Lees-Galloway Iain: Arms (Military Style Semi-automatic Firearms and Import Controls) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Lees-Galloway Iain: Arms (Military Style Semi-automatic Firearms and Import Controls) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 22 May 2012. Volume:680;Page:2292. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 I just intend to take a short call to reiterate Labour’s support for the Arms (Military Style Semi-automatic Firearms and Import Controls) Amendment Bill. Essentially what this bill sets out to achieve is to make the job of the police a little easier in terms of definitions of the weapons that they may find they are dealing with in their day-to-day jobs. Of course the genesis of this legislation came from the decision made by Justice Mallon in the High Court in Palmerston North which the police contend made it more difficult for them to define which firearms are military-style semi-automatic weapons. I have—and many colleagues will have done the same—spent some time out on the beat with the police. For those colleagues who have not had that experience yet I wholeheartedly encourage them to undertake it.  
It makes the job of the police easier when there are clear definitions in terms of their role in terms of what they can and cannot do and in terms of what the public can and cannot do. Then the police have very clear parameters about how to enforce the law. That I think is essentially what this bill is about. It ensures that the police have simple and clear parameters around the military-style weapons that they may encounter when carrying out their jobs. I understand that in this case and in many cases some people may feel that this bill in some way affects their civil liberties or affects their right to do whatever they will. But that is the natural balance that we have in a democracy—the balance between people’s civil liberties and the community’s right to be able to ensure that people are safe and that we give the police the tools to be able to carry out their role as best they can.  
That I suppose is why I have very significant concerns about the minority report offered by the ACT Party. I think it is so far out of touch with where New Zealand is at. I must admit I probably would have completely missed it had Jami-Lee Ross not referred to it in a slightly obscure fashion by not naming the party attached to the report. But this is old-fashioned United States Second Amendment right-to-bear-arms stuff. As my colleague Phil Goff pointed out this has demonstrably failed in the United States. Its Second Amendment came about in 1791 and frankly that is where it belongs—many centuries ago. It is not I think an attitude or an approach to law and order that is relevant today or that should be tolerated in a country like New Zealand today.  
I will be interested to see how the current member for the ACT Party John Banks will vote on this. I do not think that that minority report is the type of view that he would support personally. I hope that perhaps with his influence in the House the ACT Party’s view may change. The Labour Party does support this bill. It is a significant step in ensuring the good rule of law in our community and the safety of our community. For that reason we are more than happy to support it.