SpeechBRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you Madam Speaker. It is regrettable that we are standing here today debating this bill in the form that it's in. And that is true for a number of reasons but particularly one key reason and that is that the Minister himself and indeed the Prime Minister have repeatedly said that the provisions in this bill would ensure that guns were kept out of the hands of criminals and that it didn't unduly focus on law-abiding firearms owners. Well that's not what the bill we are debating today actually delivers and there's a mound of evidence that backs this up.For instance in the 51st Parliament a Law and Order Committee inquiry heard evidence from Australia that almost 90 percent of firearms offences are committed by people who are unlicensed. And we were assailed for a period of time pre-COVID in this country with report after report of firearms offences involving gang members where those gang members were not licensed for those firearms and certainly not carrying the proper endorsements for the semi-automatics that they shouldn't have been using nor the pistols in some cases. This bill does nothing about that. This bill and particularly in the amendments to Part 5 of the principal Act places more rules regulation and cost on people that do follow the law on those law-abiding firearms owners who meet the fit and proper test. It doesn't do anything about people that don't bother to get a licence. It doesn't stop them getting hold of or using the firearm. Yes the Minister might say there is an offence with a tougher penalty if they get caught. That is true. But his claim consistently has been that it will stop them and it doesn't.One thing that could have been done—and I will only mention this in passing but it could have been done—was putting firearms prohibition order provisions into the bill. That absolutely would have been a tool to help keep guns out of the hands of genuine criminals and gang members. There was ample opportunity through the process—the Minister has said 11 months there was ample opportunity. The Government actually even undertook some minor form of consultation on the matter that ended in early January but they didn't take the opportunity to put provisions in the bill. It's a missed opportunity. Had they done so they would have been able to argue that at least in part it was delivering what they claimed it would deliver: to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. But it does not.Certainly in licensing it makes some changes. There was a comment as early ago as yesterday which I just think needs to be resolved for the public and the members of the firearms community in particular. The Minister claimed that the licensing provisions the amendments and additions to Part 5 of the principal Act around licensing for lawful law-abiding firearms owners would have prevented the 15 March massacre. Principally what he was referring to was a provision in here about patterns of extremist behaviour. Well I think it's important for the public record to note the public record and the public record of that very matter that we have been led to believe now for over a year is that police were unaware of the online comments of that individual prior to the event. That being the case there's nothing in here that could have stopped that. I do accept that had they been aware of it absolutely the provision would prevent it. But I'd say that you would have struggled to determine him fit and proper in the first place. But to be absolutely clear: can't claim that by adding a couple of provisions and codifying the elements of the fit and proper person test actually would have prevented that event. It wouldn't have. It is unfair on the firearms community to in effect indirectly demonise them by claiming that it would have done.Actually on that point largely all it does do is take elements that are already in the police guidelines and codify them into the legislation. In itself that is not necessarily a bad thing but there are elements in it—not only that pattern of extremist behaviour one but also the health practitioner proactive notification element—which are worrying—very worrying. We all know how much of an issue mental health has become across the country—for instance in a recent ride-along with Wellington police I was told that in frequency mental health issues represent the second-highest frequency call outs for them. The first regrettably and terribly is family harm; mental health is a close second. It is an enormously serious problem. We heard evidence through the course of this bill traversing its way to this point and concerns not only from firearms owners but from other organisations within the mental health sphere that this risks people with problems not seeking help because if they worry that by seeking that help it might result in a police officer coming to their door to remove their firearms they may very well not seek that help in the first place. That doesn't help anyone and it certainly won't help to keep New Zealanders or New Zealand safer. There was an opportunity to improve that in our view; that was not taken up.What the bill also does in the form it is in is it places a whole lot more compliance and cost on shooting clubs and ranges almost all of which are simply run by small volunteer groups. These are not large-scale commercial operations they're not profitable organisations and we've heard repeatedly that that risks many of these simply closing up. Were that to transpire—and there is good reason to believe that in some cases it will—it actually has the perverse outcome of making New Zealand less safe because what we will see is firearms owners going down to a mate's place a farm down to the river to do things like sighting their rifles and for hunting or other activities and that's less well-managed. In fact there's general agreement—has been all along from police officials I think even from the Minister certainly from Government members on the Finance and Expenditure Committee—that these clubs and rangers represent the best organised governed and managed facilities in New Zealand. In the regulatory impact statement the police noted that there has been no case and no evidence to suggest that any form of extremist or illegal behaviour was growing or fomenting in organised clubs or range environments. They put forward a hypothetical that suggested it could happen but they admitted there was no evidence that it had. There was no need for this level of compliance burden. We argued that a simple notification of police of an existence of a club and range was sufficient because the police would retain powers of inspection at their wish so they would be able to provide the enforcement and compliance oversight without burdening the clubs and range managements themselves.On the register I'm going to point out a problem—there's several problems on the register. Now National does not oppose a firearm registry per se but what we've said all along is that this one that's being proposed won't deliver the objective which was stated as keeping the guns out of the hands of criminals. Again the evidence out of Australia at the select committee inquiry in the last parliamentary term: in 90 percent of homicides involving firearms the firearms were unregistered. We heard a statement since this bill traversed: 50 percent of firearms captured by police in this country have their markings ground off. This simply is the case and it's borne out with other examples not just evidence out of Australia that the registry itself will not keep guns out of the hands of criminals. It is also a really important element that Justice Thorp who's been referenced noted in his report that in order for a registry to be effective it would have to capture at least 90 percent of the firearms. There are estimated to be 1.2 million firearms in the country. There are also estimated to be based on police estimates up to 180000 now prohibited category firearms still out there in the communities that haven't been handed in. Now that immediately and absolutely means that the 90 percent threshold would not be able to be met and that by Justice Thorp's own comments the registry that they are proposing would fail. That's before we even consider the security and privacy around it. I mean the police's SAP system had a problem last year where dealers and firearms owners were able to see information including firearms details of other uses that they shouldn't have seen.The pest control exemption has got an enormous fish-hook in it that the applicant has to prove a significant detriment to jump through that hurdle to get their application approved. We've seen over the last year that that will be used to avoid giving the exemptions. So Federated Farmers want to look again at what they agreed to because their members are going to find it hard to use.This was a wasted opportunity a missed opportunity. We could have worked together to have presented worthwhile reforms; the Government heard but it didn't want to listen. We reject this bill.