Thread: Thought I might post my response to NZ Fuzz consultation of licence costs.

Hope this doesn’t cross the boundaries of the forums political commissars.

Not trying to influence anyone, just sharing in case it helps anyone else to have their say.

Q1 - Should the firearms safety training course fee be set on a full or partial cost recovery basis?

My response - Disincentivising attendance at a safety focused event appears contrary to encouraging safe firearms use.
There is a strong argument for making the safety training free at the point of delivery, since the benefit to society at large far outweighs the cost of delivering this vital information.

If the NZ Police could distance itself from the politicisation of this legislation, and seek to distance itself from the Government’s drive to remove firearm from fit and proper citizens, it might actually rebuild the good relationship it had with firearms user groups.
This would further reduce the cost of safety trading placing an equally valid choice of “no cost recovery”.

Q2 - Potential rates of fees for a firearm licence
My response- Large license fee rises will deter a number of individuals from compliance. These honest hardworking Kiwis will do this, not through any desire to break the law of the land, but through challenging financial necessity. This is entirely foreseeable and absolutely counterproductive to responsible firearm ownership.
It must also be obvious to all that NZ Police are inadequately resourced to deliver real enforcement when people, who simply want to put food on the table are criminalised.

The argument that setting fees too low will make it too easy to obtain a firearms licence, makes it entirely obvious that NZ Police have adopted a political position on firearm ownership, rather than their core function, to protect & serve.
It is unethical to adopt a position where the legitimate use of a firearm (by a person meeting the fit and proper criteria) is trumped by implementing a licensing regime which discriminates against less affluent citizens.

Q3- If the fee for a firearms licence is increased significantly (that is the fee set at more than 50% of the cost), would you support Police investigating an option to issue a firearms licence conditional on a specified payment schedule?
My response - Yes, It would appear from the wording of this question that a rise of 50% is more likely than not.
This disingenuous approach once again reinforces to fit and proper firearm users that NZ Police political motivations are entrenched in this “consultation”.
It is disheartening that NZ Police are not prepared to work with the firearms community to maintain a significant and important part of the New Zealand culture and identity.

Q4 - Do you have any suggestions for support mechanisms outside the general firearms licensing system?
My response - Yes, A minimum increase in firearms license fees is justified.
Anymore than this would be unreasonable, unethical and will disadvantage those citizens on lower incomes.
Rather than seeking to implement additional “support mechanisms”, which in and of themselves will cost taxpayers more money, simply keep increases to the minimum.

Keeping firearm license fees for firearms management, rather than NZ Police’s previous approach of siphoning license fees for other purposes will make this achievable and successful.

Q5 - 5. If the fee is set at 50% or 75% of cost, do you consider a 10% discount is sufficient to encourage timely applications before their licence expires?

My response - No, Once again, it would appear from the wording of this question that a rise of 50% is more likely than not.

A minimal fee increase would alleviate the need to apply a discount, thus reducing administrative costs, thus ensuring fees are able to be used for their primary purpose i.e. managing the licensing process.

I did not respond to any other questions as I have no direct knowledge of them.
Perhaps others can add their thoughts.