Goldsmith Paul; Hipkins ChrisHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you Mr Chair. Speaking here at the committee stage of the Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Bill. Just to remind people who are tuning into this debate: the Government has introduced this bill to try and more effectively deal with the problem of firearm crime that we are facing and general violent crime across the community.We've been calling for some sort of firearms prohibition order to be placed on convicted criminals who have been active in using firearms as well as committing serious other crimes for quite some time. We've failed on a couple of bills. The Government has finally brought in its own bill which we on this side support but we do so noting the fact that there are some significant missed opportunities in the bill that we are confronting primarily around the search provisions which are addressed in Part 2 as I understand it. And we'll come to that debate at the appropriate time Mr Chair and I'm sure you will be vigilant in your concern and care about that.So what we're dealing with here in the first part is the introduction of these firearm protection orders for as the Minister outlined a series of very serious offences such as murder and attempted murder and discharging a weapon and aggravated robbery. So it's a very high threshold of violent crime which would mean that a firearm protection order could be passed as part of their sentence which would stop them from owning a firearm and doing a whole bunch of other things for 10 years.Interestingly the bill as introduced doesn't allow one to be introduced if the offender is under the age of 18. And we could ask the Minister just to remind us why if a 17-year-old shoots and murders somebody this wouldn't be an option to consider for them? He might be able to make some comments on that.Also I'd be interested to know whether he is confident that the standard conditions of the firearm protection order around association of places and people where firearms are kept will be effectively enforced and able to be enforced. We think of people driving around in cars. I'm just conscious of the fact that in Auckland in the last few months there's been more than 30—I think it's probably up to 40 now—shootings in the city just in the last few months. This is not Chicago that we're talking about. This is not Miami in the 1980s or anything like that; this is Auckland. And we're seeing an enormous number of shootings in our city. And so the public is rightly very concerned about that and keen that we can have an effective response.Now obviously the most important part of that is effective policing backed by the Government with the resources and legislation that they need to fight back against the perpetrators of this which does seem often but maybe not always to be connected with gang activity. So the question I have for the Minister is is he confident running through new Part 7A section 39C(1)(a) down to (f) that those standard conditions of a firearm protection order are sufficient to achieve the goal that he sets out to achieve?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Police): I think I only noted two questions out of that contribution: one is why 16- and 17-year-olds shouldn't be the subject to firearms prohibition orders and the second being whether I think that this is sufficient legislation.In answer to the second part of the question: on its own no it's not. There are other things that we need to be doing as well and there is further legislation in the pipeline that the Government will be bringing before the House. And that will no doubt be subject to scrutiny during the select committee process and considerable debate and I will welcome the opportunity to participate in that debate. This is not a magical solution to every problem we face around gangs—or in fact firearms offences—but it is an additional useful tool for the police.In terms of the other issue that the member raised which I've now suddenly forgotten having—Hon Paul Goldsmith: Young offenders.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The 16- and 17-year-olds. I think the position that we have taken is that there are other avenues for pursuing 16- and 17-year-olds who have undertaken offending which are designed to get them back on to the straight and narrow and that they should be pursued first.