Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you Mr Chair. I want to pick up on a new issue which is related to shotguns. So we had quite a discussion about shotguns in the select committee and if I recall correctly the advice we got back was that the vast majority of shotguns could hold five cartridges or less. In fact I think the figure of 10 percent was for those shotguns that could hold six or seven rounds in their tubular magazine. On the back of that we came to a view as a committee that we would limit it to five cartridges—full-size cartridges because there is obviously the complication of using smaller cartridges—or less. What appears to have come to light since then is actually that the number of shotguns with tubular magazines greater than five is actually closer to 30 percent based on some information that I've been made aware of. So my question to you—and this is one of the questions that arose in the committee—is can you confirm that if you have a seven- or six-round - capacity shotgun you'll be able to hand that shotgun back and the Government will pay for the shotgun to be converted so that it can have a maximum capacity of five? Therefore would that weapon be able to be passed back to the owner of that and therefore would that do away with the unnecessary destruction of that weapon that obviously would be made safe and meet the requirements of the bill? So that's the first thing I wanted to ask. The second thing I just want to ask a little bit more about the rights of pest control agencies. In Schedule 3 on Supplementary Order Paper 201—and I'm sorry Mr Chair for going to the back but it was referenced earlier—we added Canada goose" as one of the pests that should be on the list. But one of the other pests that farmers face a lot is actually increasing flocks of paradise ducks who mob very substantially and with the declining numbers of duck shooters are actually becoming quite an issue. They are very crafty and cunning to shoot and I just wanted to make sure in Schedule 3 new regulation 2C whether or not paradise ducks are under that definition. Just traversing back to new section 4A in clause 8 it brings me to the wider issue where we made the change that we would allow pest control agencies to undertake effectively the pest control work that many high-country farmers and many farmers in different areas—it doesn't necessarily have to be high-country farmers but those farmers who have land that is subject to a lot of pests. They have to go through a specialist regime—and actually we've created a specialist regime for them so that's amazing—to allow them to have access to semi-automatics for the specific purpose of killing and dealing with those pests. Now that's all covered under new section 4A(1)(h). First of all Minister I'd like you to confirm that if farmers want to get together—and they may not be high-country farmers but if a group of farmers wanted to get together—and create a business with the substantial purpose of that business being for dealing with and killing pests they would they able to go through the process of forming such a company and therefore be in a situation where they could readily have access to pest control agencies at the time when they're required because often pests arrive at certain times and you don't have people from agencies who are going to deal with them available on tap. They have to pre-plan it. This would give the capability to those farmers to work collaboratively and responsibly but still meet the requirements of this Act. I think it's very important that some guidance to this is actually provided by you. I think those are crucial parts of I think the changes we made around that. I think we should not underestimate the impact of pest control on non-conservation land as we defined it and private land. Thank you very much."