Hudson BrettBRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's actually quite rich that we have a Minister leading a bill that is focused almost entirely on greater cost regulation and rules on people that already follow the law and he's prioritising that ahead of things like firearms prohibition orders that would actually do something giving police a genuine additional tool to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and particularly gang member criminals.The Minister of Police has been gazing at his navel for over two years now on that initiative. We campaigned on it in 2017. We've had a bill in the members' ballot. It's now been drawn for a second time. The Minister and his colleagues voted it down in 2018 and they've denied leave for that measure to be brought forward. Over two years later he's still wondering what he might or might not do about it but he's very quick to add cost and regulation on members of New Zealand society that do not break the law and do not represent a risk to public safety while doing basically nothing about those that do.Now when this bill was introduced and had its first reading we made it very clear that we opposed it for that very reason: the very reason that it does nothing about genuine criminal activity in gangs and does everything about layering cost administrative burden and regulation on people that already follow the rules.Now the backdrop to the committee considering this bill particularly in its latter stages of consideration was a New Zealand with a proliferation of gang tension and violence often involving firearms. Just in the space of two or three weeks: gun shots in Ruatōria; gun shots in Napier at a health centre; a shotgun blast in Taradale which almost hit a young infant in a car seat; and pistol crime shots in Tauranga with semi-automatics used a triple homicide—or two homicides: one double and a single homicide there. Of course a suspect also lost his life while seeking to evade police. This is the backdrop in which we were considering this bill. What does the bill do about those sorts of crimes? Absolutely nothing—it does absolutely nothing.Here's the thing—here's the thing—the Minister doesn't want to accept which is the evidence—and this actually strikes to the registry too. He and the Prime Minister have repeatedly said We'll keep guns out of the hands of criminals." Well that's certainly not the evidence that was presented to the committee in this instance and in the select committee inquiry of 2016-17 the evidence out of Australia—which has had a registry for many a year—was that in the case of homicides in 90 percent of those involving firearms the firearms are not registered. So the register is not keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals. To his point about the provisions in this bill about how gang members can be denied a licence well just under 90 percent of firearms offences in Australia—that evidence showed us—are committed by people who don't have a licence. So putting tougher licence provisions on people that follow the law is going to do nothing at all for those that don't.It was an absolute opportunity missed. We could have added firearms prohibition orders to this bill in committee the right place for consideration of serious policy. But the Minister instead wanted to do a bit more navel gazing and had some sort of consultation thing that ran to about 13 January—still plenty of time to have taken that and placed it in the bill; he chose not to. He chose not to add provisions to the bill that would have targeted genuine criminal activity and gangs.Instead what he did do of course was he did add greater regulation-making power by seeking to drop on the Finance and Expenditure Committee a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) SOP 408 seeking to ban a couple more firearms types that he and the Police had missed the first time around. Now that actually arguably is a good thing. The committee is the right place to discuss and debate that. But one of the things it did—perhaps the most egregious part of that SOP—was right at the very end it enhanced the regulation-making power that was placed in there in April permitting the Government through their advisers Police—or Police through the Government—to ban pretty much any firearm that they might want to at any time. In fact it goes further because the way it seeks to enhance that power is to limit what can't be banned. So it's actually making a far too powerful regulation-making power even worse.Along the way though what the committee was expected to do and to report on was to make life a bit tougher for those who already follow the law. For instance clubs and ranges—which the regulatory impact statement from officials showed very clearly have no history in New Zealand of a problem at all—suddenly are expected to have administrative processes and burden placed upon them—on groups small groups of volunteers—that threaten in some cases the very existence of those clubs and ranges. The worst point of all about that is that they are the safest areas for firearms use in the country. They are already regulated by rules of shooting bodies because most of them—not all of them but most of them—participate in some sort of sports shooting activity. It could be pistol it could be 3-gun it used to—until the law changed—be service rifle and others. But none the less those clubs and ranges are the best managed and the best regulated through their club arrangements. Instead the Government just wants to layer more on them. It's not going to make anyone safer—it's not—because people aren't unsafe in those environments in the first place. Along the way of course we looked at the fit and proper person test and there was this desire to have proactive notification. We discovered in the Finance and Expenditure Committee—I won't say "quite by accident" but we discovered in the committee—that such already exists. It exists under the Health Information Privacy Code which already permits health practitioners to notify the police if they are concerned about a serious threat to the life of—in this case—the firearms holder to the public safety or to the lives of others. There are two parts they have changed. One is actually good which I'll start with and one is not so good. The part that they've changed which is really good is that it effectively creates an indemnity from prosecution for that health practitioner which we're told does not exist under the code and existing legislation. That's a good thing. It gives an additional sense of protection to the practitioner that if they are discharging their duty well they are not going to face prosecution. But the bad part is that it changes the threshold for notification. It actually reduces it down and neither the Government directly nor their advisers could give a proper justification to the committee as to why that was necessary. We suggested that they could take the threshold words as currently exist under that code bring them into the legislation wrap around that protection and have a very very solid proactive notification system and one that we would have no problem at all supporting. But they chose not to do that. With regard to the registry—as I have touched upon—which we're told consistently will keep guns out of the hands of criminals the evidence from overseas shows it simply won't do that and in some jurisdictions it has shown to be so difficult to try to implement and so costly that they've actually pulled it out. But in the places where it does remain we have seen the evidence that it simply doesn't deliver on that objective. Now we're not opposed ideologically to having a registry but what we say and maintain is that it's got to deliver a practical and useful objective that is measurable and—most of all—achievable. With the repeated claim from this Government that this is about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals we know through the evidence it cannot do that. We cannot support it on that basis. We have maintained since April that there should be exemptions allowed for the legitimate use of now prohibited firearms. Pest control is one and we thought we were going to get a regime for pest control in the first bill in 2019 but that didn't happen. Despite submissions on this it wasn't discussed in the select committee this time. Instead the police and the Government have put through a regulation which flies in the face of what they have set up in the first place. They said that they were going to stop people having faux companies claiming to be pest controllers to work around the law but they're now encouraging farmers to do exactly that. We don't think that's the right way to deal with this sort of policy and that should have been in the committee. Sports shooters—as I've said those clubs and ranges are the safest place for the use of firearms in New Zealand. There is a legitimate use for sports shooting. There should be an allowed exemption specifically for those that affiliate to genuine international bodies that hold genuine international competitions and where the members here are prepared to affiliate to a body that has suitable regulations such as Pistol New Zealand which is highly regarded. This was an opportunity to actually create a decent bill that would tackle crime not the innocent. Regrettably the Government has chosen not to do that."