Willis ScottSCOTT WILLIS (Green): Mālō e lelei Madam Speaker and thank you for the opportunity to address this important question the Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Amendment Bill in the second reading. It is an omnibus bill because it changes the Arms Act the Sentencing Act the Search and Surveillance Act. If we believe that the main object of this omnibus bill is to improve public safety then we need to look at what it intends to do and what it doesn't intend to do and what other actions the Government is taking because this bill appears to be more about virtue signalling on gangs really than it is about guns or gun safety. It extends the firearm protection orders to any gang member who's been convicted of a crime under a number of Acts but as we've just heard gang members are already subject to firearm protection orders and we need to understand and evaluate how well these are working.Firearm protection orders and police search powers are already readily available and this bill is simply going to open up communities to potential harassment—harassment through targeting through increased and unclear search powers and a really really vague vague definition of gang members or associates. So we can talk about the risks from structural racism that this poses to our communities. For example it allows warrantless searches on anyone the police suspect of having a firearm protection order to search for guns. That's going to lead inevitably—inevitably—to more harassment of Māori and Pasifika people and we've heard this recently from the police.The other thing it does is allow a person to request their firearm protection order to be reviewed or revoked after five years. Currently firearm protection orders last 10 years or so. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. It gives consideration to rehabilitation and it seems to make sense but we really need to consider whether this bill is needed at all.I'm a firearms owner and recently I managed to put all my firearms through the gun registry—because we've heard from the Associate Minister that the gun registry is problematic. It was a very very simple process and the one thing I had to do was take one of my rifles to get a serial number stamped on it because it didn't have one. I know many people who are responsible firearm owners and I know they're people who hunt pest species like deer tahr chamois pigs goats rabbits hares for food or to do pest control to restore to protect our precious taonga. But guns in the wrong hands can be used to harm people and we all need safeguards and restrictions. I am sure that we all agree on that.So this isn't necessarily problematic but it is somewhat ironic that the associate justice Minister is doing so much otherwise to open up access to firearms through an unnecessary review of the firearms registry—something opposed by the Police Association something the police want to ensure keeps working something that has been rolled out incredibly successfully and is making sure that we know what firearms exist and where they exist and who holds them to weed out those people who are irresponsible who are feeding guns to the criminal fraternity.So we've got an ex - gun lobbyist who has made it clear that the firearm protection orders are part of a wider gun reform with other actions including easing restrictions on gun clubs and ranges where we might see people being able to access ammunition for weapons that might not be registered. This is as has been pointed out an incredible inconsistency a contradiction. That's why this bill is really about virtue signalling rather than about safety or concern about gun controls.Our Green position really is that the fewer guns around the better but for those people who are responsible we do need safeguards and restrictions. Gun ownership is a privilege not a right.So when I think about what this bill is trying to do it's a focus on gang members which is unnecessary because they are already targeted by firearm protection orders when we know that the biggest risk to life and limb historically—well we should be concerned about some of the extremists political factions the extremists that we've had experience of. Think about the Christchurch shooter. The Christchurch shooter was somebody who was able to get hold of a gun—there was no registry—and practise at an open range. Imagine if that shooter could simply buy ammunition at a gun range. Terrorist attacks in this country have been primarily done by non - gang-affiliated extremists. This legislation makes no change to that. It does not make our community safer from these threats.Mark Cameron: What a rubbish—SCOTT WILLIS: I can hear a member saying this is all rubbish but actually you know the evidence points to the truth in all of that in that the Government also aims to make military-style semi-automatic weapons more available. This makes communities less safe and personally as a hunter I don't see any need for semi-automatic centre-fire weapons. Saying this will make our communities safer while allowing more military-style semi-automatics contradicts the whole point of legislation in the first place. It would allow more weapons that present a greater danger to our communities into our community. So the inconsistency is something that we should be really concerned about. If we want to crack down on criminals let's look at the existing firearm protection order rather than making it easier because this is simply a nonsensical approach.I think this bill is actually a distraction from this Government's pro-gun agenda or at least a fraction of this Government's agenda because we've heard about the need for military-style weapons for sport. Now I'm not sure if members are aware of the sport that is being talked about here but it's called the three-gun shoot. It's very popular in America. The three-gun shoot—Mark Cameron: Point of order Madam Speaker. Without over-litigating the point if I may it's about firearms prohibition orders. I think the member is way wide of the mark with his remarks.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Jenny Salesa): Yeah well Mark Cameron I didn't hear a Speaker's ruling or a number for you to actually quote what your point of order is based on. It is actually my role as the Chair of this House to rule things in or out of order. Continue Scott Willis.SCOTT WILLIS: Thank you Madam Speaker. As I was saying this bill is actually a distraction from the Government's pro-gun agenda. Talking about the need for military-style centre-fire weapons to participate in a sport that's called the three-gun shoot demonstrates how we are risking to become an American-style pro-gun society because this is part of the reform that we have been hearing about. The firearms prohibition order legislation is part of a suite of reform that is aimed at changing gun ownership and who can own and use firearms in New Zealand.The three-gun shoot includes centre-fire weapons with a .223 calibre rifle or something heavier with up to a 30-round magazine; pistols; and shotguns going through a range shooting targets that could be clay targets and could be human silhouettes. This is about combat-style training in our community. It is deeply disturbing that we are seeing a bill that pretends to be doing something that is going to protect and safeguard our communities when in actual fact it is ignoring what we already have and is instead ushering in something that is going to make our communities so much less safe that's going to make society so much more dangerous that is going to present so many more challenges to our police. That is so disappointing from this Government.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Jenny Salesa): Before I call the next member can I just remind all of our members that if you're making a point of order please state the Standing Orders or the Speaker's ruling that your point of order is based on. I call on the chair of the Justice Committee James Meager.