SpeechBRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you Madam Chair. Well it's quite interesting how the Minister Stuart Nash started there. Apparently out of the blue there's going to be an independent authority to administer the Arms Act and the Minister claimed this was a recommendation from years ago from the Thorp Report. Why then Minister didn't you have it in the Arms Legislation Bill to begin with? If you think it's such a great idea and it came from so many years ago why has it not even appeared in the bill now? It certainly didn't appear in the bill as it started. I think the Labour Party at least were nowhere near as committed to the idea of an independent authority for this as the Minister has claimed in the House tonight. I'll also add given he raised it—it may not be in the bill but he raised it—it's quite how shall we say arrogant for the Minister to claim there will be an independent authority. I'll just for the record say—not necessarily a bad idea; we've got a lot of empathy for this idea and we will discuss this as a caucus ahead of the election and reach a position. But here's the arrogance of the Minister: he claimed it's going to happen. Well actually it can't happen before 2.5 million or more New Zealanders vote on who should be the Government after 19 September including 250000 licensed firearms owners who he's just putting more cost rules and regulations on and New Zealand First have sold down the river as we'll see as we progress through this debate tonight. The other claim the Minister made: he said about this bill it is going to keep guns out of the hands of gangs. Well here's the thing. There are no firearms prohibition orders in this bill. There are lots of provisions about the rules around whether a law-abiding person should be allowed to have a firearms licence. And here's the evidence: the Minister sat on a select committee in the last term of Parliament they'd heard evidence out of Australia that 90 percent of offences involving firearms are undertaken by people that don't have a licence and that's borne out in everything we see and hear in the media in New Zealand as well. The gang members committing offences with firearms aren't licensed. They're certainly not licensed for the semi-automatic rifles they're still using nor the pistols that they've been using.So this trash that this bill—the way it's currently written—is going to keep guns out of the hands of gang members is pure tripe pure tripe. But now I've responded to the points the Minister opened with I think we should actually move on to some provisions in the bill. I see a last minute—this is like so usual for this Government right—this last minute Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) dropped on the House this morning no opportunity for the Opposition here to understand the changes that are in it because some are simply drafting improvements I'm sure. But now we have to go through all of that—dissect them all and determine that there's not some sneaky underhanded additional rules being placed on law-abiding firearms owners that we haven't been told about. But one of them was a small concession to New Zealand First so that they can go to the hustings claiming they found a spine and actually looked to stand up for firearms owners: pest control.We've been calling—we called for an expansion for pest control for farmers back in the first bill after 15 March. We called for that. That lot including New Zealand First voted it down. They refused to support it. Now—Rt Hon David Carter: Who was on the select committee for New Zealand First?BRETT HUDSON: Well who was on the select committee for it? Who was?Rt Hon David Carter: I don't remember!BRETT HUDSON: I don't remember!Andrew Bayly: I know! I know!BRETT HUDSON: Oh there you go! There we go. So we do have a change though. No no in fairness we now do have a change. Buckling to the pressure of many emails New Zealand First have negotiated a change to expand the pest control exemptions for the use of prohibited category firearms. But here we go it's got a bit of a gotcha to it because in order for people to be able to use them—farmers and other sorts of rural and other related sorts of enterprises—for those owners to be able to use them or their employees they have to prove a significant detrimental impact to their business from the pests. So presumably they have to let them breed for a while destroy a bit of crops or farmland and then they'll be able to prove to the police that actually they've got a need. There's no need for that level of hurdle to be placed in the provision. I would draw the Minister's attention instead to my SOP 449 my SOP which is far simpler and more worthy for these hard-working New Zealanders. It simply has it that a person who is the owner of rural zoned land—because they don't have to be farmers; we have things such as lifestyle blocks in this country some of them very large some of them not put to productive farming or agricultural use. But the pests don't care. They don't just walk in to farming and agricultural land. So in my SOP 449 proposed new section 4A(1)(fa) inserted by my proposed clause 8(2A) states a person who is the owner of rural zoned land or their employee and who requires a prohibited item for the purpose of controlling wild animals or animal pests on that land:"—nice and simple no requirement to have to prove some material business impact some loss of I guess potential revenue and/or profit to satisfy the police because until and if this independent authority came into effect it would be the police. And we know because we've all heard the stories about pest control exemption applications since that first bill last year they have been scarcer than hen's teeth to acquire. Tough tough conditions. Why? Because the police don't want people to have them.So when you put a condition Minister in this provision that requires the applicant to prove a significant detriment to their business that is simply providing an excuse for them to be turned down and that is exactly what'll happen. So Minister I would like to hear how you believe with that—in fact not believe show us tell us. We want to know how it is that that will not be a handbrake a barrier to farmers and other rural zoned owners and users being able to access the firearms that they need to control the sorts of pests they face. They could be Canadian wild geese. They could be wild goats. They can be wallabies. There are any number of pests that require the ability to take rapid action. I just want to move on before allowing the Minister to have his first crack at answering on another part within the same Part 1 which is about sport shooting because I notice that is sadly lacking from the deal that New Zealand First crafted and it is something that every sport shooter has been calling for. Now these sport shooters are commonly—the vast majority people that also tend to shoot pistols and they shoot other sorts of sport shooting some of which include firearms or capacities that are now prohibited. The International Practical Shooting Confederation three-gun competition is the most common. It's not the only. There's the Service Rifle Association. There are others.Now it was acknowledged—even in the first bill actually but it's been acknowledged even since then—that the pistol clubs are the best managed and run clubs in the firearms community. They have the strictest rules. They are absolutely adhered to. There is no reason no reason why—largely the same people but there's no reason why—people who belong to such clubs should not be able to continue their traditional sporting exercises which include in many cases either firearms or capacities which have since been prohibited. So my SOP there simply allows for a person who is a bona fide competitor in a target-shooting sport that is governed by a legitimate international sporting body and where the rules of the discipline provide for the use of semi-automatic firearms or shotguns and a member of a target shooting club that holds a certificate of approval issued by the commissioner. So there we go: we've got the same broad rules that apply to Pistol New Zealand that could apply to other shooting disciplines which include now prohibited firearms and/or items and capacities. And we know and know with faith and confidence that the people that would participate and have participated in the past are the most disciplined and the most law-abiding because they've always had the most to lose and because the rules that are enforced by Pistol New Zealand require them to act properly and also rule out tyre-kickers—to use a phrase; it's probably not the most accurate phrase but to rule out those cowboys if you will—because they require people to participate in a set number of competitions per year to be able to keep their endorsement to use pistols now but what also used to include some firearms that are now being prohibited. So Minister I would like to know why it is you refused a very similar request from New Zealand First. The wording of what they asked for might have been somewhat different but the intent was the same. Why rule out well-run clubs and organisations with strong disciplines and rules people who have shown themselves to be the most law-abiding firearms users because they've always had the most to lose and they treasure the sport that they have been able to participate in. So Minister I'd be very keen to hear why—or if in fact you would support my SOP but if not why not.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I'll let the Minister answer."