Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you very much Madam Chair. Wow! Sometimes you see a Minister in committee who is calm and relaxed and on top of his brief and you know that he's going to have an easy run through committee and then there are times like now. I didn't realise that Stuart Nash had clearly been up all night thinking about my speech that I gave at 9.30 last night but evidently he had. I'd like to ask him a couple more questions about his response because he clearly listened to my speech. I said Look you know it's true. Justice Thorp said you needed 90 percent compliance." I didn't ask him about car registration; I asked him about firearms. There was actually a really simple specific challenge that he should be able to answer: where in the world have countries actually achieved that level of registration compliance? That's what matters. We could talk about cars all day but this is not the "Car Registration Bill"; this bill is to do with offering to register firearms. So which other countries have managed to register firearms to 90 percent or more? That's the question for the Minister of Police.The second question for the Minister—he said that I am claiming that firearms come in through containers; they might be exported illegally from overseas. Well I didn't say that. I just said that if the Minister thinks that stopping all law-abiding Kiwis from having firearms is going to stop criminals getting them—and he didn't deny that because the other thing I said is that seems to be his policy. He didn't deny that that's his policy. He seems to think that there are no firearms coming in illegally in containers or any other way. Well really the onus is on the Minister to show that he knows how he can stop firearms coming in illegally at the border. If he can't do that then all the punishments he's putting on law-abiding firearm owners aren't going to work. So the onus is back on him. Is he sure that there are no illegal firearms being illegally imported into New Zealand? I'd love to hear what the Minister has to say about that.Then the next point I'd make to the Minister is that he said—well actually we'll come back a little bit to what privilege meant. But he said that this law is going to change the fit and proper person test. Well that's interesting because by extension what he seems to be saying is that the Christchurch terrorist was a fit and proper person under the previous laws. Well if that's what the Minister is trying to say that's an extraordinary thing. So my next question to the Minister is: did he think that the Christchurch terrorist was a fit and proper person under the old laws? If that's true then maybe changing this law will help. But I think the real problem is that a guy who wasn't a fit and proper person got a firearm licence and wasn't even interviewed. I'd love to hear the Minister answer that question. Was he a fit and proper person under the old laws? That's the question we want to ask.Finally the Minister got up and said "Well actually this bill changes the law so that a person couldn't get a firearm like they did on March 15." Well I think the Minister's got confused between his bills and this happens a lot actually. Stuart Nash has done this before. People will recall when Stuart Nash accidentally passed the wrong bill just a few weeks back. The thing is for people at home that the bill that banned semi-automatic centrefire rifles was the one that was rushed through last April. This bill doesn't do that. This bill actually and I think it's a good thing at least in its Supplementary Order Paper says that in limited circumstances more people will be able to get semi-automatic centrefire rifles. So there are four questions there for the Minister. I look forward to him calmly answering those questions because I suspect it's going to be a long morning. There you go he's turning to his officials to get advice right now. Thank you."