Key points
- Officials at the New Zealand Police were astounded the minister in charge of the Government’s firearms registry reforms didn’t consult with the police union
- The information has come from documents obtained by 1News
- The Government says the New Zealand Police have been consulted and there’s no need for the union’s involvement in initial consultation
- Labour says it shows a former gun lobbyist shouldn’t be in charge of firearms reform
Police were taken aback after ACT minister Nicole McKee didn’t consult with the Police Association as part of the Government’s firearms registry reforms, 1News can reveal.
On Monday, the police union’s president Chris Cahill raised concerns about the consultation process, asking for McKee to be stripped of her responsibility for changes.
McKee is the associate justice minister with responsibility for firearms reform.
Associate Justice Minister Nicole McKee also suggested removing police advice about consulting non-gun owners. (Source: 1News)
The ACT MP was a former gun lobbyist.
Documents obtained by 1News have revealed astounded reactions from officials earlier in the process.
In one email exchange, a New Zealand Police policy advisor told a Justice Ministry advisor: “The Association is not Police and we are not free to talk to them.
“Since when could they not be considered a stakeholder — what gives?”
The documents also show McKee suggesting removing police feedback that she should consult with more non-gun owners, before officials advised she could respond to, but not change the police’s viewpoint.
Labour police spokesperson Ginny Andersen said she did not believe McKee was the right person to be in charge of the programme, due to her being a former gun lobbyist.
Andersen said it was clear officials gave “very strong advice” to McKee that the Police Association should be a stakeholder in consultation on firearms.
“This consultation went largely to firearms owners, it did not include other parts of our community. People who have lost a loved one to firearms have a right to have a say in this reform.”
On Monday, Cahill said he was concerned his union wasn’t consulted as an interested party in the reforms. McKee hit back, saying the union president was “paranoid” and that the Police Association could provide feedback at Parliament’s select committee stage.
In the documents, officials also advised that “at least two ministers” should be in charge of the reform as the National Party supported the registry. Andersen said she agreed there needed to be “other eyes” over the work given McKee’s background.
Gun Control NZ’s Philippa Yasbek said she believed the Police Association had a point in its concern it had not been included as an interested party in consultation on the firearms registry review.
“They’ve been advocating on gun control issues for a very long time. For a long time they were the only non-governmental voice on this issue. They’ve fought really hard on this, to get changes to make police officers safer.
“They’ve always been consulted on policy issues and it’s quite unusual that they’ve been dropped off the list.”
She believed McKee had “a dispute or beef” with Cahill and the Police Association.
“I think she doesn’t agree with their position so she’s trying to exclude them from the process.”
Yasbek said that was “anti-democratic”.
“Everyone who has an interest in this process should be allowed to have their say on it.”
Yasbek also disputed the Minister’s claims she was only undertaking a “scoping exercise” on the registry.
“It’s not. One of the key commitments in the coalition agreement between ACT and National is a review of the firearms registry, and this is the consultation on the review. The Police Association will only have an opportunity to have their say if there is legislative change that comes out of it that goes before Parliament. If there are other kind of changes proposed, they won’t get to have their say on those.”
McKee told 1News she didn’t think she was the one with the “personal beef”.
“I think I’ve been quite professional in the way that I’ve gone around the entire process.”
She said there was consideration about which groups were to be included or excluded from the consultation process, and the New Zealand Police had been included, and provided “fulsome” feedback.
“I’m happy with that decision.
“I don’t feel that there’s a need to consult with a union group when in fact I’m consulting with New Zealand Police who represent all of their police officers. I feel that at this early stage of consultation, that’s all that I require.”
Asked if she personally asked for the Police Association to be removed from the list of interested parties to be consulted, McKee said: “I asked for certain groups to be included and not included. With the Police Association, I probably did say there was no need for them because we have New Zealand Police.”
On suggesting the removal of the police feedback, McKee said she had wondered if it was necessary when there was a large number of groups included, including Gun Control NZ.
“I did wonder why we were going to go out to absolutely everybody in the initial consultation. We want to do this right, and I want to target those that are involved in the best way possible.”
She said it was likely legislative change would be required if the registry was moved away from police.
“If there’s no legislative change, then there’ll be no need for [the Police Association] to come, because there won’t be any changes and they’ll no doubt be happy with the status quo.”
The New Zealand Police was approached for comment.
Additional reporting by Felix Desmarais
