Goff Phil: Arms (Military Style Semi-automatic Firearms and Import Controls) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Goff Phil: Arms (Military Style Semi-automatic Firearms and Import Controls) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 22 May 2012. Volume:680;Page:2290. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill) 
: 
 Labour supports the Arms (Military Style Semi-automatic Firearms and Import Controls) Amendment Bill and it was interesting to see the real level of interest shown by the people wanting to make submissions on this issue. There were some 257 written submissions and of those 71 people were heard before the Law and Order Committee. I think this is pretty much a reflection of New Zealand as a country where traditionally a lot of people have been keen on hunting. We have got nearly 230000 people who are licensed to own firearms. I declare my interest as being one of those persons. I use firearms for pest control on my farm and when I get the chance I enjoy deerstalking.  
I think that we do have a problem with firearms in this country but it is not one that is being addressed by this bill. Actually the worry that I have is not encompassed by this bill at all. It is the fact that this year we have seen too often the inadvertent shooting of one hunter by another hunter who has not followed the basic rule of firearm ownership and that is: identify your target. I know when I hunt with professionals how seriously they take the issue of safety. There is no room for risk. If we were spending time in the House on anything tonight perhaps it should be on how we can ensure that people who are licensed to be firearm owners actually understand the need to treat lethal weapons with the respect they deserve.  
The debate at the select committee was pretty much about a balance of rights—the rights of New Zealanders to legitimately own firearms to use for pest control or hunting versus the right of the public to be protected from the proliferation of weapons in the hands of people who are improper people to hold those weapons. If we look at the history of this country we see that we have not been without incidents of mass slaughter of people by individuals sometimes for reasons of mental health or whatever. I think of the case of Stanley Graham early in the last century. He did not have a military-style semi-automatic; he had a single-shot rifle. Nevertheless he killed 10 people including a number of policemen. We think of David Gray and of course not in New Zealand but within our recent memory we think of Anders Breivik. He did have military-style semi-automatic weapons and was able to engage in the mass slaughter of innocent people in a way that horrifies every member of this House. So the need for balance is very clear.  
The bill does four things and I endorse each of the purposes that are set out. First of all it defines what a military-style semi-automatic weapon is. The definition had been thrown into some doubt by a High Court decision in I think Palmerston North by Justice Mallon which the police said created uncertainty as to how you define a military-style semi-automatic. Well I think that the definition under this bill is pretty clear: a firearm that after being loaded fires and ejects a cartridge case and that chambers another cartridge with each pull of the trigger. That is the semi-automatic side of it. The military-style side of it is set out in other characteristics: a magazine that contains either 10 or 15 rounds and a firearm that has a pistol grip. I support that definition.  
I also support the allowing of regulations to be made to alter that definition. Regulations can be a useful tool of the Government to respond immediately and without the detailed process of the passage of legislation. But that in itself has some risks. When you make changes by regulation you deprive the public of a chance to make submissions on the legislation. That is an important part of democracy. You also deprive this House of the ability to scrutinise whether those regulations are justified. I think the select committee did the right thing in saying that the power to make regulations was a restricted power and that there needed to be subordinate validating legislation brought in within a specified period of time. I think that finds the appropriate balance.  
Thirdly the bill allows an appeal to the District Court where a firearms owner believes that his or her firearm has been wrongly classified as a military-style semi-automatic.  
Fourthly but not the least of the provisions in this bill the bill provides a restriction on the importation of airguns that have the appearance of a restricted weapon a pistol or a military-style semi-automatic. It was of concern to the select committee that the police literally on a weekly basis are dealing with cases where somebody brandishes a firearm that could be mistaken for a lethal weapon. This happens sometimes with people who are drunk or drugged. The police are cast in a hugely unfortunate situation of seeing somebody with a weapon that may be lethal. Their lives might be in danger the lives of other innocent people might be in danger and perhaps on rare occasions the individual with an imitation firearm can end up being shot.  
I think it makes sense to prevent the importation of airguns that could be mistaken for real weapons. The police take these incidents very seriously. It is a priority response that involves armed police and it sometimes involves the armed offenders squad. They believe that this is a change that is appropriate and I agree with the position they have taken.  
Another issue at the Law and Order Committee was the question of community input into the making of regulations and legislation. I know a lot of the leaders in the hunting community. I know them to be responsible people and I know them to be people who have a detailed knowledge and expertise which means that their input into the technical side of legislation and regulations could be really helpful. Labour supports the setting up of a statutory body where people can give advice on this sort of legislation. But we were told that making an amendment to the legislation was beyond the scope of this bill. It was also a matter of common sense that if you are going to set up a statutory advisory body it is not just for the very narrow range of issues such as those we are addressing in the House tonight; it is on the wider area of proper legislation and regulation of firearms in the community. So we maintain our support for the idea of having a statutory advisory body and we would certainly support the recommendation of the select committee that this is something that does need attention albeit not in this bill as it is set out.  
I want to finish by commenting on the ACT minority view on this bill. When I read it I thought it was a submission from the National Rifle Association in the United States which takes the approach that it is an absolute right for any individual to control a lethal weapon and that the State has no role in interfering with that right. I beg to differ. I have seen the results as has every member of this House of such a policy in the United States. In many states you can go into a store without a permit and purchase a pistol that can be concealed or purchase a military-style automatic weapon and time and again we have seen the tragic consequences of such a policy.  
I say to the ACT Party get real. Make sure that in this country we can have legislation that applies proper restrictions without unduly restricting the legitimate right of responsible people in this country to use firearms. The fact that the ACT Party gets less than 1 percent in the polls—actually zero percent at the moment—is a reflection of the fact that it takes such an extreme libertarian view. I believe that this legislation by comparison gets the balance right which is why the Labour Party will be supporting this bill though to its third reading.