Power Simon: Arms Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Power Simon: Arms Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19780] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I am pleased to see my colleagues Ron Mark and Ken Shirley in the House to debate the Arms Amendment Bill (No 3) because those gentlemen were members of the Law and Order Committee along with myself during the last Parliament. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: A very good committee. 
SIMON POWER 
: It was a good committee I say to Mr Shirley. It was well chaired by Janet Mackey. It was that committee that had to deal with the submissions on the Arms Amendment Bill (No 2) and its report back to Parliament. From memory there were some 6000 submissions. I think that is correct and I am sure a member to speak after me will correct me if I am wrong. This was the first select committee I had sat on during my time as a member of Parliament. Janet Mackey Ken Shirley and Ron Mark sat on that committee. Brian Neeson and Tony Steel might have been there as well. Judith Tizard— 
Georgina Beyer 
: I was on it. 
SIMON POWER 
: Georgina Beyer was on that committee. That is right. The interesting thing is how the select committee process works. As the Minister rightly pointed out this bill was originally sent to the select committee by the previous National Government and it was well intentioned. But when members of the committee sat down to go through the bill and listened to the submissions that were brought before the committee it became apparent not only to myself and other National members on that committee and not only to Mr Shirley and Mr Mark but more particularly and more interestingly to the Government members on that committee that the Arms Amendment Bill (No 2) would not work in a million years. 
 Even the police advisers to the select committee towards the end were saying that it did not look that tidy. The reason was simple. If there were a registration system for every single firearm in New Zealand we would essentially be saying to the criminal element of New Zealand: “Look would you mind coming in and registering your firearm?”. That was never going to happen and that was essentially the fall-down position of this bill. The more we heard about how guns come into the hands of people who use them for ill means the more we realised that actually a registration system for the firearm itself would penalise only those well-intentioned law-abiding citizens who would bring their firearms forward to be registered. The last thing somebody who is going to rob a bank will do is to say: “Before I rob that bank I must dash in and get this firearm registered.” 
That was never going to happen. So we travelled the country Janet Mackey Ken Shirley Ron Mark and myself. Stephen Franks was there a bit and that other guy from the Alliance who was here for one term—Kevin Campbell. Kevin Campbell travelled with us from time to time as well. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: He was a good bloke. 
SIMON POWER 
: He was a good bloke; he gave a good valedictory. It became clear that the legislation was never going to work. So we said to Janet Mackey who did a fine job of chairing that select committee that she had to go back to her caucus and tell George Hawkins that it was not a runner. I do not know whether she did but what happened was that the bill was reported back with the committee being unable to reach a recommendation. It was reported back actually on 22 February 2001 and there it sat on the Order Paper until now. That was over 3 years ago. From time to time the shadow Leader of the House Gerry Brownlee and I have queried this. After the business statement on Thursday Mr Brownlee would often ask how we were getting on with the Arms Amendment Bill (No 2). It was pretty obvious that Mr Hawkins’ office struggled with this—amongst other things—and in the end the Arms Amendment Bill (No 3) was born of that frustration and the legacy of the Law and Order Committee in the Parliament before this. 
This bill is significant not for what it does but what it does not do. Even Judith Tizard pointed out it was pointless trying to get people to register firearms who were not that way disposed. So we find ourselves now with a bill that does not register firearms actually. What it does is try to drive our domestic legislative agenda to a point where it coincides with more UN protocols. Regardless of one’s view of the UN—and we could stand here all night talking about the UN—the fact is this legislation is designed to do two things. The first is to drive our domestic legislation closer to that protocol. I believe the Minister herself said during her contribution that she could not guarantee it would meet the protocol at that point if the bill was passed by this Parliament but it would get legs to get partly there. So there is a protocol against the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms their parts and components that supplements the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime. It creates offences around the illicit manufacture of firearms and their parts and their trafficking. That seems fair enough. It is difficult to argue with that. 
 The National Party will not be opposing the passage of this legislation to the select committee; what it will be doing is saying that at this point we will support the bill to a select committee but we will listen with interest to submissions. One thing is for sure—as Ken Shirley and Ron Mark know—this bill will attract large numbers of submissions. There is nothing surer than that. The gun lobby as well as those around various other organisations will definitely want to make submissions on the bill. At that point the other amendments will no doubt be addressed by those submitters—issues around body armour search powers seizure of licences temporary suspension of licences and importantly as pointed out by Judith Tizard one positive and significant step in this bill relates to the storage and security of firearms and their components. That makes sense. It is a positive thing that the bill does as opposed to it being more interesting for what it does not do following on from the Arms Amendment Bill (No 2). 
The other thing worth looking at is the air guns clauses. Those weapons if one likes are becoming more and more powerful. Some of them that have muzzle energy of a certain magnitude will be brought under the registration scheme and that is a good thing. So we wait with interest to see whether the Arms Amendment Bill (No 3) draws as much attention as the Arms Amendment Bill (No 2) which as I said earlier from recollection had about 6500 submissions. We sat through adjournments and goodness knows what else. It was very interesting. I learnt more about firearms in that 6 months than I ever had before. 
The National Party will support the bill to select committee and we will listen with interest to what submitters say. The mistake of the Arms Amendment Bill (No 2) was that it was conceived tabled and sent to a select committee on the basis of the Thorp report without having had the benefit of submissions. This is one case where even under an MMP environment the select committee process between Government and Opposition members came to a sensible and rational conclusion and we hope that the passage of the No. 3 bill allows us to have those same sorts of considerations. 
Debate interrupted.