Williams ArenaARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): People deserve to feel safe in their homes and working communities like Manurewa bear the brunt of gun violence. That's why I'm proud to speak to the first reading of this bill introduced by a Government that is giving police the tools they need to crack down on serious crime and get guns off our streets while at the same underlying causes of crime are being addressed.When the Opposition say that this Government has not done enough to address gun violence that ignores the work of police to implement the sweeping reforms that brought stricter gun controls at a pace envied by the rest of the world with legislatures paralysed by inaction as gun crime grows globally. This is a Government that determined that the ability to own and operate a firearm is a privilege. That took thousands of semi-automatic military-style guns off the streets. That made changes to the licensing regime to ensure that strict controls are in place to make sure that guns don't fall into the wrong hands. That has resourced police with a highly specialised organised crime unit and has set the ground work for a new purpose-built firearms unit within the police to implement the reforms. Firearms prohibition orders (FPOs) go that extra step again. They stop someone being able to be in the presence of firearms that are not owned by them. It also extends police powers needed to enforce that. How big that next step is seems to be at the heart of this disagreement. I've heard from the Opposition tonight that a disagreement arising from some disappointment that the Government did not support a National member's bill that would have only applied to gang members.But we are in this House mostly in agreement because we see a problem that needs fixing so I will talk a little about the consensus here. It comes down to those rights which we are balancing and as a fundamental part of our role as Parliamentarians wherever we make changes to police powers we think carefully about the rights involved and the balancing of those rights. Firearms prohibition orders see the rights of a very small number with a history of violent offending restricted from being able to associate with people who own guns then balanced alongside the rights of ordinary New Zealanders to feel safe at their local shops and their schools and to be free from the threat of gun violence.Government consultation began on this in 2019 because it's vitally important that those communities who are most affected by this have their say on where to draw that line. That followed the recommendations of the Law and Order Committee in 2017 from its inquiry into the illegal possession of firearms which recommended that FPOs be implemented. The committee noted that several submitters had raised the introduction of FPOs pointing to three Australian states that had implemented them at the time and I thank that committee for their consensus building in this important area.These ideas have support from around the House but it's no surprise that a National bill proposed some of the changes in this legislation. However that extensive public consultation for this legislation was not done for a member's bill. The Government has also been able to deliver this proposal which strikes a balancing of rights far better and takes into account community voice and doesn't simply focus on gangs.So what are those disagreements? The first is that we could have done this quicker had we rewritten that member's bill. I was a member of the Justice Committee which considered that member's bill very closely. We made a number of changes especially around things like penalties. But in the end it was premised on a different sort of restriction on who could not associate with people who did legitimately own guns. That National Party member's bill before the House last year was in my view fundamentally flawed and it's not the way to implement a successful FPO regime. Their bill as introduced by Brett Hudson in the previous Parliament was a mess and that remained the case despite the Justice Committee's work. It would only cover gang members with convictions leaving gaps about who would be covered and it didn't extend to people convicted of terrorism offences.By contrast this bill will include serious firearms offences serious violent offences and offensive participation in organised criminal groups and terrorism related offences. It is not a smaller net it is not a wider net; it is a more focused net it is a more effective net that is captured here and therefore a better balancing of the rights of the small number of people who cannot associate with others who freedoms are in some way impinged upon.The second disagreement is that those offences are out of step and I look forward to this committee really digging into the detail of the two-tiered system of offences of penalties created by this bill which I think strike a good balance between punishment and deterrence in this instance.That's why I'm proud to stand with this side of the House which has made a difference in gun crime which is protecting people and which is making our communities safer.