Arms Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Arms Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19785] 
Arms Amendment Bill (No 3) 
First Reading 
Debate resumed. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted by the dinner break this legislation is absolutely pointless. It is needless. It will take up select committee time which is unnecessary. It will take the time of the House which is unnecessary to make law changes that are unnecessary which will bring upon and inflict upon people who legitimately go about their business of selling firearms unnecessary compliance costs in terms of keeping registers. Of all things it seeks to try to account for every last bullet or round imported into New Zealand—members should think about it—that is every last .177 slug from an air rifle and every last .22 round from a 22-calibre rifle. 
What is the point? The point is that this politically correct Government wants to sign up to a United Nations convention that has 23-odd signatories from Third World punter countries that are the least likely to apply firearms legislation effectively that are most likely to employ mercenaries and that are most likely to trade illicitly in arms—to sign up a country New Zealand about which the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade came to the select committee and said no problems existed. The real problem that this bill should be focusing on is what is currently happening with our ineffectual laws in the hands of some of our ineffectual judges. If this bill went some way to templating law to require judges to lock people up for a 5 years’ minimum sentence for commissioning a crime with a firearm then it would be a good thing. That is New Zealand First’s policy. 
So why add more laws when this country is not enforcing the firearms laws that exist? I will give some examples. A person who pointed a firearm at another person and threatened to shoot during a gang confrontation got—what? The person got neither a $4000 or $5000 fine nor 4 years’ imprisonment—which is actually what is available—but 6 months’ jail. 
Pita Paraone 
: What? 
RON MARK 
: Six months’ jail! Do members want another example? Here is another one: a person was arrested after a firearm was allegedly pointed at a police officer on the outskirts of Hamilton during a pursuit. What did the person get? Well as for some others of those people it was such a thing as community service. Other cases concerned aggravated robbery with a firearm committing a crime with a firearm and unlawfully possessing a firearm. One person who recklessly discharged a firearm to steal $120-worth of cash and $200-worth of cigarettes was ordered to do a family group conference. 
What is the point of passing laws if this Government does not enforce the ones that exist? We do not need new laws that tie us into funny little United Nations committees’ agreements. After all it was this Government on the foreshore and seabed legislation that told a poky little committee at the United Nations to butt out of New Zealand’s business. Well this Government should do the same on this matter. We do not need to be signing up to an illicit protocol on trafficking in small arms and their bits and pieces with a bunch of Third World punters in order to placate them and make ourselves feel good; we can tell them to buzz off just as the Deputy Prime Minister did to that little United Nations committee that dared to criticise our sovereign right to make the decisions on the foreshore and seabed legislation that we did. 
New Zealand First opposes this legislation because we say that it is unnecessary. We can see that it will impose unnecessary compliance costs on firearms dealers and on legitimate firearms owners but in relation to the laws we really need to tighten up on the things we really need to tighten up on firmly are the judges who do not apply the law as it stands but who dish out the penalties they currently dish out to people who are stealing firearms illegally owning them and using them to commit crimes. That is what we should be focusing on—nothing else. There should be a 5-year minimum jail sentence for anyone commissioning a crime with a firearm and then we would see an even further reduction in the very low rate of offending with firearms that we have in our country of New Zealand. 
The firearms owners of New Zealand should be applauded; they are good law-abiding citizens. What they do not need is more useless legislation that simply adds compliance requirements on to them. We should let them get on and enjoy their sport so let us let this legislation fall off the table—as the last bill did. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party strongly opposes this legislation. It is unnecessary as the New Zealand First Party member has just pointed out. Indeed it reminds me of the Arms Amendment Bill (No 2) and the disgraceful fiasco this House experienced with regard to it. That bill was brought to Parliament over 3 years ago now. I was on the Law and Order Committee as was Ron Mark and Simon Power. It was a disgraceful piece of legislation and there were 6000 submissions on it. It was quite clear that it was unworkable and that it was foolish. Even the police in the end—Mr Green I think was the name of their representative—advised the committee that yes that legislation would not work and there was no way the police could run the system that was proposed. So that bill was put on the back burner. But it was clear that this Government still wanted to put some runs on the board because it pledged to implement the Thorp report. Now if ever there was a foolish report it was the Thorp report. But this Government actually campaigned on the basis that it would implement that report so I think that in part this bill is all about trying to assuage those who still want the Government to be seen to be tough. 
I remember the Minister of Police being led by the nose on the previous bill. That was clear when it went on to the back burner because the select committee did not do a report on it in order to save the Government from its own embarrassment. The Government’s own members on the select committee then chaired by Janet Mackey conceded in the end that the legislation was a nonsense and an absolutely farcical situation so the select committee did not do a report on the bill and the Government just left the matter on the back burner. The Government was waiting for another sort of Aramoana situation or another Port Arthur or Dunblane situation where it could rush in with the support of public sentiment and legislate again against firearms. 
In this country we actually have quite good firearms laws if only we did not fiddle with them and as the previous spokesperson said as long as we actually enforced the existing laws rather than rushing to legislate for more controls. Here in this bill we have a classic response of the Labour Government in trying to curry favour with yet another United Nations committee. As if trying to wear the thickest hair shirt in the world on Kyoto is not enough the Government is rushing out here to sign up to the firearms protocol. We will probably find that the committee is chaired by a Nigerian—and there are incredible human rights issues in Nigeria—or by someone from the Ivory Coast or Liberia perhaps— 
Ron Mark 
: Mugabe. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Or by Mugabe. Yet New Zealand is rushing out to wear a thick hair shirt and say that yes we will comply with the letter of the protocol of the UN committee. 
 I think we have had enough of that nonsense in this country. It is time the Government woke up to the feelings and sentiments of the voting public who have also had enough of the politically correct claptrap that keeps coming into Parliament. There are many law-abiding citizens who own guns in this country and who are very responsible people. The point has been made about the folly of the earlier legislation which tried to move to the registration of firearms and firearm owners. Will gang members rush in to see that their firearms are registered before they hold up a bank? Will they rush in to make sure that they are registered before they do that? I do not think so. But somehow the Labour Government thinks we need more firearms legislation. There are many more pressing issues facing the country as we all know than the bill that is before the House tonight. 
My colleague Stephen Franks who is out on the campaign trail would have dearly loved to take part in this debate. He has already tabled Supplementary Order Paper 345 in his name and I draw that to the attention of members because he is using that opportunity to introduce some things that would be worthwhile to include if we are hell-bent on amending our firearms laws. In particular I refer to the fact that back in 1983 a right was taken away from New Zealanders by a law change regarding the legality of the use of force in self-defence—that is when victims reasonably feared that they were at risk of harm from an unprovoked offender or that a crime would continue if self-defence was not used. In 1983 we stripped the legal use of force in self-defence away from people when protecting themselves their families and their property. 
The ACT party says that we should restore the right to use force in self-defence. It is a fundamental right of citizens to defend themselves. The State says that people are not allowed to do that because it is illegal and that the State will act on behalf of people—that all they have to do is to ring 111 and the police will be there forthwith. We know that that is a lie. The Government cannot offer the protection to its citizenry that it purports to offer. Therefore citizens should have the right to defend themselves. We have the incredible situation whereby a Northland farmer could lose his farm because he has to meet the legal costs over charges he faced for defending his property and his family against an intruder who was committing theft on his property. Even though the farmer has been acquitted by a court the Crown continues to persecute him and he could lose his farm because he has to pay those legal costs. That is not right and that is what the amendment in Stephen Franks’ Supplementary Order Paper will address. We will be hearing a lot more about that as we move to the Committee stage of this bill. 
In summary we do not need this law. It should not be a priority. The Government has gone into urgency—the Leader of the House Dr Cullen acknowledges that the House has gone into urgency—and has put up bills like this one which nobody wants. Why is that? 
Ron Mark 
: Kofi Annan wants it. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Kofi Annan wants it and so does Robert Mugabe. A United Nations committee has written a letter to someone in Government and George Hawkins our Minister of Police—who championed the Arms Amendment Bill (No 2)— 
Ron Mark 
: The “Minister of Silly Ideas”. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: He certainly is the “Minister of Silly Ideas” as Mr Mark points out. George Hawkins perhaps looking for his swansong failed with the Arms Amendment Bill (No 2). Even his own colleagues on the select committee would not support it. The chair of the committee at that time Janet Mackey who is one of the most sensible members in the Labour caucus recognised that it was nonsensical and foolish legislation. Mr Hawkins was defeated and humiliated over the Arms Amendment Bill (No 2) so we have had this little token gesture to the Thorp report and to a committee of the United Nations return to Parliament. It beggars belief that Parliament will consume time on the consideration of this foolish bill. The ACT party will not even give it the dignity of voting for it to go to a select committee. Parliament has already considered the arms issue in the Arms Amendment Bill (No 2). There were 6000 submissions from the New Zealand public and I would say that 98 percent of them opposed it. Overwhelmingly submitters said that the existing laws were all right and that all we required was for the courts to enforce the existing laws. We do not need to rush new laws into Parliament that are foolish in concept. 
IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) 
: 
 I rise to make a brief contribution on behalf of my colleague Keith Locke. The Greens will support this bill. 
It replaces the 1999 legislation and amends the Arms Act 1983. Some of the amendments will enable New Zealand to comply with the Protocol Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms their Parts and Components and Ammunition. It supplements the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime and I think we should be able to support that. 
The bill also makes other amendments. It provides for restrictions to be placed on powerful air guns and for the importation of firearms parts to require police approval. It also gives the police wider powers including search powers to deal with the unlawful possession of firearms and the ability to suspend firearms licences. The bill extends the list of agents and employees of the Crown that are exempt from aspects of the legislation by adding “a visiting member of an overseas police or law enforcement agency who is operating under the direction of the Commissioner”—Commissioner of Police—and “an officer or agent of the New Zealand Customs Service.” to the list. There is no provision for the introduction of a universal firearms registry. This is a very poor thing. I think we lost control of arms as soon as we went to registering owners rather than firearms. 
The bill establishes three new offences. First is the illicit manufacture of firearms and their parts. Second is the illicit trafficking of firearms their parts and ammunition. Third is the removal or altering of firearms’ markings without lawful excuse. These offences have maximum penalties of 5 years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to $10000 or both. 
Both the extension of the list of those exempt from the bill and the widening of police search powers should be viewed with some apprehension. The exemption for customs officers is arguably to fill a gap in the current law that leaves them in breach whenever they have possession of any firearms they are confiscating. The extension of search without warrant powers seems superfluous given that police can already enter a property without a warrant in order to make an arrest if they have reason to suspect someone of committing a crime on the premises or if they have found someone committing an offence and are freshly pursuing that person. They can also enter to prevent an offence if they suspect an offence that is likely to cause immediate and serious injury to any person or property is about to be committed. These powers already allow police to exercise their discretion in order to protect people. 
However overall this is a move to tighten up arms control and to comply with international agreements. Therefore we believe that it should be endorsed. 
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. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control) 
: 
 I rise very briefly to support this Arms Amendment Bill (No 3) in the context of being the Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control. In this bill there is some responsibility around the export of small arms. Those members who have served in the Solomons and in Bougainville will be very much aware of the question that has troubled people in the Pacific including the Pacific Islands Forum about where they get those arms from. 
It just so happens—[ 
Interruption 
] I wonder whether that member would listen. It just so happens that a representative of the New Zealand Council of Licensed Firearms Owners came to visit me at my electorate office concerned about the proposed legislation. I raised with him the issue of small arms control particularly as it related to the Pacific. He then took up the offer from the disarmament mission inside the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to go to a meeting of Pacific nations—I think it was in Fiji. As a result of that he realised that there was a severe and serious problem around the control of small arms in the Pacific and he has offered the help and expertise of the New Zealand Council of Licensed Firearms Owners to the Pacific nations to help them with that issue. 
I am the Minister responsible for disarmament in terms of nuclear weapons. What I know is that in the Pacific more people die from small arms injuries than do because of nuclear arms and nuclear weapons. [ 
Interruption 
] This is a really important issue and unlike that member the council when it got to the Pacific really saw the issue and wanted to engage in work with us. We have not been working away from the firearms people. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I move  
That the Arms Amendment Bill (No 3) be referred to the Law and Order Committee 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 97 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 22 
New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Motion agreed to.