Andersen GinnyGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. It's good to be able to bring some sense into this debate. This bill the Arms (Firearms Prohibition Orders) Amendment Bill (No 2) has two purposes. The first one is to prohibit gang members from holding a firearms licence. Secondly it is making it illegal for them to possess firearms ammunition or parts and it also allows police to search the vehicles or premises of gang members for these items at any time and at any place without a warrant. The first point I'd like to make is that in the research done by officials in this space the blanket banning of gang members from holding a firearms licence is likely to have absolutely zero effect on the problem that has been identified. The reason for that is that in 2014 3.969 gang members were analysed in relation to firearms offences and of that number less than 1 percent held a firearms licence. So I would like to put it to the members opposite that introducing legislation that removes the ability for a gang member to hold a firearms licence does absolutely zero to target the problem that they have identified. As to what is actually being proposed in this space let's go to the second point which would be the paper that the members opposite might not have picked up from the Table in front of them and that's the Attorney-General's report on the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet on this particular bill. What this says is that the bill treats gang members differently from another person but quite clearly the members opposite don't have a problem with that. Their former deputy leader is on record saying in a very 1984-esque quote that some people have more rights than others and that's exactly where this Government has a problem in terms of how this is being approached. So what has been stated in the past is that gang members quite simply do not have the same human rights as other people. The problem that I'd like to pick up on in the time that I've got left is this entire model of the firearms prohibition order (FPO) has been based upon Australia. What I saw when I worked for the police was that what happened was the then National Minister of Police went on a trip around the world to Australia and to America to look at other gang problems. They went on a bit of a shopping trip and brought back a selection of different mechanisms to try and modify gang behaviour and that was put in as a gang strategy in New Zealand. But the big problem with that approach was that it took situations completely removed from the New Zealand one and applied them here in the New Zealand context without understanding the underpinning issues that permeate the New Zealand gang problem and this FPO model is simply just one of a suite of measures that were brought in that came from either California New South Wales or somewhere else. My proposition to those members opposite is that if we are going to develop a long-lasting approach to some of the fundamental crime issues within New Zealand it is not this approach of shooting from the hip removing their rights and taking away their gun licences that is going to have any kind of long-lasting impact upon reducing the rate of arms offending and illegal firearms within New Zealand. So what has happened recently and what is a positive thing that we will see make some difference over time is that we are trying to establish a better test so that people who are not fit and proper should not be able to have access to firearms and the Government has work under way to draw up new legislation to support existing laws. But this is a legally dubious bill that is ill-advised and it will not address the issues that are trying to be fixed in this instance. It might look good—it might look good in a press release. It might seem like you're tough or are trying to be good but in reality if 1 percent of gang members own a firearms licence this bill does absolutely nothing in terms of enabling a greater response in this space. Prior to the original bill's first reading the New Zealand Police had recommended that the Government did not support the bill when it first came up as the No. 1 bill because it had serious flaws and it would not have delivered on the intent as outlined in the general policy statement—and that is advice from officials. I think you need to go back to the drawing board and have a good look at effective legislation that would actually address the problem and this bill doesn't do it.