McKee NicoleNICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. ACT rises in opposition to this bill and on a very specific ground. In Part 2 clause 7 there are two regulations being confirmed in this bill: the Arms (Prohibited Ammunition) Amendment Order 2019 and the Arms (Prohibited Magazine) Order 2019 the first one of which raises great concerns for the ACT Party. These two orders were part of a process we believe has been unjustifiably imposed across the country not because of the intent of this House to keep New Zealanders safe but because of the process it took to try and achieve that aim. These orders assisted in the establishment of a scheme that saw the Government prohibit and seize ammunition without compensation. The basis of this scheme was taken to the High Court and regarding the prohibition of ammunition Justice Cooke referred in his judgment to a statement made by the then Minister of Police in an affidavit where he says The Government decided not to offer a buy-back regime to persons who were in possession of what had become prohibited ammunition. They would have an amnesty only. I confirm that in this respect the Government proceeded on the understanding that there is no legal obligation to provide compensation from public funds for property that becomes prohibited by law." ACT believes that this shows two intents. The first is to prohibit product some of it originally purchased from Government sources and then two to justify not having to pay for it. They pulled the rug out from under the feet of people who have done nothing wrong and they have been justifying it ever since. Much like the significant natural areas on those that own their own land this is a devious way to impinge on a person's private property rights. How can the fundamental right to own what you have purchased be secured in an environment of confiscation? This is a fundamental principle that the Government decided to ignore and trample over. They did not need to do this. They chose to do this.High Court Justice Cooke also made some further criticisms in his decision. He goes on to say at paragraph 125 "It is certainly true that there is no such obligation in the sense that Parliament can always legislate inconsistently with the right to receive compensation for a deprivation of property. But on its face the Minister's view goes further and suggests that because the measures involved prohibiting possession of the property no such right to compensation arose." At paragraph 126 he goes on to say "For the reasons already addressed at some length that view is not correct. Moreover had this been a view formed in relation to a statutory power of decision there would have been an expectation that the decision-maker would have addressed the common law right more directly. For this reason [he saw] some merit in the applicant's criticism. It also gains force given that prohibited ammunition has been treated differently from prohibited firearms without apparent justification. The Minister's statement that there is no legal obligation to compensate for prohibiting possession of the property does not provide a justification."ACT have to oppose this bill to the House purely on Part 2 clause 7 as our clear property rights are compromised by the original Order in Council which is now in this bill seeking confirmation. Going by the judgment of a High Court justice I think it's important—the ACT Party thinks it's important—that we actually should be looking to compensate those who have private property that has been confiscated by the Government. We therefore oppose this order. Thank you.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time."