FROM ACT -
The Finance and Expenditure Committee has reported back on the Arms Legislation Bill (the “second tranche”). Here’s what you need to know.
The Government parties on the Committee (Labour and NZ First) have voted for the bill to proceed. It is largely unchanged and the juggernaut rolls on. We thought NZ First might use their swing vote to alter the legislation, but no. What follows is a summary of some (but not all) key points. You can read the full report and revised text of the bill here. ACT’s minority view on the bill is included in the report from page 25 onwards. It is also reprinted at the bottom of this email.
What happens next? It is likely that the bill will be debated again in the full Parliament next week, and be passed into law in early March, unless one of the Government parties defects.
The Good (Well, better than before…)
There have been a (very) few changes that improve the bill from what it was before. Sadly, they are out of all proportion to the opposition the bill has attracted. They are:
• Temporary transfers of a firearm don’t have to be registered. Obviously, we still oppose the register, but effectively giving a 30-day grace period means you don’t have to log on and register passing your rifle to a mate in the bush.
• Some improvements to privacy protections to the register. Again, the problem is there’s still a register.
• The law for issuing a licence if you pass the fit and proper person test has been changed from “may” to “must”. The earlier version of the bill basically said even if you were fit and proper an arms officer could just arbitrarily refuse you.
• 10-year licence periods. The original version suggested five-year licence renewals, now the bill recommends an initial five-year period followed by 10-year periods after that.
• Seven-day notice. The original version said Police could inspect your home with “reasonable” notice, it now requires seven days.
• A club won’t need a dealers’ licence if it distributes ammunition as part of a club, as the original version of the bill required.
The Bad
• The bill still legislates a registry of all firearms to be implemented within two years of the law passing.
• The bill still places onerous requirements that will make it harder to operate a club when clubs are a part of responsible firearm use.
• The bill still breaches the privacy of the doctor-patient relationship.
• The bill still focuses on licenced firearm owners, treating them like criminals while doing nothing to punish those holding and using firearms outside the licensing regime.
• It’s unclear how anything in the bill would do anything to prevent the tragedy that set off this set of laws.
The Ugly
• The Select Committee reporting time was shortened and made shorter still by Parliament not sitting for nearly two months over Christmas.
• The Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Christchurch tragedy will not have reported when this bill is passed. It’s hard to solve a problem if you don’t know what it is.
• The law is intended to be passed in time for the 15 March anniversary. There is nothing worse than passing laws for political theatre instead of public safety.
• Despite the overwhelming opposition to the bill, no substantial changes have been made from the way it was introduced.
Needless to say, ACT will campaign for the rest of the year to take Parliament back for a centre-right government, and work with our National Party allies to reverse the worst parts of this legislation, restore dignity to people who’ve been abused despite doing nothing wrong, and address the real failures that led to the Christchurch tragedy.
If you know people who might like to join ACT’s campaign and receive updates such as this one, please share this link so that they can sign up. You can also donate to support ACT’s campaign here or join the party here.
The ACT Party minority view from the report is reprinted below.
ACT Party minority view
Recommendation: the ACT Party member recommends that the legislation be abandoned.
Prelude
In the aftermath of our nation’s tragedy in Christchurch, it was clear that there would be changes to the laws and administration of firearm laws in New Zealand. What could never have been predicted was the poor quality of response from the Government parties and even one Opposition party responsible for holding the Government accountable. The April 2019 Arms Amendment Act that preceded the current legislation has led to a series of failures. The most obvious is that the Government openly accepts it does not know what proportion of prohibited firearms were handed in to the so-called buy-back. A subtler but perhaps more important failure is a precipitous measured decline in trust in the Police that was evident in many submissions. The Government’s changes have significantly impacted law-abiding firearm owners, without actually impacting criminals or would-be terrorists.
Against that backdrop, the Minister of Police introduced this Arms Legislation Bill. Before reviewing the contents of the bill, and the submissions to it, it is worth making some remarks about the timing.
Timing of the bill and parliamentary procedure
The bill was first read on 24 September 2019. In the normal course of events, it would be referred to the Justice Committee with instructions to report back to the House within six months, on 24 March 2020. The Finance and Expenditure Committee was given special instructions to report back by 10 February 2020. This has two effects. One is that the committee has had less time than usual to consider the bill, and far less time than usual considering the House has not sat from 18 December 2019 until 11 February 2020. The second effect is that it is difficult to avoid thinking that the Government has cynically sent the bill to a committee that usually deals with financial matters simply because it has a majority on this committee (but not the more logical Justice Committee), and asked for it to be reported back in time to pass third reading before the 15 March anniversary. It is difficult to avoid thinking the Government has prioritised political theatrics over public safety.
A more substantive concern is that the bill will be passed before the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Christchurch tragedy has reported back. It is logical that the Government has an inquiry to find out what went wrong and legislation to fix it, but totally illogical that the legislation will be passed before the inquiry reports back.
Submissions
The ACT Party member acknowledges that the submissions made were overwhelmingly critical of the bill. Submitters seemed anxious to impress that firearms were a part of their life and often their work. They often had family activities centred on firearms. They displayed considerable knowledge of the practicalities of regulating firearm activities and gave practical reasons why they would not work.
The ACT Party member was saddened to see the Chair of the committee often attack submitters and argue with submitters; however, the member accepts that there was considerable tension around the legislation. Members of the New Zealand First Party and the New Zealand Labour Party do not accept this characterisation.
The ACT Party member was constantly underwhelmed by the Police. They frequently presented arguments that were easily undermined by basic enquiry. With great sad- ness, the ACT Party member concluded that the Police should not be the policy advice department in this area. The advice does not assist in making good policy, and the process of giving it erodes the Police’s reputation, in the member’s view.
Contents of the bill
Registration
The bill creates a requirement for all firearms to be registered. The committee heard extensive submissions about a firearm register. Overwhelmingly, submitters opposed a register. They cited that a register would be inaccurate. In particular, some submitters who had had E-Category firearms (which were registered) noted that that register was routinely incorrect. Others noted the cost of registers overseas. Others noted the adverse selection problem, that the most dangerous people would not register their firearms. Others noted that a register would create a security risk if details of where and what type of firearms were stored got leaked into criminal hands. We were told that modern technology would make it easier to store a safe and accurate register. However, we also heard from submitters well versed in database technology that this view was naïve. The latter submitters pointed out that while database technology has indeed improved over the decades, the challenges with such registers occur at the human interface.
In particular, the bill as introduced required real-time up-to-date registration of firearms. Submitters pointed out the absurdity of this. Some submitters contended that following the law as written would require them to update the database from the bush if they handed a rifle to a mate. If the bill proceeds, relaxation of these requirements to something more practical would be welcome. However, the ACT Party member notes, and found in questioning, that if the requirements are relaxed long enough for, say, a firearm to spend a week at a friend’s house, they are relaxed enough for a crime to be committed, giving the lie to the claim that registration makes anyone safer in the first place.
Club regulations
The bill imposes a new regulatory regime on clubs. We heard that this provision will have the opposite of its intended effect. New Zealand hunting and shooting clubs have long led the way in their promotion of, and provision of training for, safe firearms handling. Instead of ensuring more licensed firearm owners shoot with the supervision and support of a club, people will be less likely to form clubs and some existing clubs may even disband if their volunteer members are unable or afraid to meet this new burden of regulatory compliance.
Doctor-patient relationship
The doctor-patient relationship has long been a privileged one. The bill as introduced made a “suggestion” that doctors speak to Police if a person with a firearm licence faced mental health challenges. Proponents of this provision have been keen to claim that the provision was not mandatory. However, that being the case, it makes no difference from the status quo where doctors had the possibility of reporting a person in danger to other authorities but are not required to. Altogether, the introduction of this provision has needlessly stigmatised mental health challenges for no gain of any kind.
Manufacturing
The committee heard from submitters who manufacture firearms that their businesses will be severely impaired by the new regulations proposed for manufacturing. Given their business involved machining and fabricating high-value customised parts, it is unclear how regulating them further will prevent harm. The real harm comes from illicit manufacturing by unlicensed manufacturers, which of course is already illegal.
Licence period
There was some discussion of the licensing period. The bill as introduced proposed a 5-year licensing period. As the discussion progressed, it became clear to the ACT Party member that a more frequent relicensing period would simply become a perfunctory process. As the administrators sought to economise on resources, this process would be at the expense of ad hoc monitoring of reported threats about those in the middle of a licence period, and proper vetting of those at the end of a licence period. Again, a well-intentioned but ultimately counterproductive proposal that characterises the bill.
Conclusion
Altogether this has been a flawed process. The parliamentary procedure and timing has been disappointing, although the ACT Party member has been impressed with many of the submissions made. The member believes that the submission process has shown the bill does more harm than good, and recommends that it be returned to the House with a recommendation that it not proceed.
