McKelvie IanIAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you Madam Chair—I'll work very hard for this. I don't want to spend a lot of time on the title of this bill but I do want to comment on my colleague Brett Hudson's naming of the title because I think frankly that if I had my way that title would be shoved in a box and put in cold storage somewhere for quite some time. But I do want to very briefly allude to why the title of a bill is important because the reason it's important is because you go to the website or whatever you used to do—you'd go out to Hansard I suppose—and you find the title of the bill and you look up the information. You really go to the title of the bill to find out what that bill contains. Unfortunately in this case this bill contains some very confusing and in my view misleading information. So effectively what it does is you go to the bill you look up the title you find out what's in the bill and you're extremely disappointed and you're disappointed for quite a number of reasons. First of all it's difficult to understand. Secondly it contains a whole lot of facts and matters that I think are extremely difficult to follow.I want to very briefly comment on a matter that the last speaker David Seymour raised and I want to comment on it because I think it's very relevant to where we're at in life in New Zealand at the moment and that's the matter of privilege. Frankly I think it's a privilege to be alive. I think life is a privilege and I think everything in life's a privilege actually and if you look after it you don't have to write it down. That's how life is. That's how we should live frankly. It shouldn't be written down in legislation—extraordinary. It's a privilege to eat—well is it? I don't know. We'll have that in legislation next. I think that's the concern I've got about things like this because I—David Seymour: It's a privilege to fish.IAN McKELVIE: Absolutely. Well it is a privilege to fish and it's even more of a privilege if you can catch one—that's the real challenge. But I do think that we take I suppose literally licence with some stuff. So I have difficulty with the title of a bill for that reason because often what's in the bill has got no relevance to the title of the bill.Anyway I want to get on to the commencement and I want to deal with some issues that again were raised by a New Zealand First representative in Ron Mark. He talked a lot about the way the bill was constructed and how his party had made some magnificent changes to the bill but actually he then talked about the fact that this bill is not relevant and we're going to renew it when we come back to Parliament. The reason he did that was for the reason I alluded to in my short discussion on the title: because there's so much in this bill that doesn't make sense that it's going to have to be rewritten when it comes back to Parliament. The commencement date and all those things that follow from it are also very confusing.I want to briefly touch on the register too because that's been a discussion that I've seen take place in this Parliament in my time in the Parliament and there's no firm conclusion on how you would run a register. There's no firm conclusion on how you're going to operate that register. Of course we've now got the register being delayed for three years. That'll give us time to sort it out I suppose. But many of the submitters at the time talked about the register and talked about the fact as the previous speaker alluded to that this place leaks. Not only does this place leak but most of our Government departments leak in one form or another. There were some very real concerns expressed by submitters at the time about the fact that a register would not necessarily be secure and you can only surmise that that's why they're taking three years to design and put in place a register. Of course by that time there will be many many more guns in New Zealand because this bill doesn't stop the sale of guns and those guns will all be around the country and they won't be on the register.So the whole thing is flawed in every which way you look at it and I think that the commencement date of this bill—it probably would save us all a lot of hassle if the commencement date of the bill was actually put back for three years and we reviewed the bill before we reintroduced it in the following Parliament because it is very untidy.Now we've talked earlier in the debate about the fact that we supported the first tranche of legislation and New Zealand was in a position which was extremely unfortunate. I absolutely agree that some of these guns should never be part of our society. They have no place in society in my view. But nonetheless the people that own guns and collect guns and operate in this sector are exactly the same as everybody else. They've got the same rights as everybody else in New Zealand. So I think that the commencement date of this bill puts those rights at threat because effectively it's staging—you might call it a confiscation of rights but I don't know whether it is because I think if we took the bill in its truest sense and it settles down in due course unfortunately people accept what's been taken from them and I think that's very unfortunate.