Barry MaggieHon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. What a ridiculous diatribe we just heard from that member who has just resumed his seat Ron Mark. I apologise from this side of the House to the unfortunate people who were witnessing it—it's bad enough to be in its presence. People with anger management issues—Uncle Ron"—ought not to have a gun. The less said the better. The Arms (Firearms Prohibition Orders) Amendment Bill however there's a lot to be said about.I rise with pleasure to speak about this bill which I think is a useful bill. I think that unlike some members opposite on this side of the House we're very well aware of people who have anger management issues—don't look too far for those. But also we have dangerous people in this country—600 of them alone would be eligible immediately for these firearms prohibition orders (FPOs)—because there are people who see themselves as beyond the law. They see themselves as not needing licences. These are people who have caused inestimable damage to homes to families to communities in New Zealand and this bill is sensible. It's a sensible amendment to the Arms Act. It involves provisions for scrutiny including by the Commissioner of Police and also beyond that the courts. So the idea that it's going to be misused somehow or affect people who are innocent parties I think is an incorrect assessment to put it mildly.We were told by Minister Clark who spoke earlier that Minister Stuart Nash was working on a more holistic approach to organised crime. Now what's that? Labour-speak for another working group—another group of people who will sit back for several years and have a big talkfest and a big thinktank and then come up with absolutely nothing and will have done nothing while bad people continue to roam the land with powerful firearms terrorising communities. So we take a comprehensive approach with this bill as a starting point—and I think it is a very good starting point—rather than looking at the never-never plans that the members opposite are involved with.It's very difficult to make any kind of sense of the angry individual that resumed his seat before. I guess one of the points that he was making was that the police didn't want it but we have heard from the sponsor of this bill that the Police Association are very much in favour of it. And of course Chris Bishop who is the sponsor of this bill was in the select committee inquiry into illegal firearms and there were a number of issues that he has been told about as a result of that inquiry that have informed this bill. As the case has been made—and the point has been made by my other colleagues—the members opposite rail against the idea that there should be any diminution of the ability to get search warrants for these things whereas they allowed it happily for National Animal Identification and Tracing tags not so long ago. So they're prepared to make compromises exceptions contradictions completely—Matt King: Tags but not guns!Hon MAGGIE BARRY: Tags but not guns exactly as my colleague Matt has said.So when we look at the provisions of this bill and the changes that will have to occur we have to have a Police Commissioner personally signing off on each order. These are the kinds of situations which are not going to be done on a whim and a fancy; they're going to have to be very carefully thought through. And the ability to challenge it in the court I think gives us peace of mind that there will not be unintended consequences. I think that we've seen a lot of politics really emerge from the parties that have spoken so far about this in opposition to this bill—and it is politics. They haven't got their own policies ready they haven't got their own legislation ready and they are knocking a piece of legislation back in the hope that they can try and claim the whole ground on this and they are letting opportunities pass them by.This is a sensible measure. The 20 recommendations that were made by the select committee inquiry into illegal firearms have been carefully considered by Chris Bishop. The stand-down periods and so forth—implementing a 12-month stand-down period after a licence revocation rather than a blanket revocation—are a useful thing and this is a recommendation that has been accepted and implemented. Reviewing the penalties of the Arms Act—it was as a result of that select committee inquiry and a result of reviewing the penalties that this bill has emerged. Determining appropriate security categories and standards for A licences is another important element that comes into play here.So there is some very good thoughtful reasoning that has gone in behind this bill. I think clarifying and publicising the extent of amnesty provisions in the Arms Act as well and the police being able to improve the consultative processes with the firearms communities are also measures that the select committee found that will be helped and enhanced by this bill. I think that the FPOs are long overdue. I think that they would be very useful and that is why I commend this bill to the House."