Hudson BrettBRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you Madam Speaker. As has become all too often in this term of Parliament the Government is delivering something other than what it says on the tin. And it is for that reason that the National Party will be opposing this bill in this its first reading. The Minister of Police along with the Prime Minister when they introduced this bill in the media claimed that it would keep guns out of the hands of criminals. It isn't focused on criminals at all; in fact it has it in our view 180 degrees the wrong way around. Instead the bill is imposing greater regulation more responsibilities and more costs on law-abiding New Zealanders who happen to own firearms and is doing very little of any substance to address genuine criminal activity and particularly gangs. Now we should consider what it means to be classed as a law-abiding firearms owner. By its very definition it means that individual or the collection of individuals are following the laws as they are set down. They are following the rules they are owning firearms appropriately they are using them appropriately. The one thing we do agree with the Minister on is when he said that the overwhelming majority of firearms owners are law-abiding New Zealanders. We agree with that. It is for that very reason that they don't need additional regulation and responsibility—because they follow the law. They use their firearms appropriately. The target should be those that don't and placing more onus and cost on firearms owners definitely affects the wrong people. In 2016 with its report in 2017 the Law and Order Committee formulated an inquiry into the possession of firearms. Amongst the evidence that they heard in that inquiry was the example of Australia: 87 per cent of people who commit offences involving firearms are not licensed. Those people do not hold firearms licences. To create additional provisions or responsibilities around such licences simply does not—cannot—affect those people because they are not licensed in the first place. The Minister made reference to how these licence changes would help police undertaking their duties. Well we certainly on this side support the efforts of police and particularly on the front line. But here is the situation: if the police are aware that a resident of a property holds a firearms licence they are going to automatically approach that incident or complaint on the basis that a firearm could potentially be involved. A register or tougher licensing conditions are not going to change the way that they react in those situations. They will always assume the danger could be present. I'd also like to make a comment about the Christchurch situation and particularly the individual who it is understood—who we believe certainly—perpetrated those events because it does relate very closely to law abiding and therefore what Parliament should or should not be looking to do. I'm not going to speculate on the depth of the facts around how he got a licence in the first place. I'm sure the royal commission of inquiry is looking into that and will report on it. But one thing is very pertinent to this debate. We understand that the individual purchased a rifle a semi-automatic rifle legally and—at least technically—legally purchased a large capacity magazine. From the very first moment he bought those two items together he committed a criminal offence. He was not a law-abiding individual well before those tragic events of 15 March. To think that we could take actions that impinge upon the responsibilities of law-abiding firearms owners and would capture someone with that wilful intent is in fact if not to misunderstand certainly not to accurately represent that situation and others that might follow. So instead of focusing on genuine criminals such as through the provisions of the likes of firearms prohibition orders which would enable the commissioner to set a higher threshold or barrier to possessing a firearm and create additional offences with very steep penalties penalties that could be as long as 14 years in jail for people particularly gang members with serious convictions—that addresses a general criminal activity that is real positive real action to get firearms out of the wrong hands. Instead the Government has provisions such as registration and certification of clubs and shooting ranges. We should bear in mind that the people that are members of these clubs or operate at these ranges are fundamentally volunteers. They are small groups of people that come together to enjoy their pastime whether it is a sporting event or more practice for other legitimate uses of firearms—perhaps their hunting activities. If we overburden those individuals with certification bureaucracy and insurances and the like we risk a very real situation where those that can will simply leave those environments and instead undertake their shooting on private property such as farms well beyond any form of oversight. We could in fact end up with a situation which has less oversight than we have today. In fact the only ones that would be obliged to continue to operate under that regime are the likes of people shooting pistols and other sporting activities because they have to operate under those conditions and quite frankly they are already the best-managed groups and ranges in New Zealand. That is why we have sought to be constructive while we are opposing this bill. We have returned and publicised some conditions around what would be appropriate ways of notifications around these clubs and particularly ranges so the police can be aware of the activities that are undertaken lawfully but which would not apply the same level of bureaucracy and burden on to those groups of volunteers.I'd like to now move on to the register at least briefly. In public at least the Prime Minister and the Minister have claimed that a register would keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Well I refer back again to that select committee report and the example of Australia. Their evidence there was that 90 percent of firearms used in criminal offences were not registered—were not registered. There is simply no way a claim can be given on the evidence we have that a register will keep guns out of the hands of criminals. It doesn't. Now there may be another reason that the Government might want a register and we may even be able to agree with that but our call to the Government therefore is to place the details out there so that we can see them put them into the legislation and set out for the public and for the Opposition here how it is that their register will be different to other registers around the world that have failed.The first bill was rushed. We did want to respond quickly; however the rushed select committee process created a number of issues; one or more of which have had to be fixed via regulation after the bill passed such as the allowance to allow possession of prohibited ammunition in certain circumstances because it wasn't included in the bill—clearly an error. Now we see errors in this bill too and the one I'll reference right now is to do with dealer licences. The Government has decided it wishes to include all commercial activities—supply hiring lending along with the traditional selling and manufacturing—under a dealer's licence requirement. Regrettably section 7 of the Act states that a dealer can only be linked to a single physical premises and that must be where they undertake their business activities. Section 7A allows some temporary shift from those premises but only for the purposes of gun shows. Now an armourer came to see me in my Johnsonville office—a guy that goes out and provides firearms and services to movie producers on set—and pointed out that the legislation the Government has introduced means he can't undertake his business because the place of his business varies potentially from day to day but it certainly varies a great deal. Another oversight we believe brought about probably more than anything else because the Government and perhaps their advisers simply haven't consulted broadly enough. We have issued a list of 13 changes that we would like to see in order to support this bill. They would require a special instruction to the select committee which I hope the Government will support. If it does not we will oppose this bill.