Arms Bill

I present a legislative statement on the Arms Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon NICOLE McKEE: I move, That the Arms Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill.

Over 40 years ago, Parliament enacted the Arms Act 1983. Since then, politicians have spent 40 years amending and rejigging the Arms Act 1983. Each change made was stacked on top of the next, rushed through in moments of political panic or patch-ups, until what’s left is a law that is confusing for licensed firearm owners, inefficient for police, and ineffective at stopping criminals. New Zealand deserves better.

Public safety and respect for licensed firearm owners are not in conflict; they actually depend on each other. This bill starts with that simple premise. It rewrites the Arms Act in plain English, with logical structure and practical improvements. The result is stronger firearm laws that better protect the public and a simpler regulatory system that supports compliance.

The tragedy of 15 March 2019 was a day of unimaginable horror for this entire country, and none of us wants to see that again. But the arms laws that followed were rushed, confused, and unfair, and they punished the wrong people. They targeted the responsible, law-abiding New Zealanders, instead of checking the systems and processes that led to this country’s worst atrocity. They even negated really targeting criminals and gangs when they made their changes. Good law is not made in a panic. It’s made with clear heads, sound evidence, and respect for those who already do the right thing. That is what this bill does.

A core lesson from the past decade is that trust matters. For law to work, the public must have confidence in the system administering it. This bill creates a new, independent firearms regulator to replace the Police Firearms Safety Authority. Its job will be to regulate clearly, consistently, and transparently so that licensed firearm owners can comply without unnecessary burdens. It will operate independently of New Zealand Police, with an independent chief executive, and no sworn police officers will work within it. Police will retain all the information that they need for enforcement, but their focus can shift to where it should be: pursuing the gangs and criminals who put the public at risk. The regulator will be empowered to provide clear guidance in consultation with the firearms community, so that licensed firearm owners understand their requirements and can comply with their obligations. This bill also sets clear limits on what information can and cannot be recorded in the firearms registry, promoting transparency and building public confidence.

I’ve heard the concerns about licensing delays, and this bill helps them. When New Zealand moved from lifetime firearm licences to 10-year licences, tens of thousands of people moved into the 10-year system all at once, and so every decade since, the same surge and bottleneck has repeated for the same people. To put this into context, in a normal year there are around 9,000 firearms licence renewals. This year, we are expecting around 55,000, and next year there will be around 50,000 renewals. To smooth this out, the regulator will have the discretion to be able to extend firearm licences for up to three years for some licensed owners whose renewals fall during the peak periods. Over time, this will end the bottleneck cycles each decade and create a steadier, more manageable flow of renewals.

The regulator will also be able to issue infringement notices and educate licence holders for lower-level offences, rather than revoking a licence as the only option. This keeps people in the system and learning, instead of pushing them out for behaviour that does not pose significant risk. Health-related suspensions are being introduced and could last up to 12 months.

Under the current law, many people lose their licence permanently simply because they need more time to get help. That is neither fair, nor proportionate. If a licence applicant disagrees with the regulator’s licensing decision, the new, independent Firearms Licensing Review Committee will hear their appeal. It replaces the current internal police-run process with a truly independent panel consisting of a lawyer, a representative from the firearms community, and an appointee of the regulator. Between October 2021 and March 2025, a third of appeals in the District Court resulted in a different outcome, which shows exactly why this change is needed.

The current Act is not fit for purpose for people whose work or expertise requires specialised use of firearms. Pest controllers and biosecurity organisations perform essential work, protecting our environment, and agricultural community and economy. Their endorsements will be extended from 2½ years to five years, with a mid-term check-in. Multi-user agreements will allow restricted firearms to be temporarily transferred among approved pest control employees for up to seven days without triggering unnecessary paperwork.

Dealer licences will be renamed business licences to reflect the variety of modern firearms-related businesses we have. Compliant holders will have their licence duration extended from one year to five years, which is directly addressing one of the most frequent complaints that I have heard. Business employees will no longer require endorsements on their personal licences, subject to controls being in place, and gunsmiths will be able to conduct short-term repairs on restricted firearms without a permit to possess.

Import permits will be extended from 30 days to 12 months, reducing administrative burden for both businesses and the regulator. New licence classes have been introduced for museum curators and their employees to reflect their unique circumstances, ensuring their rules are not disproportionate or so costly that they have to shut down. Collectors will also have greater flexibility around where the vital parts of a prohibited firearm must be stored.

If we want to improve public safety, we must ask who is driving the offending in New Zealand, and the answer, overwhelmingly, is criminal gangs. Gang members represent less than 1 percent of New Zealand’s population, but are linked to around a quarter of all firearms offending, and this bill deals with that directly. It introduces automatic disqualification for gang members from holding a firearms licence, new offences for straw purchasing and diversion, and offences to tackle 3D-printed firearms made by unlicensed individuals in possession of digital files used for illegal manufacture, and it significantly increases penalties for over 60 offences, many of which have been untouched since 1983. This bill also clarifies product definitions and rules around manufacturing, and closes loopholes relating to large-capacity pistol magazines and blank firing guns.

For individuals who inadvertently find themselves in the unlawful possession of a firearm, there are clear pathways now back into lawful ownership. One of the simplest and most important improvements is allowing secure storage at any regulator-approved location; not just a primary residence. Students that live in halls, renters, and many other people who were simply unable to meet the secure storage requirements will now have a safer choice for security.

This bill balances safety, fairness, and practicality. It strengthens the law where criminals exploit it, and it simplifies it where licensed firearm owners have been burdened by it. It’s not a bill that scapegoats legitimate firearm owners; it’s a bill that fixes what matters.

I encourage all New Zealanders to participate in the select committee process, especially those who will be impacted by this law. Consultation informed this law, showing that more voices make better law. This Government values the vital role that farmers, hunters, sport shooters, pest controllers, dealers, museums, collectors, gunsmiths, and all licensed firearm owners play in our economy, in our environment, and in our heritage. This bill is for them.

I’d just like to acknowledge that one of my staffers that has been working on this bill with me for the last two years is having his birthday today. Happy birthday, Matthew O’Connor. I now commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill, the Arms Bill. This bill is a major retreat by Nicole McKee from what was originally threatened, or promised, but this is a major win for public safety in New Zealand. What was initially meant to be in this bill would have enabled military-style semi-automatic weapons to be used on a gun range, the Firearm Safety Authority (FSA) would have been taken out of New Zealand Police, and the firearms registry would have been changed to exclude weapons such as A category firearms. None of those things are in this bill, and that makes New Zealand a safer place.

The fact is that we held—I held—public meetings in Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch on the risks of deregulating military-style semi-automatic weapons, we ran a petition that got numerous signatures and the media engaged, and New Zealanders made it very clear that we did not want prohibited weapons, military-style semi-automatic weapons that were used in the Christchurch massacre made more readily available in New Zealand. It is heartening that that protest and those voices were heard loud and clear and that this bill does not make that dangerous change. I know there are many members of the Muslim community in New Zealand who will be grateful to see that that change has not been made.

The Firearms Safety Authority also will remain within the police, and that was promised to be taken out of the police. When we looked at the costs associated with that early on, we asked those questions and did not get answers, but it is now clear that the cost would be over $500 million to take the Firearms Safety Authority out of the police. Also, what it does is it stops, potentially, that real-time access of intelligence; when someone has had their weapons removed, that is upfront when police officers are attending a call out. That information is vital for the safety of our front line and for the safety of our communities, and so we are heartened to see that the Firearms Safety Authority is staying where it is.

The firearms registry also remains intact. The firearms registry commemorated a big goal just recently in November, with over 50 percent of those people who are licensed now using the registry for their weapons to be licensed through that. That is a huge testimony to the fact that people do not have a concern with trust and confidence and that they are making sure that they use Te Tari Pūreke—the Firearms Safety Authority—and making sure that licences are now included in that registry. That is an intelligence map for our police to be able to use to know where the legal firearms are, and when we know where the legal firearms are, that makes it a lot easier to trace where those ones that have been diverted are going.

We still have some concerns with this bill, and I think it’s important that we point those out. The provision in this bill that no police will have involvement in the Firearms Safety Authority, or “blue shirts”, as referred to be Nicole McKee in her press release—we’ve had no real reason as to why we would not draw upon the institutional knowledge of New Zealand Police in firearms when making these changes to our Act. They are the ones that have the most experience and the most insights, and it does seem somewhat of an ideological move to remove the police from having involvement. I’d be really interested to know what the Minister of Police has to say about the police not having involvement in the FSA under its new, restructured form.

The second one that we would like to know about is the funding. There’s no clear indication of who is paying for this restructure. It is, potentially, up to $50 million or $60 million for a full restructure of the firearms registry, but it is unclear whether that’s coming out of the Police budget and impacting on front-line services, or whether it’s from the Ministry of Justice budget. It seems like it will be a separate Budget bid, and so we would be very interested to know who’s paying.

Finally, we want to know the implementation dates. These changes will take time; we want to make sure they’re imbedded properly. For this reason, we want to make sure these changes are made appropriately. We’ll be supporting this bill to select committee for the clear reason that we want to make New Zealand safer, and we are heartened by the fact that those initial threats made by Nicole McKee on military-style semi-automatic weapons, taking the Firearms Safety Authority out of the police, and changing the firearms registry—all of those do not change. We think that this is a win for public safety in New Zealand and that it shows that even though we have a firearms lobbyist as the Associate Minister of Justice, she has been unsuccessful in achieving her goals.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This bill, the Arms Bill, which repeals and replaces the Arms Act 1983, has the laudable goals of aiming to provide for greater protection of the public, simplifying regulatory requirements, and improving compliance. Those are all really laudable goals, and the bill as it stands could well achieve some of these things.

On public safety, as we’ve heard, there are good changes such as recognising that multiple people within the system share responsibility for safety; regulating blank-firing guns, which we know have the potential to be transformed into live conventional firearms; restricting high-capacity pistol magazines to endorsed licence holders; requiring firearm businesses to notify the police of all surrendered firearms, which will enable checks on those firearms to see if they have been involved in criminal activity or have been stolen; and requiring the regulatory approval for commercial and munitions sales. Now, these are all really good things, and there’s a range of new offences, as well, which will address real risk and help futureproof things.

They are new offences like failing to notify the loss or theft of a firearms licence; the unsafe storage of firearms; possession of firearms without a serial number; possession of files that would enable 3D printing, as we’ve heard; and intentional diversion. As a parent, I really do support the change allowing licence holders to have secure storage facilities at any location approved by the regulator, such as in my gun safe rather than in a flat somewhere in Wellington that may not be as secure and may not be desired by the landlord. This certainly will reduce risk, and it is part of the really positive changes that we see in this bill.

I am particularly pleased that the Associate Minister of Justice did not succeed in allowing greater access to military-style semi-automatic firearms. That’s a rare moment of spine shown by National to stand up for something, but we know that the Minister wanted to and still wants to give public access to military-style semi-automatic firearms and we’re concerned that some changes have been made more from spite than from any rational concern for public safety. While this bill as it stands today does offer a number of improvements, it makes one big change that we believe will create more risk and reduce oversight and transparency, and for this reason we will not be supporting this bill in its current form.

Removing the regulator from the police seems more like a petty, vindictive act based on some vibes from some small group of firearms owners than any responsible act. The police have a unique and valuable perspective. Because they’re on the front line of gun violence, they’re often exposed to gun violence and they’re at the greatest risk of gun violence. That free-flowing information flow is valuable in reducing risk, but their expertise is not included in the regulator, and that is extremely problematic. Instead of repairing the relationship and rebuilding trust between firearms owners, businesses, and the Government, the Minister has stripped the police of responsibility as some kind of weird punishment. The police should be involved in the regulator and in addressing violent crime, rather than being tasked with responding to mental health issues.

We understand that this bill will proceed without our support and will move on to select committee. However, I would encourage the public listening and my Labour colleagues here to seek the retention of the regulator within the police, reporting to the Police Commissioner, because we can’t allow some petty punishment for some imagined slight to reduce public safety by removing police oversight. It is the police who deal with violent crime and gun violence. Removing the police just increases the risks to the public, and for this reason we oppose the bill in its current form.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This bill is designed to ensure that we promote the safe possession and use of arms, and there’s a couple of things within the bill that I thought I would highlight as part of that objective. The first is the clarification of the 60 offences down into eight offences. I think that that really ensures that we’re clear that there are offences for doing things wrong, but we make them easy to understand. Secondly, there is the independence of the Firearms Licencing Review Committee. Therefore, I commend the bill to the House.

I call the Hon Dr David Wilson.

I rise on behalf of—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Oh, sorry, not “the Hon”; just Dr David Wilson. Thank you.

Dr DAVID WILSON: I’ll respond to both! I rise on behalf of New Zealand First in the first reading of the Arms Bill. We’d like to commend the Hon Nicole McKee for her work on this bill: relevant, practical, and balanced.

This bill is about ensuring New Zealand’s firearms laws are fit for purpose in the 21st century. The Arms Act 1983 has served us for decades, but recent events and reviews have shown gaps in licensing, compliance, and enforcement—for example, in responding to the emerging technology in firearms, such as 3D printing. The Arms Bill strengthens the oversight of firearms ownership, dealers, and clubs while ensuring legitimate users can continue their activities under clear and fair rules.

New Zealand First has always stood for balance: protecting public safety while respecting the rights of responsible firearms owners. Our party policies have consistently emphasised the need for strong licensing, secure storage, and tough penalties for criminals, while ensuring that hunters, farmers, and sporting shooters are not unfairly penalised. We believe in having practical, enforceable laws that target misuse, not tradition. We support this bill because it delivers exactly that balance. It strengthens police powers to deal with unlawful possession and trafficking, it ensures dealers and clubs meet modern standards, and it introduces tougher penalties for those who misuse firearms. At the same time, it provides certainty for responsible owners, recognising their role in rural life, food production, and sport.

For New Zealand First, this bill is about fairness and ensuring criminals face consequences while law-abiding citizens retain their rights. We commend this bill to the House.

Tēnā koe, and thank you, Madam Speaker. Before setting out Te Pāti Māori’s position on this bill, I want to acknowledge the wider context in which we’re debating it. Across Aotearoa, many communities are confronting rising violence, deepening inequality, and ongoing pressures that disproportionately affect those with the fewest resources. Those communities, as we very well know, are tangata whenua.

Firearms legislation sits at the crossroads of public safety, political influence, and community wellbeing. How this House chooses to regulate firearms is not just a technical exercise; it reveals whose safety is valued, whose voices are centred, and whose interests are given priority. It is in that context that I rise on behalf of Te Pāti Māori to oppose the Arms Bill 2025. Our position is clear: this bill shifts power away from community safety and toward political interests, including powerful firearm lobby interests, while failing to address the real drivers of harm in our communities.

This bill includes over 50 separate policy changes, it rewrites more than 60 existing offences, and creates eight new offences. It loosens rules for firearms users, pest controllers, collectors, and dealers, and it establishes an entirely new firearms regulator deliberately distanced from sworn police oversight. We must be honest about where this direction is coming from: this Government’s decisions appear aligned with the interests of lobby groups, rather than with the people most affected by gun violence.

The move to hand all regulatory powers to a new, independent regulator is not necessarily about improving safety. It risks politicising gun control and weakening safeguards that were strengthened after the 2019 Christchurch terrorist attacks.

Recent data suggests that gun crime in Tāmaki-makau-rau is rising and that the majority of these offences involve illegally owned firearms, and not licensed holders. This trend shows that loosening regulation doesn’t necessarily help people—like our hunters—who use firearms responsibly, but, rather, it may benefit those who obtain guns illegally or misuse them. From a Māori world view, whānau who use firearms responsibly for hunting, pest control, or mahi on their whenua contribute to the oranga, or the wellbeing, of their whānau and whenua. Our concern is not with them; our concern is with protecting life, whakapapa, and mana, which demands strong and culturally informed regulation.

If this Government was truly serious about reducing gun harm, it would invest in whānau support, violence prevention, housing security, mental health services, kaupapa Māori responses, and action against illegal firearms, and not deliver a bill shaped by lobbyists and with weakened oversight that sidelines the voices of people living with the consequences of gun violence. Therefore, Te Pāti Māori cannot support a bill that, under the guide of reform, shifts power away from community safety, risks public safety, and ignores the real issues facing our people—not just Māori but all New Zealanders. The responsibility of this House and this Government is to protect our communities, our whakapapa, and our mokopuna, and not to appease political pressure groups.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Let’s clarify two things for the previous speaker: the purpose of the bill is to promote the safe possession and use of arms, and, secondly, to impose controls to prevent the possession and use of arms for criminal activity. It’s a good thing. It’s a really good thing for New Zealand and, therefore, I commend the bill to the House.

For many people in Aotearoa today, this is actually a moment of relief, and the strange thing is that it’s a moment of relief not because of what’s in the bill but because of what’s not in the bill. So many people have been concerned that the shift we’d be discussing today would be a shift to change our position on semi-automatic weapons, and that is not the case. That has been a failed attempt today because of the work on this side of the House but also because of the work of many people in the Muslim community and many people in the community who have been lobbying against that.

I did want to just acknowledge Philippa Yasbek from Gun Control, and the important work that she’s done, but also the Federation of Islamic Associations chairperson, Abdur Razzaq, who said, “One of the key legacies of the 51 shahada was to make New Zealand safe, particularly from the menace of the semi-automatic killing machines.” This is an important moment to mark what grassroots campaigners and what our ethnic communities can do when they have their voices heard by this House, and I think it’s extremely powerful.

We will be supporting the bill through to select committee, but, as the Hon Ginny Andersen has said, there are concerns that we have and things that we will be raising. The bill is a significant one—232 pages to go through—and I’m looking forward to really robust submissions from those in the community about the detail of the bill. I do want to acknowledge the officials, who have produced this great document called Arms Bill: Explanation of proposals. It has an excellent spreadsheet that goes, change by change, through what the law is now and what the changes will be. It will be a huge aid in terms of making those submissions.

I just wanted to speak to some other choices that have been made in the body of the bill, which I’ll certainly be questioning at the select committee stage. The first one is in relation to the health-related licence suspension. Right now, if people are deemed not to be in a sufficient state to hold a licence, those licences can be suspended for three months, and if the licence is not reinstated in that three-month period, then it expires. The person cannot apply for another licence for a 10-year period. Now, there’s a change in this bill that extends that to a 12-month suspension. On the one hand, it feels like that would mean having a potentially safer community because those licences can be suspended for longer. However, it also gives the person the opportunity to remediate whatever the issue is, which then avoids the 10-year problem. It’s a choice that’s been made that strikes a particular balance, and the question is: is that balance the correct one?

Another interesting one is around the definition of penalties and what constitutes premises or not. The current law assumes that you must keep the licensed firearm in a secure place within your premises where you normally reside. Now, for many people, that’s not going to be the place where they normally reside, and the example used in the document provided by officials was students, for example, who may be flatting elsewhere, but who may need to keep their firearm in a location that’s separate from where they live. There are some extremely sensible changes made, including changes around the printing of parts of what could be used as a firearm, and so it’s acknowledging that technologies have developed in a way that means we now need to accommodate for that.

There is section 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act advice to the committee on this, as well, that says that the bill is compliant with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. However, there are a few matters to interrogate for the committee as we go through the select committee stage. One is around the freedom to relay or not to relay information and the requirement that people have to disclose their personal details to the police when asked. The current assessment is that that is a fair limitation on rights, but I do think that that is something that the committee will need to interrogate, and I certainly hope we receive submissions on that.

For the time being, I do commend this bill to the House, but, again, I urge submitters to come, having read the spreadsheet, and just give us their assessment on whether they believe that the ground struck between some of these difficult choices is the correct one. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. My favourite proposed change in the Arms Bill is that if someone chooses to be a member of a gang, then they will be automatically disqualified from holding a firearms licence. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. First of all, I want to reiterate what Vanushi Walters has just said about the great deal of relief that people will feel now that we are no longer looking at semi-automatic firearms coming back into our communities. That’s an incredibly important thing. I was very aware of the stress that that was causing and the way that people felt about it on the ground. They felt that there was not sensitivity around what happened in this country, and, like many other people, I remember exactly where I was on that day as that terrible, terrible event unfolded in our country.

I wanted also to talk about my portfolio—because I have the sexual and family violence portfolio—and the implications for people of this law. I am very pleased to see this bill going forward in the form it is to the select committee, but I too am concerned about the police not being as involved as they were. I don’t really understand why that is, and I would urge people who are submitting who have had, particularly, experiences of domestic violence or fear of domestic violence or family harm to come forward and to tell those stories.

I also ask the select committee to be sensitive about how they get to tell those stories, because they’re often very fearful of doing that, and I wanted to talk about an incident that happened the other day when we were in scrutiny week. The Justice Committee had moved to the part of scrutiny which was about the sexual and family violence centre, and as we spoke about a particularly serious and very worrying new development, which is a lot of promotion of rough sex on the internet and people being involved in situations where they were simply confused about whether they had a right to be upset about what had happened to them or to claim that it was abusive behaviour—because things have just moved so far. As we talked about that subject, a police officer—who I’d actually given a pretty hard time to about the call-out changes from the police, and I thought that she probably didn’t necessarily like my questioning—came to the front of the room and she said that it made her hackles rise because she was seeing on the front line the very behaviour that I was discussing, over and over again. She said that we needed to do something about it, and I thought about the value of her role as a police officer in that situation.

Our police are absolutely in the front line, and people like the woman who came into that situation have a very grounded, realistic view of complicated issues. They get to see things that I wish I never saw, and they do carry that experience and that responsibility. If you look at this bill and you think about that experience and responsibility in the context of people who may harm their family members with guns who may be subject to mental distress or who may be angry, it’s really important that our police who see that participate in this process.

I have a strong belief that the police should be involved in this process. I would really like it looked at as an issue at the select committee, and I take my friend Vanushi Walters’ point that the 12-month suspension probably has arguments for and against it. I’d really like that looked at at that time with an open mind because these bills make a difference to whether people live or die, and a really responsible thing to do is to listen to our submitters and think through these things with an open mind. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is a good bill because it clarifies the law and closes some loopholes. As my good friend Rima Nakhle has said, it also makes gang membership an automatically disqualifying factor for holding a firearms licence, and that’s a good thing. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

The question is, That the Arms Bill be considered by the Justice Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Justice Committee.