Collins Judith; Dyson RuthHon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Thank you Madam Speaker. My word I have reached the pinnacle of my political career when I a boomer—David Seymour: It's just beginning.Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Yeah well actually the member is quite right it is only just beginning; I would have thought halfway—when I a mere boomer am praised by the great Chlöe Swarbrick my word! Am I good or what? So thank you so much Miss Swarbrick. I take your praise—with a grain of salt but I take every bit of praise I can get because I am not so proud that I can disdain any compliment.Now let's get back to business shall we? We supported wholeheartedly the first tranche of work on this and we are finding ourselves disappointed to have to say that actually the second tranche this bill has not come up to the mark that we would expect. I have been like many other MPs spoken to by many constituents and my constituents know that I always take their advice and then I make my own mind up. I am fully in support of the first piece of legislation that we passed. This legislation however does have some issues that I think could be addressed hopefully in the committee of the whole House but which the current bill is not actually addressing.One of those is the issue around a firearms register. I don't have a problem with the concept at all and I know the National Party doesn't have a problem at all with the concept of a firearms register. The issue is in its implementation and the fact that it will only be a register of firearms of those people who legally own their firearms and who therefore put their firearms or their names forward to be included. If this Government that we're dealing with on the other side of the House was so concerned about the illegal use of firearms then they would have been adopting the firearm prohibition orders that our party tried to bring in when we were in Government and couldn't get enough support in Parliament to get that done because parties that we relied on to work with us on that would not support it. What these firearm prohibition orders do is if someone is a gang or organised crime member and they have access to firearms or they have some connections with them then they are in a position where they can't hold firearms licences and own firearms—not legally anyway.We have a situation in New Zealand where we have a lot of gang members and they seem to have been growing: about 15—Hon Nathan Guy: 1600.Hon JUDITH COLLINS: —1600 extra gang members—Hon Nathan Guy: Last 2½ years.Hon JUDITH COLLINS: —just in the last 2½ years. And what that tells us is that they're growing—Brett Hudson: That was the year of delivery all right!Hon JUDITH COLLINS: —in the year of delivery under the current Government. How many of these 1600 extra—I think we've now got about 10000 gang members in New Zealand something like that? About as many as we have cells for them. About 10000 people are not going to voluntarily put their hands up to owning firearms that they've stolen or they've bought on the black market or they've come by in some other way. They're not going to do that. It's going to be Joe and Janet Farmer who are going to tell the police which firearms they've got. And what we know is that registers—electronic registers hardcopy registers; though this would be electronic—can be hacked can be accessed by people who are criminals who are involved in organised crime and who will have then a list of the law-abiding people who have firearms and what firearms they have. And that is I think a problem.So we don't have a problem with the concept of a register because we understand that these are dangerous weapons whose purpose is to kill. We understand that. But we also understand that the people who will be complying with the law are those who always comply with the law and that the people that we're most concerned about are the people who almost never comply with the law and who this Government can't be bothered dealing with. Maybe it's because they think that they won't do as they're told. Well obviously a lot of people are not doing as they're told because—what there's 56000 firearms handed in is that right? Out of what 1.25 million that's estimated? Not all of those firearms of course have been handed in and there will be ones that are now declared illegal. And some of them many of them will be. But there will be other firearms that haven't been.One of the areas that we've been concerned about in our party and certainly in the Finance and Expenditure Committee has been people such as the shooting associations the competition shooters who have said to us that now they can't own the firearms that they use in international competition. When I suggested that maybe they could take those firearms overseas and leave them overseas well no they can't because that's also a breach of it. They need an export licence to do that and they can't do that either.So we're actually with this legislation taking away not only the possibility of people being killed with these weapons but actually the very legitimate sporting activities of people who've never shown any inclination at all to break any law ever and who have been trying very much to work within it. So I think these are things that could have been addressed. I particularly note the submissions from the pistol shooting association who had very good solutions for how we could deal with this because they have had a very strict regime since the 1980s which works really really well. I can't understand why the Government hasn't accepted that—and for some reason they haven't.We also have some concerns around the shifting of a firearms licence from five years to 10 years. Now I don't understand that because—I mean I understand that a firearms licence is an important document but this is at the same time that we've shifted the passport from five years to 10 years. I would have thought a passport was a pretty important document. It is actually a primary method by which people prove their identity. To be going from a five-year to a 10-year licence in that but a 10-year to a five-year licence in a firearms licence doesn't make sense does it? It just sounds like it's punitive and it's all about whacking around people who own firearms. I understand a lot of farmers own firearms but there's no reason for this Government to punish them just because they're farmers. They do enough damage to our poor farming and farming families as it is now; don't need to do any more.And then there are the issues around collectors. Well some of us have family members who are collectors and they're finding they're really upset because their collections that they've built up over the years—of World War II things and various other things—just get destroyed. It's all very well to say Oh they can have these guns decommissioned and basically destroyed in front of them." and that will suddenly make them right but these are silly silly rules. And then we've got sporting ranges. Well they want shooting ranges in this bill to have a similar certification process to clubs but they must also have public liability insurance. What's the insurance got to do with anything with safety? Insurance has got nothing to do with safety. How many people are being shot on these ranges? None that's how many—none zero zip none. So what's going on here? And then you see that the certification lasts only for—guess what!—five years compared to clubs which are indefinite. So what's the point of that? And then we recommend amending the bill to require notification to police at a shooting range rather than certification. Well you know it just seems weird to me. So there's a lot of stuff that actually seems extremely punitive and doesn't need to be like that.I think the first Act that we brought through with such acclaim within Parliament was sensible; this however is going too far. This is overreaching. This is actually treating with contempt people who are law-abiding people who have a reason to own firearms—whether it's for sporting activity shooting pests or on a farm because you need to have a firearm with which to put down an animal that is suffering. These are things that actually exist in the real world not in Parliament. I think this is a lost opportunity so I'm hopeful that the Government will listen and will consider changes because I would have thought New Zealand First would want to bring about changes. I would have thought New Zealand First would want to be able to say something that they've achieved which is to help work with us to bring about these changes. Thank you. Madam Speaker.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): The following call is a split call—Jo Luxton."