Sio William: Arms (Military Style Semi-automatic Firearms and Import Controls) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Sio William: Arms (Military Style Semi-automatic Firearms and Import Controls) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 05 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7240. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Su’a 
 WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 I am happy to take a call on this particular bill the Arms (Military Style Semi-automatic Firearms and Import Controls) Amendment Bill and I just note that this bill makes clear the definition of what a military-style semi-automatic firearm is. I also note that it will allow regulations to be made that will declare what is a military-style semi-automatic firearm and what its distinctive features are. I also note that it provides for appeal rights for those firearms owners to the District Court particularly firearms owners who may disagree with the definition given to their firearm—whether it is classified as a military-style semi-automatic firearm or not—and it places restrictions on the importation of airguns that may look like real pistols or military-style semi-automatic firearms. 
I think it would be disturbing for most New Zealanders when they hear of the background to this. As a result of a court case in the High Court in Palmerston North in 2010 the police had difficulty in trying to determine with certainty which firearms would be classified as military-style semi-automatic firearms. Although these definitions in the legislation are important from a legal perspective especially to ensure that those using illegal firearms or those holding a firearm without a permit are appropriately prosecuted I think most New Zealanders may not appreciate that. I say that because I think most New Zealanders would be surprised by the numbers that the Minister of Police has articulated about the high levels of illegal firearms or the high levels of military-style semi-automatic firearms. After all most New Zealanders would say that a gun is a gun and the sole purpose of a gun for most of us who are not enthusiasts is that it releases a projectile at high speed and it will cause harm. It will kill it will maim and those bullets from that gun do not discriminate. It will kill maim or snuff out a life whether it is an animal or a human being. 
I have not had the privilege of sitting on the select committee so I did not get the opportunity to hear the submissions from the public and I wish I had because it appears that the committee had some very difficult issues to try to cope with. There were 257 submissions and 71 people made personal submissions and I think those submissions are quite valuable as those of us who do not have the experience of firearms look to those who do have the expertise in this particular field. 
I have got some personal experiences that I would like to share with the House. I do not know how many people have been shot at. I do not know whether you have sat next to a person who has accidentally shot themselves in the arm. Certainly closer to home in 2009 we had a young man aged 17 years old who was accidentally shot by mistake. So those points really show how I personally feel about the issue of firearms. 
Some years ago I visited some relatives in the United States. During that visit I happened to be in a car that was driving one way and there was another car coming towards us. As we stopped the other car would not move so the driver of our car went to confront the car and they backed up and pulled out what appeared to be an automatic pistol and starting shooting at the car I was in. That was scary. It did not hurt anybody but certainly my aunt sitting in the back was scared stiff. I was oblivious. I did not know what had just happened but there were certainly three bullet holes in the car we were sitting in. In that same trip I had a relative who was so gung-ho about showing off that he had purchased a pistol. I was not paying attention but sitting next to me as he pushed the clip in he accidentally released the safety latch and shot himself clean in the arm. It did not hit any bones but again that was quite scary. 
I suppose the matter that weighs heavily on our community is when a young man of 17 years was shot and killed leaving a partner and a young child behind. Although that was admittedly a mistake by the police it does bring home the fact that these firearms semi-automatic or not cause harm to our society. They kill. No one should be in a situation where they are either harmed or die from a gun whether they are police or a member of the public. I think it is right that the Labour Party supports this bill because I think it is right that the police have the powers to be able to prosecute anyone who brings firearms to this country illegally or who has a gun without a permit. 
Although it is outside the scope of this bill my colleague Kris Faafoi said that Labour did seek to have an independent arms advisory group. I think the police ought to look into that. Given the increased powers we give to the police and given the need for the police themselves to arm I think there would be some serious concerns throughout this country about where we are heading as a country particularly in terms of the amount of power that police have with regard to firearms but also in terms of what we do about illegal firearms. 
I think it is disturbing for people that we allow for the sake of sport semi-automatic firearms. This is not my area but I am not sure how safe it is and whether those who receive permits to hold such firearms do get the training and are in a situation where they know how to handle a firearm. So I think there is room for the Minister and for the police to consider that independent arms advisory group and perhaps look at extending the scope of it by extending it beyond just classifying what the features of a certain firearm are. 
I note that the Minister said in her second reading speech that the bill does not seek to “radically alter the status quo” and that may be so for military-style semi-automatic firearms but I think there has been radical alteration to the foundation of our country as a result of some of the other legislation that this Government has put up. We have moved from an economy that once upon a time valued progressive taxation where everyone was paying their fair share based on their ability to pay. Now we are in an economy where those on the highest incomes pay less and those on low incomes pay more. As a result of this Government’s austerity measures throughout the public sector has been under constant attack. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Order! 
Su’a 
 WILLIAM SIO 
: The point I am making is that it is about symbolism. We have talked about this bill not radically altering the status quo but I am making a comparison to what is happening to our economy. I think there has been radical change in that. 
The Minister also said that the bill provides for the meaning of the term “pistol grip” to be spelt out clearly in the regulation with the assistance of illustration. I would say that there have been numerous illustrations of incompetency by this Government in its 4-year term. There has been debate as to whether a pistol grip is a feature of a military-style semi-automatic firearm or not and this is similar to the debate we currently have as to whether this Government has a firm grip on this economy or not. I would say that this Government has preferred not to have a grip on this economy and that is why we are in the mess we are in. Only today we hear that this year we will mark the 50000th New Zealander leaving our shores for Australia. That is another example of this Government not having a firm grip on where this country is heading.