Alexander Marc: Arms Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Alexander Marc: Arms Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19789] 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I find myself in a rather precarious position with regard to this bill because I have deep misgivings about many aspects of it. However it ought to be debated and for that reason alone we will be supporting it at least to the select committee if not beyond. Part of the reason we have decided to support it is the fact that one of our partners Outdoor Recreation New Zealand actively supports it. It has had a look at the bill and wants the opportunity to have it debated. Outdoor Recreation New Zealand would like to come and make a submission. On those grounds we will be supporting the bill at least as far as that. 
The other sense of disquiet that I have is about going along like a puppy-dog with the United Nations as has been mentioned a few times already and bowing our head yet again to that organisation. It is an organisation with which we have signed up to so many accords and protocols yet strangely enough we have not signed up to the one that matters the most at least from our perspective—the Doha declaration which puts the place of family at the heart of the community. I do not understand why the Government is so keen to sign up to everything else but not to that. Still I guess that that is something we need to debate another day. This Bill is intended to comply with the minimum legislative requirements of the Protocol Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms their Parts and Components and Ammunition supplementing the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime. It all sounds wonderful. It sounds as though if we sign up to that protocol international crime will just come to a great standstill because we will have armed the defenders of freedom against those individuals. I tell members that I just do not believe it. I do not have as much faith as that in the United Nations and I do not understand why this Government does. Nevertheless if the purpose of the firearms protocol is to promote facilitate and strengthen international cooperation in order to prevent combat and eradicate the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms their parts components and ammunition I do not understand why we are giving up our own sense of sovereignty—things we can do ourselves for our own nation. 
If we are talking about the immediate vicinity of the Pacific Island nations I strongly suggest that the very people involved in that sort of trade are in fact the various Government lackeys attached to those Governments. I am not sure that this bill will do anything other than remove their competition. I am not sure that that is such a clever way to go. 
However there are some good things in this bill. Some of the provisions are sensible. I agree with the search powers—the fact that the bill makes it clear that police search powers under the principal Act in respect of buildings premises and vehicles include the detention and search of people found on or in places. In respect of the temporary suspension of licences the police will be able to temporarily suspend a licence while its revocation is being considered. I also agree that in respect of high-powered air guns the definition of a firearm should be amended to include any air gun that has a muzzle energy of more than—to get technical—34 joules etc. 
I have had one particular instance that seemingly did not get taken very seriously by police. In front of my home in Christchurch there is a kindergarten. One day I found broken windows on my property. I subsequently had a look and there were about 60 slugs from an air gun all over the place on my property the trajectory of which had obviously come over the kindergarten. We called up the police—they were not particularly interested. I guess one just has to call 111 and scream. Eventually after thumping of the table I managed to get sufficient police attention and they came over. They actually ended up finding the kid who had been given the rifle and he got nothing—a wet bus ticket. His father got a telling-off. 
Jill Pettis 
: For heaven’s sake! 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: The point is that you may be happy— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Not the Speaker please. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: I say to the member Jill Pettis that she may be very happy to have air guns fired over a kindergarten which may very well injure a young child but I take it rather seriously. So I am at least glad that that will be included. In the section entitled “Additional amendments” The explanatory note states: “There is also to be a new penalty of a suspension of a licence or endorsement applicable to many of the offences against the principal Act.” Ron Mark was quite right. We have a lot of laws in this country that are just not asserted. Judges need to apply the maximum penalties but unfortunately they do not. It is a tragedy but I guess that victims still come second in this country. I do not see this legislation doing very much about that even though it talks tough. We still have to have the right to defend ourselves and I would like to debate that at the select committee. 
We need to expand what we consider to be reasonable force to defend ourselves. I do not want a 75-year-old man or woman to have to scrimmage around the house looking for a lump of wood to fend off an attacker when there is a rifle within easy reach. I do not want to see that when it puts people at risk. [ 
Interruption 
] There goes that member again—yakkety-yak-yak! If we could harness the hot air coming out of her we would keep Auckland going for a month or so. 
Some people would say that guns do not kill; that only people do. Clearly guns play their part. For people to go around saying: “Bang bang!” probably would not do much good. From that perspective we need legislation to cover all firearms but I think we already have plenty of laws—we just need to assert them. All the same as I mentioned Outdoor Recreation NZ is supportive of this bill—at least of it going to select committee. That is where we will have the debate. The committee will have a much more thorough look at the propositions being put forward in this bill. I suppose the other side of the coin is the question of what regulations will accompany this bill—what regulations will actually give effect to it. That is the crux of a problem that we will I hope determine through the select committee process.