SpeechClauses 1 and 2BRETT HUDSON (National): Well we'll start with the title shall we? There really is only one appropriate title for this bill and that is the Arms (New Zealand First Sells Firearms Owners Down the River) Bill"—because that is precisely what they've done. There have been so many contributions pointing out across the first and second—Kieran McAnulty: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. The Speakers' rulings and Standing Orders are very clear that any proposed amendment to the title of a bill cannot be used to make a political point and I would argue that the proposal made by the member opposite is doing exactly that.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): The Standing Order makes it very clear that that is the responsibility of the Chair. I thank the member for his advice and as the speaker has only just begun his speech—I think he's in his second possibly third sentence—I will consider what he's saying in the light of that Standing Order.BRETT HUDSON: Thank you Madam Chair. There have been a number of contributions. It started of course with the first and second readings but throughout the committee of the whole House members have pointed out the concerns for firearms owners about where the bill gets it wrong and where it goes too far. I'm not going to go through all of them but principally they're saying it doesn't do anything about genuine criminal activity in gangs but it puts a whole lot of extra cost regulation and rules on law-abiding firearms owners. New Zealand First who have long held the position that they were there for firearms owners had ample opportunity including the deal they struck with Labour just before the debate in the committee of the whole House—they had the opportunity to actually deliver on what firearms owners said they wanted and needed and they failed spectacularly to do so. We've got a pest control exemption expansion that's got an enormous fish hook in it that in effect as the Minister in his contributions has admitted isn't necessary but has refused to take out.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well—BRETT HUDSON: It is about significant detriment. It's getting to the point of why we need to change the name of the bill.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Good.BRETT HUDSON: They haven't done anything about clubs and ranges. They haven't done anything about sports shooting. They haven't done anything about opposing the register that for years they've said they opposed. They haven't done anything to actually address the concerns that firearms owners have been telling them and us for years. That is why I think the more appropriate bill name reflects the failure of New Zealand First to put into action the words they've mouthed for years and actually stand up for firearms owners. The "Arms (New Zealand First Sells Firearms Owners Down the River) Bill" is a perfect title that describes what has transpired over the course of this bill's passage to date.On the commencement date we learnt in this debate—and again it's a bit of a part of the deal that was struck just before the bill entered the committee of the whole House—to our surprise that it is New Zealand First's intention—and in fact this is actually the Labour Party's intention as well. If and it's a pretty big "if" they were returned to Government—and it's an even bigger "if" if New Zealand First was actually able to be part of that—the first thing they'd do is amend the Act again because they're not happy with it and there are some other changes they want to make. So you've got to wonder why it is we are persisting with the whole screed of commencement dates we have to various provisions here in clause 2 when so much of it is anticipated to change if not the day after the election we imagine if we hold them at their word pretty soon thereafter. So it makes no sense at all to have an Act that's commencing upon Royal assent or has elements that will commence in a shorter term when it is the express intention of two of the governing parties to further amend the Act in a substantial way. In fact New Zealand First members in their contributions have indicated it's not just to insert the Independent Arms Administration Authority to replace the police as the administrators of the Arms Act but in fact that they intend there to be further review and amendment just after the election to revisit some of the things that they didn't bother arguing for this time such as sports shooting. That could possibly be a change a significant change around the registry and could hopefully be reducing the obligations on clubs and ranges. But what they do suggest very strongly is that these commencement dates no longer make sense. Instead what would be more sensible is a commencement date of three years after Royal assent. That gives time for the policy work to be done an amendment bill to be drafted and hopefully that's a bill that's drafted with the assistance of National and ACT together in Government."