Guy NathanHon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. It's an honour to take a call in this very important bill this evening. I'm from a partly rural electorate and a farmer myself and indeed a keen hunter and I've been brought up around firearms since I was very very young. Indeed I'm a licensed gun-holder and now I'm enjoying educating my children about the safety of a firearm. Typically farmers in New Zealand have a .22 rifle or a shotgun and they may have more than that but that's typically what farmers have for pest control. I'm curious with this bill this evening—that it goes further in a lot of aspects than we on this side of the House are comfortable with and I wish to address those this evening.While the Government talks positively about a firearms register I think what they don't quite realise is that it's failed in Canada. It cost over a billion dollars—David Seymour: Two billion.Hon NATHAN GUY: —two billion Mr Seymour mentions—and the Canadian authorities have backed away from it. What we hear from the Government this evening is that they seem to believe that a register is going to reduce criminal activity. Well just have a look across the Tasman over in Australia. For 90 percent of criminal activity involving firearms those weapons are not in a register. So this register is going to be extremely costly and I have some real grave—what's the word?—Hon Members: Concerns.Hon NATHAN GUY: —concerns that this register will cost an absolute arm and a leg and more and won't stop criminal activity. Also the licence time frame from 10 years to five years—well we have thrashed that out hard in the select committee and we know that that is going to cost more for law-abiding gun owners than it does currently now. That is a concern that we raised in the select committee process but often that fell on deaf ears.I want to also talk as I did in my introductory remarks about pest control. That is a massive issue for rural communities and farmers and we pushed hard in the select committee to say that surely farmers and their employees if they are licensed firearm owners should be allowed to go out and exterminate possums rabbits wallabies—the list goes on—Canadian geese deer that are ravaging a crop. The Government seemed to sit through the submissions with very much earmuffs on and then they've come up with this sort of a workaround whereby they are now proposing in regulation to allow farmers to set up a commercial pest control company. We think that while that may indeed work it is a workaround that has come too late and should indeed have been in the primary legislation.Then we come to something that is extremely topical and that is gangs that are growing in this country—1600 more patched members under this Government's watch. It was curious to hear Stuart Nash the Minister of Police stand up and be holier than thou and say We're doing all these wonderful things." and yet gangs are running rampant in his electorate. The Government once again have their earmuffs on with our proposal of a firearms prohibition order which will get tougher on criminal activity that involves firearms and also on gangs. I know that the Greens are against this and they have stopped the Government being tougher on criminal activity involving gangs and firearms. That is a crying shame and that is playing out in communities right now whether it's in Hawke's Bay whether it's in Tauranga or whether it's in other communities around the country.Hon Clare Curran: You're hurting my ears.Hon NATHAN GUY: So what is good about the firearms prohibition order—Clare Curran won't need to put up with me too much longer; she'll be leaving this place like me and I wish her well.What is exciting is that Mr Hudson here our police spokesman has had the luckiest day in his political life in this place. He has had last week the Arms (Firearms Prohibition Orders) Amendment Bill (No 2) drawn out of the biscuit tin. So what is going to happen now with the votes in the Parliament? Are New Zealand First going to stand up and support Mr Hudson's bill to get tough on gangs? They didn't the last time. We've tabled it numerous times over the last 12 to 18 months. It's been voted down. Now it's going to come into this House. Mr Hudson has got a real opportunity to stand up on behalf of New Zealanders that are worried about their safety in their own homes with gangs running rampant under this Government—1600 more gang members under this soft-on-crime Government is a hell of an embarrassment.What is also a concern to us are these regulations involving clubs and ranges that are going to be burdensome. Also when we think about Pistol New Zealand—and they work with the rifle guys the clubs that are involved with shotguns and of course the pistols called 3-gun and that has a strong set of rules. They came in and made very passionate submissions to the select committee and said that we are effectively an international body. So if someone abides by the 3-gun rules that are common throughout the world why on earth would you want to be going and regulating the hell out of these 3-gun clubs? That is something that we can't fathom.So in summary we have some concerns. If we are lucky enough to be in Government after 19 September we will be making the necessary changes. We came into the select committee process and said "We think that this bill should be strengthened with 13 changes." We've been lucky enough to get two of those changes accepted. We'll be fighting through the select committee process with Supplementary Order Papers to see if New Zealand First can come around to our way of thinking and get a hell of a lot tougher on these gangs. There is an opportunity for the Parliament to send a message right now to gangs that we've had enough. We want to crack down on them and yet unfortunately our speeches our messages have been falling on deaf ears. Thank you Madam Speaker."