As part of its recent submission on the Arms Bill 2025, the Police Association took the opportunity to once again call attention to a crucial anomaly at the heart of the process, one that goes to the core of frontline members’ safety and wellbeing. 

The association was deliberately excluded from key parts of the consultation process for the Bill, despite its members being the most-exposed to firearms-related risk. However, 17 firearms interest groups were consulted. 

The association has questioned the decision-making process behind several of the Bill’s proposals, including highlighting the reduction in the “burden” on firearms owners, the exclusion of sworn police officers from the new regulator and the processes around the establishment and operation of the licence review process.

While the association supports the broad public safety intention of the Bill, with its emphasis that firearms use is a privilege, not a right, and also welcomes the decision not to revisit the 2019 ban on semi-automatic weapons, it has major concerns about transparency and the potential to weaken safety protections. 

The reality, it says, is that it is association members who are more at risk than any other professional cohort from the illegal manufacture, distribution and use of firearms. It is association members who could at any time be confronted by a firearm in the hands of a criminal. 

“The safety of police officers is no less important than arguments presented for this legislation that it ‘reduces the burden on licence applicants, licence holders and the Arms Regulator’.”

The association contends that the “no blue shirts” policy regarding the new Firearms Regulatory Agency risks weakening the connections between intelligence gathering, enforcement and licensing. 

While no sworn officers will be employed directly, the association points out that the regulator will still receive corporate services from Police. How will this work in practice, it asks. Will there be a memorandum of understanding that sets out the terms of agreement? If there is a code of conduct issue, will those affected be dealt with via Police systems and HR, the regulatory authority, or the Ministry of Justice?

The association has serious concerns about changes to the licence review process. Associate Justice Minister Nicole McKee’s gun lobby background, coupled with public statements she has made, continue to give the appearance of favouritism towards the firearms community – a body that the association argues has more investment in the outcomes of firearms licensing reviews than any other.

The association says the licence review committee should be appointed via an independent, merit-based selection process with transparent criteria and publicly reported rationale for all appointments. 

Further issues of a perceived lack of neutrality and an agenda-driven process have previously been identified in the makeup of the Ministerial Arms Advisory Group (MAAG), with reports that replacement members were “shoulder-tapped” and non-firearms voices were not reappointed.

In August 2024, the association wrote an open letter to Prime Minister Christopher Luxon to draw attention to its exclusion from the formal consultation process for the proposed firearms legislation reform. 

“If the union that works for the health and safety of those literally in the firing line is not a key stakeholder, it is difficult to imagine the criteria required for stakeholder status and raises questions about the integrity of the consultation process,” the association says in its current submission.

It warns that the Bill’s aim to “simplify” regulatory requirements has the potential to reduce scrutiny during licensing, weaken the “fit and proper person” framework, allow risk factors (such as mental health and behaviour changes) to go undetected, and prioritise administration convenience over safety. 

Ultimately, it seeks proof that the new regulatory framework will genuinely enhance safety for the public and police officers. 

Association president Steve Watt says the process and lack of detail behind the Bill, particularly in the formation of the new regulator and the constitution of the licence review panel, are causes for concern. “It is pretty difficult for the association to skip over our history with the minister when it comes to firearms reforms, and the impact of the minister’s prioritising of the wishes of the gun lobby,” he says.

“The bottom line for the association is that our history and frontline experience of the dangers of poor firearms law be heard and acted upon in the select committee’s deliberations.”

The association’s full submission can be viewed here.