5. RON MARK (NZ First) Link to this
to the Minister of Police
Are the police to proceed with plans to destroy more than 800 Remington bolt-action rifles; if so, why?
Hon PHIL GOFF (Acting Minister of Police) Link to this
Yes, for the reasons given to the member in July 2005 and again in December 2005.
How can the police legitimately justify the destruction of these sporting rifles, therefore denying taxpayers the opportunity to recover approximately $300,000, by quoting their “obligations under an international convention to prevent and eradicate the illicit trade in small arms.”, when New Zealand has not signed the protocol of which they speak; further, New Zealand has not ratified that protocol and will not do so unless the House completely supports the Arms Amendment Bill (No 3), which is still before the House?
I should advise the member that the police routinely destroy hundreds of seized weapons every year—some of them quite valuable weapons. The principal reason that the police have independently made that decision is they believe that dumping 800 high-powered weapons on to the market would create risks that it does not wish to incur. Secondly, it believes that that decision is consistent with the United Nations recommendations and therefore wants to be in line with what other responsible countries do.
If the police are so concerned about dumping 800 sporting rifles on the market into the hands of police-authorised, licensed firearms dealers and police-authorised, duly accredited, fit and proper firearms owners, what does that now say about the police’s confidence in their own vetting systems, and what does it say about the taxpayers’ right to have money recouped back into their coffers, which could so easily be done?
Madam SPEAKERI just remind members again that questions are for questions, not speeches, and in the case of supplementary questions, the Minister is only obliged to address one of them.