Henderson EmilyDr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): I rise to take a call on this bill and as a member of the select committee who sat on this matter I first want to start by thanking the 37 submitters who took the time to participate in our democracy. Of the 34 who produced serious or substantive submissions I believe that it was 27 who profoundly disagreed with this bill and unfortunately I must agree with them. This bill is frankly a day late and a dollar short. It's a day late in that the National Party had the opportunity to do something about this and they failed to vote for tougher penalties on gun crime including taking guns off gangs harsher penalties for those who push synthetic drugs and tougher controls on returning terrorists and may we just remember police numbers fell under the National Government. That is not the approach of this Government but what we want to do is put together legislation that actually works is comprehensive and is going to actually sort the problem out—and that's the other problem with this bill. When I say it's a dollar short it's a cheap shot and like most cheap shots you get what you pay for and in this case it's a bill that doesn't have all the bits. So as many of the submitters noted for example on the much-vaunted comment about a question of search powers the bill begins by saying that there are going to be additional search powers introduced and then fails to do any such thing. This was quite a relief to the Attorney-General who said that had such search powers been in the bill then he might have had some serious questions. But since the member somehow forgot to actually put them in it wasn't a problem. The Justice Committee gave huge consideration to this bill and what we really noticed—and you can see it in the report—was that just about every single clause would have be amended to drag this bill into some semblance of order and relevance. But I want to take particular notice of one particular issue with it. When I say it's a day late and a dollar short I've mentioned the day late bit but the dollar short bit is this total focus on gang membership. Now this Government is in no way—in no way—taking its foot off the pedal when it comes to gangs. We have made massive strides in addressing the actual issues with gangs and actually hitting them in the pocket where it hurts. But this bill seems to think gangs are the only issue in the country. This bill sets out to only allow firearms prohibition orders against gang members. I hate to be the bearer of bad news but people who are not in gangs also commit gun crime. People who are in organised criminal groups that are not classified as gangs—they sometimes do it. Terrorists—now there's a group that under Mr Brown's bill would not be subject to firearm prohibition orders and this was a point made repeatedly by submitters. If you're going to create firearm prohibition orders—and we profoundly agree that you should—you need to actually make them do something. You need to actually produce a piece of legislation that's going to have some longevity. I don't really see the point in a single-issue law. Why are we only targeting gang members with this piece of legislation? If you're going to produce something as useful as a firearm prohibition order then why can't we make it for all the people who create problems with illegal firearms or with poor control of their guns? I don't know. We could ask Simeon Brown. It really was something that was a continuing matter of concern for us and it is a reason we just can't support this. But what we are going to do is bring in a piece of legislation that is fit for purpose and that will be comprehensive in the way this bill sadly simply isn't. The bill that we are going to bring in at the end of this year which is not a rushed matter—it's been under consideration. There has been consultation going out for some time. Chris Bishop: For four years. Dr EMILY HENDERSON: Sometimes it's worth doing something thorough you see. Sometimes it's better than producing as I say a cheap piece of legislation that ain't going to do nothing. So the bill that we're going to produce instead is going to cover not only gang members with convictions—Barbara Edmonds: Point of order Madam Speaker. Just noting that one of the members doesn't have their mask on. They've just put it on. Hon Simon Bridges: I apologise. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Emily Henderson. Dr EMILY HENDERSON: Thank you Madam Speaker. So whereas Mr Brown's well-intentioned but frankly a little bit sloppy bill only covers gang members with convictions leaving large gaps on who will and won't be covered as I have said—gang members without convictions or people who are convicted of terrorist offences for instance—the Government's bill is going to look at the actions of the person not the colour of their jacket. So we are going to include those who are convicted of serious firearm offences serious violent offences an offence of participation in organised criminal groups—section 98A of the Crimes Act—and terrorism-related offences. This is a bill that concentrates on where it actually matters—not the colour of the jacket not the cheap shot not the easy media message but it's actually dealing with the people who commit the crimes. When I look at this as an ex - Family Court lawyer I think about all those women who are threatened and harmed by gun violence who according to Simeon Brown don't merit protection. It's not OK. The point of doing this is to do it well surely. Otherwise what's the point of our salaries? We aren't here to keep creating bits of legislation that then have to be added to and added to. We're here to do our best job and to do it thoroughly and to do it comprehensively. That is what the Government is going to do and what we are already doing for gangs or to gangs is similarly comprehensive. So I would remind the members opposite of some of the things that we've done that they've sadly—a day late and a dollar short. This Government has invested $450 million in the police since we came to office. That's 700 police staff who are dedicated to organised crime-fighting and the total police workforce is now over 14000—more than they have ever had previously. Already those numbers have allowed us to devote those organised police officers to operations such as Operation Tauwhiro which was launched in February this year and which is aimed at the disruption and prevention of firearms violence by criminal gangs—surprise surprise. Since February 1091 firearms have been seized along with $5.5 million in cash and 940 people have been arrested in relation to firearms offences. The operation has been so effective in cracking down on gangs it's been extended for six months. We are committed to a comprehensive package of moves. We are also going to bring in the criminal proceeds recovery Act to further enable us to crack down on gangs where they actually hurt; not taking cheap shots that generate headlines but do nothing—nothing—to actually address the problem. You can do things on the basis of the colour of the cover of the book or you can actually go through the pages and actually read all those long words and do something that is actually going to make a difference for this country. Unfortunately Mr Brown's bill is absolutely not fit for the purpose that it intends. It's a pity. It's a bit of a waste of our time perhaps. It is not something where we feel there is any point in continuing to expend Government money cleaning it up. We've got a better option—we're going to do it properly. For that reason I just cannot commend this bill to this House.