Clark DavidHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): In New South Wales where they implemented similar legislation as we've just heard from the member Chris Bishop an ombudsman's review found multiple failings in this approach including in practice where no firearms were located in over 600 searches. The bill itself sounds well-intentioned but in fact it's actually ill-advised and doesn't address the issue—the key issue—of how police ensure only fit and proper people hold a firearms licence or have access to firearms. I'm sure everyone in this House is wondering why—why—if this is so important the National Government who've only been out of office for one year didn't do something to address this over their nine years here on this side of the House.Hon Ruth Dyson: How long were they in Government?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: They were here for nine years and certainly the statistics I've seen suggest that gun violence has been pretty static over that most recent five-year period. It doesn't seem to be a big issue but suddenly it has become a big issue when the politics have changed. This is a knee-jerk reaction. It's actually about enabling the extension of searches without warrants—plain and simple. This is a bill that undermines human rights principles and enables the extension of searches without warrants. In fact it puts the police in an invidious position. They've recommended the Government not support this bill. The bill they say has serious flaws and will not deliver on the intent as outlined in the general policy statement. That's from the police—the people the member purports to want to be supporting here. The fit and proper person test already effectively bans gang members and prospects from holding firearms licences. The way the law is drafted now has restrictions around who can hold a firearms licence and this does nothing except promote searches without warrants. Concerns have been raised about police accountability and of course human rights legislation where searches can be made on subjective reasoning rather than on sufficient facts. Here's the kicker—here's the kicker: there's a National Party member who said not so long ago that the National Party firmly believes or this person firmly believes that searches should not be enforced without warrants apparently in complete contradiction to the bill's intent. And who do we think it was who said out there publicly that searches should not be enforced without warrants? Well it was none other than the National Party leader. The National Party leader doesn't seem to support the intent of this bill. Here is a member trying to put through something that he popped in the biscuit tin because he thought it would be popular—actually it undermines human rights. All it does is extend searches without warrants. I bet that member's feeling a bit awkward right now because what this bill does and doesn't do will be laid completely bare in this debate that we're having now.What we actually need is a more solid piece of work and I trust the honourable member Stuart Nash to do that piece of work. In fact I know that he has work under way to make sure that we in this House receive a bill that actually addresses the wider issues in this area that looks at the fit and proper person test and looks at how we can make sure that we have a strategy to deal with gangs generally—a proper plan rather than a piecemeal approach that looks simplistically at what can be done and that looks across the Tasman at a piece of legislation that their ombudsman has pointed to multiple failings in. We recognise that the existence of gangs may be symptomatic of a deeper structural issue we have in society and it needs to be dealt with in a more sophisticated manner. There need to be cohesive and sensible decisions made if we are to effectively take action against organised crime. So what I'm saying and what I'm arguing is that this bill would not make New Zealand safer. Where it's been implemented in similar cases overseas we have seen that these weapons have not been found. Warrantless searches may also increase hostility toward police. Those who have been securing firearms illegally and don't hold a firearms licence are the ones most likely to commit gun crime and they are hardly going to change their behaviour in response to this threat. It is likely also to be costly for the taxpayer as each of these firearms prohibition orders must be signed off individually and may be challenged in the courts. This bill would demand more administration resources from police and the courts so not only is it likely to be ineffective and likely to undermine human rights principles it is likely to be costly. At this point I should reveal my hand and say that we on this side of the House in the Labour Party will not be supporting this bill. We don't support legislation that's ineffective that undermines human rights and that costs the taxpayer money to be ineffective. It is a crazy piece of legislation. What we need is a more comprehensive response that actually gets to the nub of the issue and looks at how we can ensure that fit and proper people have access to firearms and that those that are not do not.As I say currently an applicant must be able to be deemed fit and proper to possess or use firearms. Set criteria are used to determine that so affiliation with a criminal group is already listed as making a person ineligible for a firearms licence. Some statistics here: in 2014 3969 patched members of gangs were analysed in relation to firearms offences. Of those 44 percent had been charged for an offence involving a firearm 9 percent had been charged five or more times over their lifetime and less than 1 percent—less than 1 percent of those surveyed—held a firearms licence at the time of the survey. So it's not like these are people trying to comply. It's not like these are people who are going to be affected by searches and so on. In fact if guns ever are found as they were not in New South Wales it's likely that those who have criminal intent may if weapons are seized go and take more. It's not likely to be effective legislation. It leaves the police open to allegations of bias. It leaves legal action open that's likely to be costly. And the law already restricts firearms licence holders and says that firearms won't be issued to someone known to have convictions for violent offences. So we already have protections in place. We already have restrictions in place.One more point I wanted to make was that firearms offences are on the rise but the number of firearms stolen has actually remained relatively consistent over the last five years. If National feels it is an issue—and I did say this earlier—we would wonder why they didn't do something about this earlier if it really was something they thought was consistent. But gun-related incidents per 100000 people have been tracking down since the 1980s more broadly. This seems to be an issue motivated by politics and one that will not produce the solution that the member purports to do. When the police say this is something that isn't going to work we need to listen to them. When they say this is something that they're worried about they've got concerns about we need to listen. On this side of the House we will and the Labour Party will.I think the other thing that really is concerning is a general view that we've heard from that side of the House that some people have fewer human rights than others. One wonders whether that's something that's at play again here. That's something that Paula Bennett has previously said. Well the Labour Party doesn't agree with that. We think human rights—fair ways of judging whether someone is fit to hold a firearms licence should apply; not subjective tests that put police at risk put police in an awkward position are unlikely to be effective and are very likely to be costly to the taxpayer because they can be disputed and they involve creating a whole new bureaucracy.What we need to do of course is enforce the current restrictions—they will be sufficient for ensuring that those who should not be issued with a firearms licence are not—and have a broader piece of work that looks at the broader societal issues and is more sophisticated in its response; not a political knee-jerk reaction.