basis of the law change that we are here tonight debating.The second point I'd like to make is in relation to the evidence for change. Police consider it is too early to properly assess and in addition the reason why it's too early to assess it is that the majority of those individuals who now have an FPO placed upon them are in prison; so we don't know how that will impact upon them because they're presently incarcerated. So we are introducing new powers tonight new ways to a regime which is unable to be assessed largely because all of the people it would currently apply to are in prison. The problem definition of these changes therefore has limited evidence to support—there is "very little baseline evidence to support future monitoring of whether these changes have been effective." Then it goes on to look at the risks. It's really important to look at the risks associated with proceeding with the current regime when there is no evidence or basis for changing it. "Few FPOs are issued as the impact on rights mean that they are only considered appropriate in extraordinary cases of risk to public safety. Evidence obtained by police in FPO searches may be ruled inadmissible where search powers are ruled to have been used in an unreasonable manner. Crown liability for damages may arise if FPO search powers are ruled to be used in an unreasonable manner." So the problem is it's still administered by the courts. You still need a judge to put one of these new things on somebody and so what the Police advice is saying is there may well be reluctance by the courts to do that.And the fourth point I'd like to say and this is one of my favourites—it's titled up "Assumptions Underpinning Impact Assessment". So the whole impact assessment is on assumptions: "There is an assumption that the current FPO regime is insufficient to mitigate firearms violence or control gang crime which has not been rigorously tested. Given the newness of this FPO regime it is difficult to assess if it is working effectively or whether amendments are needed to increase its efficacy." So that's interesting. Then on top of that we have a coalition Government who's making semi-automatic weapons more readily available to the general public. So you're introducing new powers on controlling gun control while bringing back semi-automatic weapons: loopy pretty damn loopy I say. It is unbelievable that you can try and trumpet that you're doing a tough-on-crime approach by bringing in something but at the same time you're making available semi-automatic weapons which will find their way into the hands of the criminal underworld whether you like it or not. The last point I'd like to make is the impact on Māori and the Treaty. It says "As these proposals will disproportionately affect Māori under the active protection and partnership principles there is a strong Te Tiriti o Waitangi argument base that Māori should at the very least be consulted. However due to time constraints no consultation with Māori has been done." But we won't need to worry about the active principle of partnership and the Treaty principles because ACT has a bill with that as well to get rid of those as well. So Madam Speaker this bill is a joke."