Thread: Register to Stay

Well there it is gents. That question has been answered.

Today, ACT has invoked the ‘agree to disagree’ clause of our coalition agreement over the firearms registry. I wanted to set out for you why ACT has come to a different position from National.

Earlier this month, I took a proposal to Cabinet to:

Acknowledge that the recent review of the firearms registry fails to meet the commitment made in ACT’s coalition agreement, and
Commit to a proper, evidence-based review of the registry in the 2025/26 financial year.
National rejected this.

This means that the firearms registry will remain in place while a more comprehensive review has been blocked by Cabinet. It also means that a single government department will soon have a list of where every firearm in New Zealand, including yours, is located. Given the number of leaks from government departments, that is terrifying.

Various privacy breaches by Police of firearms owners’ personal information over the years suggests that a firearms register, if leaked, will become a steal-to-order list for gangs and criminals. The risks to your privacy – and your safety – are real.

Brad, I have not forgotten why I came to Parliament. That’s why I’ve taken a stand on this issue and I’m proud to have the support of my ACT caucus behind me to do it.

Let me be clear: ACT’s coalition agreement commits to review whether the firearms registry is effectively improving public safety. This review does not do that.

The objective of the review was to establish a robust evidence base, including costs to the government, compliance costs on firearms owners, and the link between the registry and public safety. This would have allowed Cabinet to consider options informed by evidence.

I do not believe that the review has met this objective, nor do I consider it as satisfactorily meeting the terms of reference or coalition agreement.

Although the review concludes that insufficient data is available for a comprehensive assessment, it makes only limited use of pre-existing domestic data, such as enforcement trends prior to the registry, or from the 20 percent of licence holders who are in the register. It draws limited insight from comparable international experience, which I believe would have assisted more. These are shortcomings of analysis, not of availability.

It said that the registry is worthwhile if it prevents two fatalities annually. But that is speculative and unsupported by data. It is not based on any modelling of actual risk reduction, changes in diversion rates, or registry-specific attribution. This is not a credible basis for maintaining a registry.

The same logic could be applied to justify any number of costly government policies. For example, while house fires do cause fatalities, it would not follow that we should create a register of ovens and toasters on the speculative assumption that doing so might reduce risk.

The review focused narrowly on operational costs to government, ignoring the tens of millions in new costs coming down the pipeline – including $20 million just to register dealers. It ignored the compliance burden on everyday firearm owners. It ignored the privacy risks. And it ignored the cost of a system that could put your family in harm’s way.

The review concluded that the registry is cost effective in its current form. Given what I’ve just told you, I’m sure you’re just as alarmed as I am about this conclusion.

We’ve seen what’s happened overseas with firearms registries. Without a firmer link that is based on the evidence of firearms enforcement and international experience, I could not in good conscience sit by and stay silent.

I argued in Cabinet for a proper review – with real evidence, real cost-benefit analysis, and real international comparison. I argued to delay ammunition purchases becoming an activating circumstance until these issues were resolved. Again, National said no.

Time and time again, ACT has proven to be the only party willing to stand up on the difficult issues. I saw David do it on firearms, that’s why I put my hand up to be part of his team.

ACT does not believe in embedding costly, ineffective policy just because bureaucrats say so. We believe in evidence-based decisions, not virtue signalling.

My plan is to keep making noise on this issue and advocating for common sense, and real evidence-based decisions, not virtue signalling.

You elected me to this Parliament knowing I would be up against not only the opposition, but also my coalition partners to get New Zealand the firearms laws it deserves.

Despite these differences on the registry, our coalition partners continue to work constructively together to ensure the rewrite of the Arms Act delivers workable, effective and evidence-based regulation that reflects best practice.

Thank you for standing with us, I will not give up advocating for you and your safety too.

Amazing the thickness of people in their fear of firearms, I guess I’ll vote ACT again.
Just filling out my 60 pages to renew my licence. You would think it was written by a young person. It seems to cover off everything the police didn’t do, when vetting Tarrant

That smacks of the decisions already being made, I think Nicole is legit.

I am just waiting for them to announce that the rewrite is going to take longer, National will make noises of wanting to do it 'properly' just before the next election, same old fuckin story........

You know, we probably need our own political party, actually no, we don't looking at how well just a very small amount of us (as a subset of all NZ shooters) behave on here........

Originally Posted by Maca49

Amazing the thickness of people in their fear of firearms, I guess I’ll vote ACT again.
Just filling out my 60 pages to renew my licence. You would think it was written by a young person. It seems to cover off everything the police didn’t do, when vetting Tarrant

I am with you on this one Maca. For the second time in the last four years I have been vocal to my local representative a few weeks back. Fucking hopeless ineffective twat hasn’t even given me the courtesy of a reply (apart from an automated acknowledgement).

Maybe it's time for ACT to "agree to disagree" and use their coalition strength with matters of 'confidence and supply'. Cross the floor if necessary.

What on earth do people think National are going to do with Arms Act re-write. We are going to end up worse off than we are now regards Firearms Law(s).

Best possible solution in the circumstances. ACT have been trying to prevent licence holder details falling into criminal hands. This is great proactive stuff but politically difficult as you can never prove a crime was not committed. Instead of rational proactive legislation National have committed themselves to Ardern policy but actualy doubled down on it and will now take full responsibility for any data breech in future.

The registry will not stop crime as criminals do not register their firearms, so once it is fully implemented it means any future firearm crime will prove the ACT postion correct, and vindicate legal owners. Any licensed shooter who does break the law will face additional criminal charges. Once the register is fully implemented even Cahill and GCNZ will no longer be able to bleat on about how evil and criminal everyone with a license is.

I don't see a down side. Some talk about registration being step one towards confiscation but any Govt who was authoritarian enough to take that step would not be put off by the lack of a register.

Originally Posted by BSA

What on earth do people think National are going to do with Arms Act re-write. We are going to end up worse off than we are now regards Firearms Law(s).

Going off what Mark Mitchell posted today, if you read between the lines, we will basically get nothing.

Originally Posted by BSA

What on earth do people think National are going to do with Arms Act re-write. We are going to end up worse off than we are now regards Firearms Law(s).

Bingo!

And ACT will go along with it (and blame National)

https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360...rearm-registry

Labour lite strikes again. It shows how spineless they truly are.

well next time mark mitchell seeks FALO votes its fairly certain what sort of answer he can expect .also this clown whose min for F&G.spongebob luxon was always beige!

Originally Posted by kotuku

well next time mark mitchell seeks FALO votes its fairly certain what sort of answer he can expect .also this clown whose min for F&G.spongebob luxon was always beige!

For those of us who remember......

Just read Mark Mitchell's statement. What a lot of blather without specificity

He's just Temu-Judith Collins

National has been labour in a blue suit all along this time round.