SpeechBRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you Madam Chair. I've been impatiently waiting but you know we all have our faults. I just want to traverse—because there were comments the Minister of Police made in his two contributions prior to this last one that I wish to touch upon. But first an earlier comment from Mr Ron Mark who waved around a piece of paper like Neville Chamberlain—because he has sold firearms owners down the river—and said Oh National are flip-flops." What he didn't say was that New Zealand First's minority report in that inquiry report said that they would oppose all of these measures including a registry and what are they doing? They're voting for it—they're voting for it. The "Jandal Party" are voting for it. Well there we go. There is no consistency over there. Of course they'll only get to vote for this round because there's every chance they won't get to vote on an amendment in the next Parliament. The Minister said that this bill would keep those firearms out of the hands of New Zealanders particularly criminals. Mr Seymour correctly pointed out that it was the first bill in April that addressed that. The Minister said that the fit and proper person test gets new elements in this bill. Well actually the advisers told us in select committee that it was simply codifying the elements that are already in the police code for a fit and proper person test. So what is it Minister? Is it new or is it simply codifying as we were told in legislation the rules that already apply?The Minister then had the gall to—or no maybe it was an astounding revelation. He said new section 24A(1)(j) which is about the patterns of extreme behaviour—he said that would have stopped the Christchurch massacre. Well what is in the public domain is that the police only became aware of that after the events so therefore the inclusion of that couldn't possibly have prevented that happening. But perhaps the astounding revelation we've learnt today is that the police were aware of that pattern of behaviour or what they considered a pattern of behaviour before 15 March but they felt they didn't have the authority under law to reject a firearms application from that guy. If that is the case that is an astounding revelation which should have been in the public domain. Actually I don't think it is. I have confidence in what has been publicly reported to date. The police didn't know until after the event and therefore the change that the Minister claimed would have prevented it most certainly would not have. There'll be more to say about that fit and proper test when we come to Part 5. I was just responding to comments and claims the Minister had made in this part in his contribution. So my questions I do have for the Minister specifically on my Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) in Part 1 which I was finishing last night and got the last 20 seconds of this morning—firstly on the pest control. The Minister last night said "Nah it's all about territorial authorities' pest control plans." If that is the case and that is in fact what the regulations are today for commercial pest control Minister and you don't want to adopt my SOP—I think that's a mistake by the way. My SOP applies to all owners of rural-zoned land which would accept the fact that they're not all farmers or productive owners of land. But pests are still a problem on that land and what is more pests do not respect fences and borders so if the pests grow on one piece of unproductive land nothing's going to stop them going to the farm next door and creating havoc and damage there. So firstly Mr Nash you should accept my SOP on the basis that it does have a legitimately broader application to owners of rural-zoned land. But even if you refuse on that basis then do one thing—do one thing to give confidence to those that own and work the land and that is remove the words "that have detriment of significance". As you yourself said this is all about pest control issues and plans approved by territorial authorities. If that is the case if that is truly the case then the words "detriment of significance" are unneeded and all they do is pose a potential bureaucratic hurdle that those farm owners and workers will have to jump over and through just to get the tools that they actually need to help control pests on their property. I also have questions on Part 1 on my SOP for sport shooting. The Minister last night said while it's not the sort of sports shooting I was referring to—International Practical Shooting Confederation the three-gun stuff the Service Rifle Association stuff—the Minister last night—[Time expired]"