Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT to oppose the Arms Legislation Bill. Let me acknowledge the public who presented to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. As a member of that committee I heard them. They often received a hostile reception from the chair whose salary they pay but they persevered.One analysis found there were 3841 individual submissions—90 percent opposed 7 percent in favour 3 percent weren't sure. Opposition to the bill I have to say was overwhelmingly rational polite and drawn from practical experience. Those people gave five key reasons why the Arms Legislation Bill should not be passed by this Parliament.Number one: it invades the doctor-patient relationship. We heard from people who were facing or had faced mental health challenges. Our country is on a journey with mental health where it's becoming more acceptable to talk about it. Doctors can already legally report on their patients if they believe there is a danger to that individual or to the public. But what is this Government doing? Well it's passing a law that says that the police must tell your doctor if you have a firearm licence and doctors are encouraged to report on you. I can't believe that this Government of all Governments would actually undermine mental health of all issues. We heard from people who said they'd be less likely to seek help because of this legislation. At the committee of the whole House stage ACT will challenge National and New Zealand First to support amendments removing the invasion of the doctor-patient relationship.The register—number two—is not just useless it is a disaster waiting to happen. The bill originally said you had to update the register in real time. Sensible people came to the committee and said not every hunting spot has Wi-Fi or a cellphone coverage area. They said OK maybe you only have to update the register every 30 days." Then it was pointed out that 30 days is enough time to commit a crime. So if the register doesn't stop crime what's the point especially when it's a disaster waiting to happen?Even while the committee was considering the bill the police managed to lose data in relation to firearms. A register in the hands of the New Zealand Police—Hon Stuart Nash: No they did not. Fake news—fake news.DAVID SEYMOUR: —is one leak away—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Order! Sorry to interrupt the member I apologise. Mr Nash you do not sit on the cross benches and interject and you do not change seats in order to better interject.DAVID SEYMOUR: I've never seen a Minister responsible for a bill come to this House on such a defensive and so he should be ashamed of his role in this legislation. ACT will challenge National and New Zealand First to support an amendment removing the register from this legislation.Number three: the regulations on clubs will make us less safe. Voluntary organisations in this country usually have two or three people who do everything. If those people melt away because of the onerous restrictions placed on running a club by this bill we'll have fewer people shooting with the support and supervision of a club and we will be less safe. You see the irony. Every time this Government through this bill tries to make us safer they make things worse. ACT will be challenging National and New Zealand First to support amendments to remove the onerous restrictions placed on clubs by this bill.The real problem that's been outlined by speakers can be summed up as the fact that this bill does not punish criminals. It makes criminals of people trying to follow the law. That is the travesty of this bill. All of the requirements go on people who are trying to follow the law. It is the worst kind of chimpanzee politics where this Government attempts to punish a group of people it thinks are politically unpopular. Don't we see that coming through in the attitudes of the chair of the select committee and Labour members towards the licensed firearm community?But finally let's talk about the timing. A Government that was truly constructive and inclusive would have waited for the royal commission to define the problem before they tried to solve the problem and what have they done? They haven't waited for the royal commission. They shortened the select committee's time for this bill to five months from the usual six. Why just five? Well so that the Prime Minister could announce before the 15 March anniversary that she'd passed another bill. It is political theatrics masquerading as public safety and that is the greatest shame of all. It is in fact to borrow a term from across the Chamber an absolutely despicable piece of lawmaking. This bill must be opposed and if it passes the worst of it must be changed by the next Parliament. Thank you Mr Speaker."