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.