O'Connor GregGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): It's with something of a heavy heart I stand to speak today. Many of the speakers today have spoken about Christchurch and focused their speeches around Christchurch but actually this isn't about Christchurch. Christchurch was the tip of the iceberg about just how badly managed our firearms system has been for many years. The warnings have happened along the way and they're warnings that have been ignored. I'll go back to ones I was personally involved in: the shooting of Len Snee in Napier. That offender had 15 firearms. For those firearms he had been a legitimate user. His licence had lapsed but the system as it existed meant that he existed in a vacuum and he was never discovered.We went on to the shooting in Kawerau of four police officers. Those police officers were shot by a man who had acquired the firearm from his brother who had legitimately had that firearm. On those occasions in my previous role at the New Zealand Police Association we had been calling for an inquiry so obvious was it that our system and the availability of firearms were out of control.Interestingly enough on the morning of that shooting the then Minister Judith Collins said there was no need for an inquiry. The shooting happened in the afternoon and that evening the inquiry was called. That's how politicised the system became and also how only with absolute necessity would anything be done. During that select committee I spoke to the select committee in my previous role and I said that if we didn't do something about our firearms laws an overseas terrorist or terrorist group would come to New Zealand realise how easy it was to acquire these weapons and would carry out an atrocity. It gives me no pleasure to say that was exactly what happened.Can I also say that in an article I wrote at the time It is in the interests of New Zealanders to preserve this country as a country where citizens can legitimately own and use firearms. Our forests and mountains are teeming with what I term 'edible pests' the killing of which allows hunters to make an ecological contribution to the natural environment." So this bill is not about hunting. It is not about firearms ownership. It is simply about ensuring that those who legitimately want to go about the business of hunting who go about the business of enjoying firearms can do so.Now to separate out and to think we should only have a bill that focuses on criminals is actually quite frankly ridiculous because even the bill that is being paraded across the House all that would do would be dealing with the legitimate acquisition of firearms by the criminal fraternity. The reality of it is the criminal fraternity acquire their firearms illegitimately but the vast majority of those firearms begin life legitimately. They are bought—whether it is from a gun shop or however else it is acquired the majority of those firearms actually start life legitimately and move into the criminal fraternity. It's actually about stopping the flow of firearms into that criminal community.In my time as a police officer in my early years firearms were relatively rare in the hands of criminals. For those that had them they were something of a status symbol and certainly quite hard to acquire and not something you ever wanted to risk losing by being careless with it—by careless: when you pulled it out. Also there were quite high penalties on them. What actually happened is that as the firearms laws became lax—and I have to say police have to take some responsibility for this—as the ability to import firearms and the laxness around who could buy firearms became apparent what that did was actually increase the flow of illegitimate firearms into the criminal community. So it was only from that pool of firearms that were legitimately purchased and for which anyone who bought that firearm had no responsibility for once it went out their door—whether it had been stolen whether they sold it to someone in a pub because there was no way it would ever come back to them.In my early days as a detective with many of the firearms we did see often the serial number had been somehow erased; it was not a difficult job to take it into the then Department of Scientific and Industrial Research now the Institute of Environmental Science and Research Ltd to actually get that serial number reproduced and it would be relatively easy to then trace the firearm back to where it legitimately began. That would then hold to account the often legitimate owner of that firearm as to why he or she had allowed it to fall into criminal hands. Often it had been sold in the back of a pub. So what it did do was ensure that those owners knew that if it went into the wrong hands and was used then they would be accountable for it. Once the law was changed so it was only the owner and not the firearm that was licensed then all of a sudden there was no responsibility for that individual firearm. And that's why we have this situation today. That's why what law we implement whatever we bring in it's important that we stop the flow of firearms into the criminal fraternity.Those who are speaking—and look I hear speeches. People believe they understand what they're saying but the analogy I use is this around firearms. People say "Well let's just pick on the criminals. Let's go out and do search warrants on the criminals." Well the problem with that is that many of the people who end up committing the crimes actually aren't necessarily the criminals at the time. You need to start looking across much more broadly. It's perhaps a poor analogy but I'll use the analogy of sex offending where we teach our children to be wary of strangers. There's this myth built up that the real danger to our children is actually from someone who's hanging around the park; someone who's hanging around schools. And that's actually not the case.The real danger to our children from sex offenders is actually people they know. It's actually family members. It's actually people who are legitimately brought into the house. And similarly it is with the firearms legislation. The real danger is actually not them over there those who get the guns because the reality is that many criminals commit offending against other criminals. They're not always a danger to the—I'm not in any way defending them. And of course whatever we do we still need to ensure that not only do we stop the supply but we get the supply off. The other thing I might say is that when criminals do get guns they store them very poorly because they have to actually ensure that they won't be picked up in a normal police search warrant. And what that means is that they're often stored in damp places in places that are dusty and the firearms very quickly lose the ability to be used quickly.I'd just also like to go on just to make people understand how many firearms are out there. Now the police in the past were very poor at collecting this. We as an association actually started collecting the statistics ourselves. In the last six months police have attended 1354 events. In the last six months they have seized 1206 firearms; that's 44 firearms a week. So that just gives you some idea of how many illegitimate firearms are out there. There are an incredible number and whatever we do we must actually ensure that we mop them up.Now again I hear the Opposition talking with glee about the fact that people aren't taking part in the firearms buy-back. Well I would suggest to those that think that they're going to sit on those firearms: just ensure you're not ever going to have a relationship break-up just ensure that you're not ever going to have a falling out with a partner just ensure you're not going to have a falling out with a mate or someone who knows you've got those firearms because that's where you're going to get yourself in very big trouble—because nine times out of 10 the people who will actually report you for that will be people who know you. So those who are sitting here watching this thinking "They're not getting my gun; I'm not handing them in." be very very afraid because unless you believe that you won't fall out with anyone that person is likely to be suffering from being brought into the system.As far as the registration goes the registration is actually a no-brainer. The only reason registration was discontinued the last time the Act was rewritten is that quite frankly it had broken down—it was a paper-based system and it was pre-computers. The general feeling is that had it been five years later that that Act had been rewritten once we understood computers and their capability it probably would have very likely remained a registration system because registration is in a country like New Zealand where people should grow up and I would like to see a situation where every New Zealander gets the opportunity to go out and enjoy this country. But it will only be done—we'll only protect hunters—by ensuring we have a robust system. And this bill will do it. I recommend this bill."