It was surely one of Christopher Luxon’s biggest mistakes since becoming Prime Minister – appointing a former gun lobbyist to be in charge of gun control.
I'm not a gun owner or anything, but the whole point in electing her was surely to implement the firearms community's "agenda". It's not like anybody was in the dark about her background.
Do you get this outraged when leftist politicians work with the lobby groups they align with? What about when they just decide they're entitled to confiscate other people's stuff without even a serious pretense of due process?
There is nothing Ms McPhee is doing that she didn't signal very clearly. While it is cute to say that the National Police Minister Bennett "left open a loophole" that permitted Tarrant to access semi automatic firearms. The government of one Jacinda Ardern loosened police vetting processes, and it was defective vetting of an Australian criminal that assessed him to be a "fit and proper person" and granted him a firearms license.
By the way it is the New Zealand Deerstalkers Association - a very large membership based organisation of around 250,000 people that you are claiming to be a gun group - it is a hunting, conservation and heritage group.
Good point Alister, her background is well known. As part of her responsibility as the minister is to consult broadly across the issues with interested groups on BOTH sides of the issue and make decisions based on what is best for ALL New Zealanders. It appears that this is not the case?
Short answer = YES! All the "gun lobby supporters" in the comments are not arguing the point, which is her proven & documented conflict of interest in being in charge of gun regulations, esp because she can do so by herself in some instances. Never seen such a blatant case as in quite apart from her history as a spokesperson, she still has a business that would directly benefit from any decisions she makes as a Minister - no clearer case of a conflict.
Under Section 74 of the Arms Act, a Minister *cannot* change the classification of any firearms themselves. The Minister can make recommendations, then cabinet approval is needed for any change of classification. Same process Stuart Nash and Ginny Andersen and the Labour Cabinet used to rush through changes.
The Minister cannot make unilateral changes directly affecting firearms themselves at all.
Changes around range regulations were a different matter - and the Select Committee report today shows why the same process the last Govt used was appropriate to correct some mistakes.
Long long past time to sack this incompetent,corrupt and clearly interest conflicted minister. She is a disgrace to her warranty. What’s more she does not represent Aotearoa. 98 % of us do not want her policy or her festering rhetoric. Another 8 percenter riding rough shod over our democratic rights.
I have a very high discount factor on anybody who hides behind a non-de-plume like "Oscar". After reading your comments above I wonder if you are connected to the gun lobby.........unless you tell us your real name.
Happy to discuss the issues and details though if you want. Firearms legislation and regulation is a complex topic, poorly handled for decades. We can do better.
" she was infamously influential on Police Minister Paula Bennett, who decided not to close the loophole that the terrorist Brenton Tarrant then exploited to get access to military-style semi-automatic firearms (MSSAs) that the used to kill on 15 March 2019."
Oh Bryce - really? You've fallen for the utter nonsense that Jack Tame tried to peddle.
This statement is untrue. If you have a researcher or did some research you would know this is untrue.
Police opposed moving high capacity magazines to E-category. THAT was the scandal
I really enjoy your writing but now I read a column on something I know a bit about, I wonder if I have a case of Gell-Mann amnesia
The 2017 "Inquiry into issues relating to the illegal possession of firearms in New Zealand" made 20 recommendations. None of them mention magazines. Recommendation 6 is the creation of a category of restricted semiautomatic firearms - this already existed in E-category.
What was needed was to get rid of the 'Military Style Semiautomatic' definition based on *form* (how a firearm looked, a silly idea) and replace it with a definition based on *function* (what a firearm can do).
We have that now with P endorsement (which is why semiautomatic centrefires are not banned), so that at least is a good first step.
A great article Bryce. The idea that a minority of obsessed gun owners are allowed to dictate issues of national safety is utterly bizarre. McKee and her completely obsessive 'love' of guns is totally the wrong person to be in this role. Luxon simply has no balls to act. Our weakest PM since Bolger and Lange saddled the economy with neoliberalism.
Luxon won't have the appetite to sack her. It's still two years away from the election. And if you put a gun-lobbyist in charge of gun policy, what do you expect? He can hardly act all outraged. Luxon's problem is that Peters and Seymour are politically smarter than he is, and their priority is to carve out enough niche support by 2026 to get a solid number of MPs elected then. Doesn't matter what the specific policies are.
I'm not a gun-owner and my gut-reaction is pretty strongly anti-guns of all kinds. But my head tells me that there are some genuine needs and these can be legally permitted while maintaining public safety. What are the exact details for this? I don't pretend to know & that is why I support a serious review of the current law which was rushed through without proper consultation following the CHC tragedy. There have already been some amendments to the rushed legislation and I'd like to see us get it right for the long-term now.
I pretty much agree with you on that. My worry is ACT indulge in 'what-aboutism' and try to rush changes too.
We had E-category before 2019 that was a good balance between legitimate use and public safety. Much higher levels of security, vetting and a register. No one seemed to have issues with it, so perhaps a return of that special licence category could be an option
The problem was some semiautomatic centrefires were left outside, and in particular high capacity magazines were left out. Several times it was proposed that they be moved into E-category but Police opposed this - I think because they said it was too difficult. That was a tragedy.
The people with the E category endorsements never committed violent crime, because we were all vetted very carefully and found to be honest and law abiding. As the police told me when I got my E category endorsement, E cat people had less legal rights than a pedophile living next to a kindergarten. The Police were very surprised when the E category was abolished in 2019, and it was PNHQ and Federated Farmers together that came up with a way to get around the new law change in late 2019 to allow land managers such as farmers, foresters etc with significant pest issues to obtain the new Pest control endorsement. The E cat ban was so stupid that the Police themselves had come up with a way to bypass the the new law within 6 months... says something. This fix was changed in the 2020 legislation amendments and I know of several farmers and forest owners with legal semi autos, but also a huge number of people with significant pest problems who still do not know they can get this endorsement. Keeping or reinstating E category under strict controls would be a far more sensible option than the inevitable alternative of raining poison over our entire conservation estate and farmland to try to maintain pest numbers that are currently being inadequately controlled and breeding exponentially.
Unfortunately, I think our media and commentators, such as Jack Tame, have no idea what E-category was. Tame didn't even understand the difference between an action and a magazine. He did not let his lack of understanding cause him any pause for reflection though.
Went back to have a look, to confirm my memory - Feds were very supportive of the changes initially, I think they reconsidered somewhat pretty quickly. Interestingly the spokesperson at the time, Miles Anderson, is now an MP so will be bringing that experience to the table. May be another voice working with McKee to get a better E-category in place
Feds put out a query and found that about 5000 members had E category for pest control. Initially many people thought Ardern was only banning A cat semi auto centrefires, once it was clear she was banning E cat altogether lot's of attitudes changed. I know people who can still legally own and use pistols, and who own fully operational M16s and other full auto assault rifles, but were suddenly not trusted to own semi auto centrefires or 10/22s with 15 rd mags. The first few weeks of confusion and high emotion had a lot of people agreeing with the law changes who changed their minds soon afterwards once the details were clear.
"The first few weeks of confusion and high emotion had a lot of people agreeing with the law changes who changed their minds soon afterwards once the details were clear."
Indeed. And that was something the Government of the time were shameless about.
That saying 'the law is reason, free from passion', meant nothing to them in their unseemly haste.
I reckon a leftward-leaning advocacy group for hunting and fishing might be in order to counter the way ACT has captured the concerns of firearms users and made them a gateway to their extreme positions on other issues.
If ACT's capture of their perceived interests is the 'pull' they use to draw NZ's 234,000 firearms users into their web, then the 'push' is the way that middle-class snowflake 'liberals' have abandoned working-class interests in favour of a basket of 'New Left' virtue-signalling tropes, of which firearms control is just one. Given that most people don't have a very sound ideological basis for their political affiliations (and, let's face it, all parties in representative democracies are utterly dependent on and encourage this ignorance in order to play the 'trust us, we'll see you right' card while actually working for 'covert' corporate and PMC interests), this showboating around non-class, non-economic issues is bound to result in electoral choices being made around single-issue concerns. I have no doubt that this is exactly how Nicole McKee herself came to allow herself to be 'headhunted' for selection to the ACT party list.
I also wonder if those hunters that support ACT for their position on firearms realise that, though it's not policy (yet), privatisation of the conservation estate where the public has cost-free access to hunting would be absolutely in line with the anarcho-capitalist ideology at the heart of the ACT party. In the US, oligarchs associated with Atlas Network groups have bought thousands of square miles of formerly public access land and excluded all public recreation from it, including hunting.
My question after reading this great article is: How much did the Council of Licenced Firearms Owners pay to have a seat in cabinet?
If anyone wants to know where this will end up, if we allow it, is the country will be dominated by a mirror image of the National Rifle Association in gun riddled USA!
Prepare to see our kids getting mowed down as they are in the USA!
Goodness me Kevin, aren’t you and other anti everything a bit OTT. People seem to forget that we have a rigorous firearms licensing system in AO/NZ and as for you comparing us with some states in the USA whereas there seems to be open slather on what you can purchase in choice of guns is somewhat disingenuous to say the least as this has never happened here in NZ and nor should it.
Forgot to add that when applying for a firearms license in this country, it is made quite clear by the police that to hold such a license is a privilege, not a right.
A select committee chaired by David Parker found some fairly significant problems with the rushed changes Labour made to regulations around shooting ranges. Not surprising, given the haste Labour seemed to feel was necessary, and almost certainly wont be the last problem that has to be fixed.
In particular, the Committee found that mistakes in the legislation meant the Police Commissioner had powers “at odds with Privacy Commissioner”. That is fairly significant in a liberal democracy.
A bit dramatic aren't we?
I'm not a gun owner or anything, but the whole point in electing her was surely to implement the firearms community's "agenda". It's not like anybody was in the dark about her background.
Do you get this outraged when leftist politicians work with the lobby groups they align with? What about when they just decide they're entitled to confiscate other people's stuff without even a serious pretense of due process?
8% ain’t a mandate. Can you name for me a ‘leftist lobby’ that disregards, disrespects culture , and threatens life and limb?
1. It's exactly 8% more mandate than there was for the firearm confiscations.
2. It's a mandate. That's how MMP works.
And your second sentence is baseless ad hominem. Well done.
1: 10 points for the ad hominem thesaurus deep dive.
2: A teaspoon of ad hominem makes the medicine go down.
2: If ownership of a gun that fires hundreds of bullets a minute is the thing that completes you, then ad hominem is possibly the least of my worries.
What is the risk to 'life and limb' of E-category? There is something like 25 years of history to show how it worked, so plenty of evidence to assess.
Or Green MPs going to work for Greenpeace?
There is nothing Ms McPhee is doing that she didn't signal very clearly. While it is cute to say that the National Police Minister Bennett "left open a loophole" that permitted Tarrant to access semi automatic firearms. The government of one Jacinda Ardern loosened police vetting processes, and it was defective vetting of an Australian criminal that assessed him to be a "fit and proper person" and granted him a firearms license.
By the way it is the New Zealand Deerstalkers Association - a very large membership based organisation of around 250,000 people that you are claiming to be a gun group - it is a hunting, conservation and heritage group.
Thanks, Gareth. As an NZDA member, I came here to say just that. The rest of my comment just grew and grew, so I'll post it as a fresh comment.
Good point Alister, her background is well known. As part of her responsibility as the minister is to consult broadly across the issues with interested groups on BOTH sides of the issue and make decisions based on what is best for ALL New Zealanders. It appears that this is not the case?
Another political beat-up you just fall for Bryce. Guns are a fact of life. McKee knows about them.
She is upfront and honest. She has no secret agenda.Best person for the job.
Short answer = YES! All the "gun lobby supporters" in the comments are not arguing the point, which is her proven & documented conflict of interest in being in charge of gun regulations, esp because she can do so by herself in some instances. Never seen such a blatant case as in quite apart from her history as a spokesperson, she still has a business that would directly benefit from any decisions she makes as a Minister - no clearer case of a conflict.
Under Section 74 of the Arms Act, a Minister *cannot* change the classification of any firearms themselves. The Minister can make recommendations, then cabinet approval is needed for any change of classification. Same process Stuart Nash and Ginny Andersen and the Labour Cabinet used to rush through changes.
The Minister cannot make unilateral changes directly affecting firearms themselves at all.
Changes around range regulations were a different matter - and the Select Committee report today shows why the same process the last Govt used was appropriate to correct some mistakes.
Long long past time to sack this incompetent,corrupt and clearly interest conflicted minister. She is a disgrace to her warranty. What’s more she does not represent Aotearoa. 98 % of us do not want her policy or her festering rhetoric. Another 8 percenter riding rough shod over our democratic rights.
What, specifically, is her policy?
Conflict of interest.
No, that is not answering the question. What specific policy around firearms legislation are you referring to?
Conflict of interest, proven, documented.
I have a very high discount factor on anybody who hides behind a non-de-plume like "Oscar". After reading your comments above I wonder if you are connected to the gun lobby.........unless you tell us your real name.
Good for you. That doesn't worry me.
Happy to discuss the issues and details though if you want. Firearms legislation and regulation is a complex topic, poorly handled for decades. We can do better.
We were doing better. We’re not doing better anymore.
" she was infamously influential on Police Minister Paula Bennett, who decided not to close the loophole that the terrorist Brenton Tarrant then exploited to get access to military-style semi-automatic firearms (MSSAs) that the used to kill on 15 March 2019."
Oh Bryce - really? You've fallen for the utter nonsense that Jack Tame tried to peddle.
This statement is untrue. If you have a researcher or did some research you would know this is untrue.
Police opposed moving high capacity magazines to E-category. THAT was the scandal
I really enjoy your writing but now I read a column on something I know a bit about, I wonder if I have a case of Gell-Mann amnesia
The 2017 "Inquiry into issues relating to the illegal possession of firearms in New Zealand" made 20 recommendations. None of them mention magazines. Recommendation 6 is the creation of a category of restricted semiautomatic firearms - this already existed in E-category.
What was needed was to get rid of the 'Military Style Semiautomatic' definition based on *form* (how a firearm looked, a silly idea) and replace it with a definition based on *function* (what a firearm can do).
We have that now with P endorsement (which is why semiautomatic centrefires are not banned), so that at least is a good first step.
A great article Bryce. The idea that a minority of obsessed gun owners are allowed to dictate issues of national safety is utterly bizarre. McKee and her completely obsessive 'love' of guns is totally the wrong person to be in this role. Luxon simply has no balls to act. Our weakest PM since Bolger and Lange saddled the economy with neoliberalism.
Luxon won't have the appetite to sack her. It's still two years away from the election. And if you put a gun-lobbyist in charge of gun policy, what do you expect? He can hardly act all outraged. Luxon's problem is that Peters and Seymour are politically smarter than he is, and their priority is to carve out enough niche support by 2026 to get a solid number of MPs elected then. Doesn't matter what the specific policies are.
I'm not a gun-owner and my gut-reaction is pretty strongly anti-guns of all kinds. But my head tells me that there are some genuine needs and these can be legally permitted while maintaining public safety. What are the exact details for this? I don't pretend to know & that is why I support a serious review of the current law which was rushed through without proper consultation following the CHC tragedy. There have already been some amendments to the rushed legislation and I'd like to see us get it right for the long-term now.
I pretty much agree with you on that. My worry is ACT indulge in 'what-aboutism' and try to rush changes too.
We had E-category before 2019 that was a good balance between legitimate use and public safety. Much higher levels of security, vetting and a register. No one seemed to have issues with it, so perhaps a return of that special licence category could be an option
The problem was some semiautomatic centrefires were left outside, and in particular high capacity magazines were left out. Several times it was proposed that they be moved into E-category but Police opposed this - I think because they said it was too difficult. That was a tragedy.
"These were the lethal guns that were banned after the Christchurch mosque shootings."
Oh no. Not this falsehood again too?
They aren't banned. They are *restricted*.
Now: what issues were there with the old E-category? For that is in effect what appears to be mooted to return.
The people with the E category endorsements never committed violent crime, because we were all vetted very carefully and found to be honest and law abiding. As the police told me when I got my E category endorsement, E cat people had less legal rights than a pedophile living next to a kindergarten. The Police were very surprised when the E category was abolished in 2019, and it was PNHQ and Federated Farmers together that came up with a way to get around the new law change in late 2019 to allow land managers such as farmers, foresters etc with significant pest issues to obtain the new Pest control endorsement. The E cat ban was so stupid that the Police themselves had come up with a way to bypass the the new law within 6 months... says something. This fix was changed in the 2020 legislation amendments and I know of several farmers and forest owners with legal semi autos, but also a huge number of people with significant pest problems who still do not know they can get this endorsement. Keeping or reinstating E category under strict controls would be a far more sensible option than the inevitable alternative of raining poison over our entire conservation estate and farmland to try to maintain pest numbers that are currently being inadequately controlled and breeding exponentially.
Unfortunately, I think our media and commentators, such as Jack Tame, have no idea what E-category was. Tame didn't even understand the difference between an action and a magazine. He did not let his lack of understanding cause him any pause for reflection though.
Went back to have a look, to confirm my memory - Feds were very supportive of the changes initially, I think they reconsidered somewhat pretty quickly. Interestingly the spokesperson at the time, Miles Anderson, is now an MP so will be bringing that experience to the table. May be another voice working with McKee to get a better E-category in place
https://www.fedfarm.org.nz/FFPublic/FFPublic/Media-Releases/2019/Farmers_support_toughening_up_on_firearms.aspx
Feds put out a query and found that about 5000 members had E category for pest control. Initially many people thought Ardern was only banning A cat semi auto centrefires, once it was clear she was banning E cat altogether lot's of attitudes changed. I know people who can still legally own and use pistols, and who own fully operational M16s and other full auto assault rifles, but were suddenly not trusted to own semi auto centrefires or 10/22s with 15 rd mags. The first few weeks of confusion and high emotion had a lot of people agreeing with the law changes who changed their minds soon afterwards once the details were clear.
"The first few weeks of confusion and high emotion had a lot of people agreeing with the law changes who changed their minds soon afterwards once the details were clear."
Indeed. And that was something the Government of the time were shameless about.
That saying 'the law is reason, free from passion', meant nothing to them in their unseemly haste.
I reckon a leftward-leaning advocacy group for hunting and fishing might be in order to counter the way ACT has captured the concerns of firearms users and made them a gateway to their extreme positions on other issues.
If ACT's capture of their perceived interests is the 'pull' they use to draw NZ's 234,000 firearms users into their web, then the 'push' is the way that middle-class snowflake 'liberals' have abandoned working-class interests in favour of a basket of 'New Left' virtue-signalling tropes, of which firearms control is just one. Given that most people don't have a very sound ideological basis for their political affiliations (and, let's face it, all parties in representative democracies are utterly dependent on and encourage this ignorance in order to play the 'trust us, we'll see you right' card while actually working for 'covert' corporate and PMC interests), this showboating around non-class, non-economic issues is bound to result in electoral choices being made around single-issue concerns. I have no doubt that this is exactly how Nicole McKee herself came to allow herself to be 'headhunted' for selection to the ACT party list.
I also wonder if those hunters that support ACT for their position on firearms realise that, though it's not policy (yet), privatisation of the conservation estate where the public has cost-free access to hunting would be absolutely in line with the anarcho-capitalist ideology at the heart of the ACT party. In the US, oligarchs associated with Atlas Network groups have bought thousands of square miles of formerly public access land and excluded all public recreation from it, including hunting.
My question after reading this great article is: How much did the Council of Licenced Firearms Owners pay to have a seat in cabinet?
If anyone wants to know where this will end up, if we allow it, is the country will be dominated by a mirror image of the National Rifle Association in gun riddled USA!
Prepare to see our kids getting mowed down as they are in the USA!
Goodness me Kevin, aren’t you and other anti everything a bit OTT. People seem to forget that we have a rigorous firearms licensing system in AO/NZ and as for you comparing us with some states in the USA whereas there seems to be open slather on what you can purchase in choice of guns is somewhat disingenuous to say the least as this has never happened here in NZ and nor should it.
Forgot to add that when applying for a firearms license in this country, it is made quite clear by the police that to hold such a license is a privilege, not a right.
As the saying goes - "when the facts aren't on your side, argue with feelings".
No one who is serious about this issue or that understands the situation would try to use a comparison with the USA.
A comparison with Australia is more instructive but I suspect again people arent familiar with that, either.
E-category would be ruled unconstitutional in the USA. The two countries' situations are not comparable - to say otherwise is not serious.
Coincidentally Bryce, this report came out today, I'm guessing you haven't seen it yet? https://selectcommittees.parliament.nz/v/6/cc5dc559-9f5b-42ef-47fb-08dcaf5f1c19
A select committee chaired by David Parker found some fairly significant problems with the rushed changes Labour made to regulations around shooting ranges. Not surprising, given the haste Labour seemed to feel was necessary, and almost certainly wont be the last problem that has to be fixed.
In particular, the Committee found that mistakes in the legislation meant the Police Commissioner had powers “at odds with Privacy Commissioner”. That is fairly significant in a liberal democracy.
This is such a worry. Thanks for the details.
It's striking how many people apparently believe a Wāhine Toa in Parliament must be unable to make up her own mind.
The anti-gun lobby have already 'jumped the shark' on this one.
https://www.facebook.com/GunControlNZ/posts/528880970988789
Good to see the ACT astrosurfers out en masse as usual.
I didn't and don't vote ACT; in fact voted for another party nearly their opposite.
Trying to reduce this to tribalism and either/or is part of the problem, has been for decades.
ACT astrosurfing is unfortunately merely a fact:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/439960/ex-act-staffer-grant-mclachlan-says-party-created-fake-grassroots-groups
But in this thread?
I suspect that all the people criticizing Ms McPhee here are Labour or Greens supporters.