did the extensive inquiry into illegal
illegal firearms in the last Parliament. So this is a bill that
seeks to implement what the previous
parliamentary select
recommended, something supported by the
the Police Association, and also by the
the Police. Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to
the House The question is that the motion
be agreed to. I call the Hon
Dr David Clark. Madam Speaker, in
Speaker, in New South Wales, where they implemented similar legislation
as we've just
heard from the member, an Ombudsman review
found multiple failings
failings in this approach, including,
including, in practice, where no firearms
firearms were located in over 600 searches. The bill itself sounds
how police ensure only fit and proper
proper people hold a firearms licence or have access to firearms.
I'm sure
I'm sure everyone in this House is wondering
I'm sure everyone in this House is
wondering
who've only been out of office for one
one year, didn't do something to address
address this over their nine years here on this side of the House.
They were here for nine years,
and, certainly, the statistics I've seen,
suggests that gun violence has been pretty static over that nine years.
It doesn't seem to be a big issue but it has become a
big issue when the politics have changed.
This a
enabling the extension of searches without warrants. Plain
and simple. This is a
This is a bill that undermines human rights
extension of searches without warrants. In fact, it
puts the police
police in an invidious position. They've recommended
not support this bill.
not supportthis bill. The bill, they say,
not deliver on the intent as outlined
outlined in the general policy statement
outlined in the general policy
The people the member purports he wants to be supporting here.
Madam Speaker,
Madam Speaker, the fit and proper person
person test already effectively bans gang
gang members and prospects from holding
holding firearms licences. The way the
the law is drafted now, it has restrictions
restrictions around who can hold a firearms
firearms licence. This does nothing except
warrants. Concerns have
Concerns have been raised about police
police accountability and, of course,
course, human rights legislation, where searches can
be based on subjective
subjective reasoning rather than on sufficient facts.
sufficient facts. Here's the kicker, Madam
National Party firmly believes, or this
this person firmly believes, that searches
searches should not be enforced without
without warrants. Apparently in complete
complete contradiction to the bill's intent. What do we
think that was, that said
that said out there, publicly, that
leader. The National Party leader doesn't
doesn't seem to support the intent of
of this bill. Here is a member trying
trying to push something through that he
that he popped in the biscuit tin because
because he thought would be popular that
that actually undermines human rights.
rights. All it does is extend searches
Speaker. I bet that member is feeling
a bit awkward
awkward right now because what this bill does, and
doesn't do, Madam Speaker,
Speaker, will be laid completely bare in this
debate that we're having now.
having now. What we actually need is a more solid piece of work.
I trust the
the honourable member Stuart Nash to do that
do that piece of work. In fact, I know he
know he has work under way to make sure
sure that we in this House receive a bill
bill that actually addresses the wider
wider issues in this area. That looks
looks at the fit and proper person test. Looks
test. Looks at how we can make sure that we have a strategy to deal with
gangs generally, a proper plan rather than a piecemeal approach
that looks simplistically at what can be done. That looks across
the Tasman at a piece
of legislation that
that their ombudsman has pointed to multiple failings in.
Madam Speaker, we recognise that the existence
existence of gangs may be symptomatic
symptomatic of deeper structural issue
issue we have in society, and it needs to be dealt with in
a more sophisticated
sophisticated manner. It needs to be cohesive and sensible
decisions made if we are to effectively
take action against organised
against organised crime. So, what I'm saying and what I'm
arguing, Madam
arguing, Madam Speaker, is that this bill
bill will not make New Zealand safer. Where it's been implemented
in similar
in similar cases overseas, we have seen that these weapons
seen that these weapons have not been found. Warrantless searches
also increase hostility towards police. Those who have been securing
firearms illegally,
firearms illegally, who don't hold a firearms licence, are
commit gun crime. They're hardly going to change their behaviour
response to this threat. Madam Speaker,
response to this threat. Madam Speaker, it is likely also to be
costly for the taxpayer
as each of these
these FPOs must be signed off individually
individually and may be challenged in
individually and may be challenged in the courts.
This bill would demand more administration resources
from police and the
courts. So not only
only is it likely to be ineffective, not
not only is it likely to undermine human rights principles, it's likely
to be costly, at this
Speaker. At this point I should reveal
reveal my hand and say we on this side
side of the House, in the Labour Party,
Party, will not be supporting this bill. We don't support
that is ineffective, contravenes human
human rights and it costs money to
be ineffective. It is a crazy piece of
of legislation. What we need is a more
gets to the nub of the issue and looks
looks to ensure that fit and proper people
people have access to firearms, and those that are
Speaker. As
As I say, currently an applicant must be
must be able to be deemed fit and proper to possess
or use firearms. Set
Set criteria are used to determine that.
that. So affiliation with a criminal group is
person ineligible for a firearms licence.
licence. It will
licence.
statistics here. In 2014, 3,969 patch
patch members of gangs were analysed in relation to
firearms offences.
involving a firearm. Nine per cent have been charged five or
more times over their lifetime. And less than
over their lifetime. And less than one per
firearms licence at the time of the survey.
survey. It is not like these are people
people trying to comply. It is not like
like these are people who are going to
to be affected by searches and so on. In
on. In fact, if guns ever are found, as
as they were not in New South Wales, it's
as they were not in New South Wales,
who have criminal intent may, if weapons are seized, go
more, Madam Speaker. It is not likely
likely to be effective legislation. It leaves the
police open to allegations
allegations of bias. It leaves legal action
action open. It's likelyto be costly. Madam Speaker, the law
already restricts firearms licence
holders and
holders and says that firearms won't be issued
be issued to someone known to have convictions
convictions for violent offences. So we already have protections in
place, Madam Speaker. INTERRUPTION We
place.
place. , one more point I
wanted to make, Madam
Madam Speaker, was that firearms offences are on
the rise but the number of
actually remained relatively consistent
consistent over the last five years. If National feels it is an issue,
and I did
and I did say this earlier, we would wonder why they didn't do something
about this earlier. If it really was
about this earlier, if it really was something that they
about this earlier, if it really was
incidents per 100,000 people have been tracking down
been tracking down since the 1980s, more broadly. This seems to
be an issue motivated
issue motivated by politics and one that will not
produce the solution that the
the police say this is something that isn't going
to work, we need to listen to them.
When they say this is
listen to them. When they say this
are worried about it, they have concerns
concerns about it, we need to listen on
and the Labour Party will. I think the other thing that really is
concerning is a general view that we've
we've heard from that side of the House,
House, that some people have fewer human
human rights than others. One wonders
wonders whether that is something that's
that's at play again here. That is something
previously said. Well, the Labour Party doesn't agree with that.
We think
think human rights, fairways of judging
judging whether someone is fit to hold a firearms licence should
apply, not subjective tests that put police
police at risk, that put police in an
police at risk, that put police in an awkward position, that are
unlikely to be effective and that are
are likely to be costly to the taxpayer,
taxpayer, because they can be disputed and they involve
creating a whole
whole new bureaucracy. What we need to do
to do is enforce the current restrictions.
restrictions. They will be sufficient for ensuring that those
who should not be issued with a firearms
INTERRUPTION And
And a broader piece of work that looks at the broader
societal issues that is
that is month sophisticated in its response,
response, not a political kneejerk reaction.
reaction. INTERRUPTION point of order, Chris Bishop.
The Ministeria
his reply said that the Government had
had been advised by the police they were
were opposed to this bill. He is quoting
quoting from an official document. I understand
understand 376. I ask him to table that official advice. Will you seek
order. The Hon... Speaking to the point
point of order, I don't have the official document with me.
I have my own notes taken down. I'm afraid
the member's a little misguided in that.
I apologise. Could the
member's a little misguided in that.
point of order. I'm saying I didn't have
from some papers I read earlier. INTERRUPTION
INTERRUPTION . No. It's OK. I apologise
to the member
. No. It's OK. I apologise to the
an official document, he's not required to table it. Start 376
is quite
quite clear. When a Minister quotes from
from a document relating to public affairs,
order require the to table the document.
the document. It's not an official document. That's the point.
I call Tim van de Molen. Thank you.
Under that
that Standing Order, there is no specification
specification around an official document.
new ruling, it would be fantasticto get
get that clarification. But under that Standing Order it does not
require it to be an official document,
Thank
Thank you. Just
for your contribution. I have taken some advice. The
member has been quoting from his speaking notes. Now, within that
contained some information that was
provided to the House.
He is not required
required to table his speaking notes. I call
required to table his speaking
would ask the minister to go away and
briefing notes and paperfrom the police that he stated in the House
tonight, saying they not support the
bill and
bill and saying it would be counterintuitive.