Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you very much Mr Chair. As I've just raised in a point of order I'm very eager to get on to debating the parts of the bill. However I think the reason it's been so difficult to do that—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Sorry; are you raising a point of order now?DAVID SEYMOUR: No I thought you gave me the call; but it's a call. No sorry—I'm taking my call yeah.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No it's just that you started off by talking about a point of order. DAVID SEYMOUR: I referred to a point of order I made earlier. I apologise for any confusion. CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Yes and that's been ruled on. That's why I'm asking. DAVID SEYMOUR: Yeah yeah—and I just mentioned it you know. I wasn't trying to relitigate it or anything like that.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Don't do that.DAVID SEYMOUR: No I would never dream of it Mr Chair. We are very eager to get on to the details of the bill. One of the reasons that's been so challenging is that the Minister in the chair the Hon Stuart Nash started with a range of frankly irrelevant content that's had to be responded to and mostly refuted and then the New Zealand First member Ron Mark has got up and talked about a whole lot of politics that are not actually relevant to the bill. Nevertheless it does need to be responded to. What I'd say to the New Zealand First member is that I acknowledge it's unparliamentary to call people by other than their title or their full name but I did like the description of his behaviour on this legislation as Ronnie-come-lately" because the fact of the matter is we've got a New Zealand First party that voted for the first tranche is now voting for a register of all firearms is now voting to invade the doctor-patient relationship in relation to firearms is voting to put damaging regulations that will kill many clubs and is saying that it's OK—in the way that unfortunately in our country abusive spouses sometimes say "We'll be different next time." If you vote for New Zealand First they'll be different next time. That's the message that he's trying to get across. I'll also put a series of questions to the Minister that he so far has not answered. They're questions that need to be answered coming out of this debate that's arisen throughout the discussion. One is: can he be sure that it's going to be effective to take firearms off law-abiding firearm owners which is what he said is his intention if there is still going to be illegal importation of firearms? He hasn't given us that guarantee. He hasn't addressed that question. I asked him could he tell us what countries have achieved 90 percent compliance with their firearms register. Because that was the real test. He was up all night thinking about my speech. He gave a flaming response to it this morning—first thing as soon as he got his feet under the desk this morning—but that's the simple question: the matter of fact. He talked about cars; we're not here to debate cars; we're here to debate firearms. And where in the world have they had 90 percent compliance with a register that's been effective? It might interest the Minister to know that his department the Police recently released an OIA request which found that over half the firearms seized by police have the registration markings ground off them. That's interesting isn't it? Tells you something about the real world out there and how effective a register might just be. So that was a question I wanted him to answer. But the other question I had for the Minister that he hasn't answered at this stage is a question around: does he believe that the law as it was on 14 March or in the months preceding when the Christchurch terrorist got his licence made the Christchurch terrorist a fit and proper person? And this is important to this bill because the Minister in his opening address said we are changing the definition of a fit and proper person so that the Christchurch terrorist could not have got a licence. Well my question to the Minister is simple: was he a fit and proper person according to the law when he did get a licence? If he wasn't then changing the law is not going to help much; it just means he would have been breaking different laws. I don't see how that helps those people slain in the worst terrorist incident in our nation's history. It's a waste of time. Interestingly he may have answered the question with "I don't know." when he said "I'm waiting for the royal commission." If that really is his answer then I want to ask the Minister of Police: what is the point of legislating now if he doesn't know what problem is he's trying to solve and he knows he doesn't know because he said he's waiting for the royal commission to tell him? And finally I want to ask: does he believe the Police press statement on March 19 or does he believe the allegations in the press? He's avoided that question. He hasn't actually said which one he believes. But I want to get to Part 1 and specifically new section 1A(2)(a) within that part in clause 5 and that says that the regulatory regime—[Time expired]"