Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): The origin of this Arms Legislation Bill is the horrific tragedy that shocked this nation on 15 March last year where a madman shot and killed 51 people attempted to kill a further 40 people and subsequently pleaded guilty to those crimes. The question in the mind of all New Zealanders and of this Parliament in respect of our arms laws is how it was possible for that individual to be able to pull together the armaments of which he committed that horrific terrorism act. The part that concerns me about this bill and all the rhetoric that has surrounded it is that that fundamental question has not been answered. Now I've been in this Parliament through a series of tragedies—whether we look back to the awful Cave Creek tragedy in which I became a Minister of Conservation to repair; whether it's the awful Christchurch earthquakes in which New Zealanders lost their lives and the subsequent royal commission of inquiry and the parliamentary response to laws; or indeed the more recent event of the tragedy that occurred at White Island also with the loss of life. But in each one of those tragedies in responding as lawmakers we need to know what went wrong.What concerns me with this legislation is that the Minister has repeatedly refused to ask the most basic of questions as we push through another raft of arms law changes. If we don't put the horse before the cart then we keep pretending that we are fixing the problem but having no confidence in doing so. And here is the essential question that I've asked repeatedly that my colleagues have asked repeatedly but that has not been answered by the Government or the officials. It's this: when the mad murderer received his gun licence that enabled him to acquire the arsenal of weapons was the law followed? Pretty basic question. Before we talk about whether the law needs to be changed I ask the question of the Minister: was the 1983 Arms Act and its regulations followed?The Minister says it was. Well let's look at the facts. What we know is that the mad murderer was required under the law to have a referee who under the regulations is to be a close family member and to have a second referee that by law must know the applicant well. Hon Nathan Guy: They got someone from the chatroom.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Now what we know as my colleague Nathan Guy has said is that this mad murderer was issued with a firearms licence with a referee whose only contact had been in an internet chatroom and lived more than 1000 miles away. So the two referees were a father and son who lived at almost the most two furthest points in the country who had never met except on an internet chatroom.Now I say to the Minister: why have you not answered the questions about that very essential matter that I think the 51 families of the victims deserve an answer of but so too do 5 million New Zealanders who were appalled by the Act?Now the Minister says oh no no no—I'm not prepared to answer any of those questions because there's a royal commission of inquiry but here's the problem: if we are to get our arms law correct driven by the tragedy that occurred on 15 March with the mosque attack then shouldn't we know the facts of what went wrong before we completely rewrite the law for New Zealand's 400000 law-abiding gun users? Wouldn't it be more sensible Minister—and I'm prepared to say well look if you're prepared to answer the questions we can make sure we get the law right. But what the police Minister is saying is oh I'm not prepared to answer any of that; I just want to rush this law through.Now it would be credible—remember the royal commission of inquiry is due to report on 31 July. That is some six weeks away. So if we want to put hand on heart—and I do—that we are making the very best possible arms laws so that madmen such as that individual do not get access to firearms then let's have the answers to the basic questions that go to the heart of the matter that saw those 51 people cowardly killed and a further 40 seriously injured.Hon Stuart Nash: Read the bill Nick.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Minister interjects and says Read the bill." I have. But what I ask of the Minister is was the law—because we can change all the laws we like but if the law as it was was not followed do not pretend that we are going to the core and—excuse the pun—hitting our target of making sure we have reacted responsibly and properly to the awful tragedy that occurred in Christchurch. I find it appalling that 15 months after the tragedy the Minister has ducked and dived he has gone all around the circle but he has not been prepared to answer that fundamental question and it's simply this: who were the two referees that in November 2017 met the legal requirement for this madman to get a gun licence. Why is the Minister—there's a piece of paper sitting in the police department office that shows exactly who those two referees were. Doesn't this Parliament have a right to know whether those two referees were compliant with the law of the land as it was before we go down these extensive exercises of completely rewriting our arms laws? I say that Minister in refusing to answer those questions in this House is acting negligently and that there is no good reason to withhold from this Parliament that is being asked to pass another major raft of arms laws to not answer the most basic question and that is: why and how that madman was issued with a firearms licence that led him to being able to get his arsenal of weapons and for him to then go on and perpetrate the awful evil that occurred on 15 March.And then the second point that there has been no explanation from the Government whatsoever on is this: we know that the vast majority of firearms offences in this country are not committed by the law-abiding hunters and others but are committed by those with criminal convictions and gang affiliations. My colleague Brett Hudson over time and time again has asked that we provide for prohibition notices on people that we should quite clearly say as a Parliament should not have access to firearms. We are being soft and ridiculous in allowing gang members to be able to access firearms. And what we have advocated through amendments we advocated it with the first firearms bill and the Government said I will think about that with No. 2. We have debated relentlessly this second arms amendment bill and again the Government refuses to provide those sensible practical provisions that would prohibit gangs and other criminal organisations from having access to guns. It is wrong this is a lost opportunity and the bill should not proceed."