Firearms registry review: Act triggers rarely used coalition clause amid disagreement with National

The Act Party has invoked the “agree to disagree” clause in its coalition agreement with the National Party in relation to the firearms registry.

Nicole McKee, the associate Justice Minister and an Act MP, claims a review of the registry fell short of the standard promised in the Act-National coalition agreement and National has refused to allow another review take place.

“The purpose of the review was to establish a clear evidence base, covering public safety impacts, government costs, compliance burdens for licensed firearms owners and international comparisons. In my view, the review failed to deliver on these objectives,” McKee said.

But Police Minister Mark Mitchell, a National MP, believes another review would “provide little further value” and says his party is “firmly opposed to any proposals that could negatively impact public safety”.

The “agree to disagree clause” found in the coalition agreements allows for the parties to maintain different positions on certain issues in public. Despite that, “a minister’s support and responsibility for the collective Government position must always be clear”.

McKee launched the review of the registry last year to establish whether it was “effectively and efficiently improving public safety”.

The Act Party campaigned at the 2023 election on scrapping the registry, arguing that by targeting licensed firearms owners, it didn’t address the “true source” of offending, which was criminals.

However, the party’s coalition agreement with National only committed to “review whether the Firearms Registry is effectively improving public safety”.

The Herald revealed last month that while the official findings of the review are yet to be released, multiple sources have said the review’s recommendations favour retaining the registry and having all firearms registered.

McKee at the time wouldn’t confirm or deny the findings in an interview with the Herald as it still needed to go through a Cabinet process.

However, in a statement on Sunday morning, McKee said that at a Cabinet meeting earlier this month, she asked ministers to consider whether the review “did not meet the commitment in Act’s coalition agreement”.

“I also asked that a more thorough and independent review be conducted in the 2025/26 financial year. Unfortunately, these proposals were rejected by National,” she said.

Act leader David Seymour, flanked by MP Nicole McKee (left) and deputy leader Brooke van Velden. Photo / Mark Mitchell

Another disagreement is over ammunition being considered an “activating circumstance”.

Currently, firearms owners have until August 2028 to register their firearms unless there is an “activating circumstance”, such as buying or selling a firearm, that leads to earlier engagement.

Purchasing ammunition from June 24 onwards is considered one of these circumstances, requiring the registration of all firearms the owner possesses, but McKee wanted to defer this until December next year as she said there is currently no clear definition of ammunition in the legislation, creating confusion.

“Pushing back the date to December 2026 would have provided time to build public trust in the registry and ensure clarity in the law. This recommendation was also rejected.”

McKee’s issues with the review

McKee said the review acknowledged there was limited data to assess the registry’s impact. It was launched in mid-2023, creating a digital record of the possession of firearms, and came amid other changes to firearms laws in the wake of the 2019 Christchurch shootings.

The Act MP said the review only made “limited use of domestic data, such as enforcement trends prior to the registry, or the experience of the 20% of licence holders already registered”.

She also claims it did not “meaningfully examine international examples that could have provided further insight”.

“These are not gaps in available information but gaps in the analysis which was undertaken. One of the key conclusions – that the registry is justified if it prevents just two fatalities a year – is speculative and unsupported by evidence. Without a clear model of risk reduction or causal link to public safety outcomes, that claim is difficult to defend.”

McKee said the review focused narrowly on operational costs to the Government. It’s been estimated the annual operating costs are $8.5 million.

She said the review gave little weight to future changes to the registry, such as the inclusion of a dealers registry and ongoing compliance costs by gun owners.

“Significantly, the review also failed to account for privacy concerns. Given past breaches of firearms owners’ personal data, it is troubling that the review did not assess the risks associated with centralising sensitive information in the registry. This [is] despite the fact I am aware of six breaches of data since 2019.”

Act's Nicole McKee (left) and National's Mark Mitchell. Composite Photo / Mark McKeown, NZME

McKee said that despite the differences between the coalition parties on the registry, they were working constructively on the wider rewrite of the Arms Act.

“As we push ahead with that process, public safety remains at the heart of what we are doing,” she said.

The use of the “agree to disagree” clause in the coalition agreements is rare. Among just a handful of uses is Act opposing the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill and NZ First raising it in relation to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Covid-19 response.

Police Minister responds

Mark Mitchell provided the Herald with a lengthy statement that began by stressing that National opposed anything that “could negatively impact public safety”.

He said the registry was intended to provide a “full picture of legal firearms ownership” and assisted police with addressing “straw buying”, whereby a licensed firearms owner purchases a weapon and onsells it to a criminal.

“There is a devastating human cost for every life lost or person suffering a gunshot wound. The heartbreaking loss of Constable Matthew Hunt in the line of duty reminds us of the risk our frontline police officers carry. The public and our police officers deserve to have every step taken to make them safer.”

With regard to the review, Mitchell said it “overwhelmingly supported” the continuation of the registry. He said there was a view in Cabinet that the review was “sufficient to meet the agreement made between National and Act” but acknowledged Act did not share that view.

He said Cabinet had not agreed to another review of the registry.

“The review already undertaken was endorsed by Cabinet as meeting the requirements of the coalition agreement and the advice was that that would provide very little further value not already captured in the review just completed.”

On the issue of ammunition as an “activating circumstance”, Mitchell said that when the coalition came into Government, the police had advised it could be deferred as “they were not in a position to be implemented”.

The Government was also dealing with dealers’ obligations at the time. These required dealers to input the stock they hold into the firearms registry. Police also advised this could be deferred.

Mitchell said the Government agreed with the police advice, but “later, police did further work and identified that the ammunition as an activating circumstance regulation could be implemented as planned and asked us not to defer that coming into effect”.

“At the time, police advised that by not proceeding as planned to include the purchase of ammunition as an activating circumstance for the registry, we would be putting public safety at risk. That is not something I am prepared to tolerate and so we have since opposed attempts to defer that regulation coming into force.”

It was decided that Cabinet would wait until the firearms registry review was returned before they made a final decision on the deferral.

“The review of the registry was completed late last year and overwhelmingly supported the continuation of the registry, as well as its continued implementation (with regard to the purchase of ammunition being an activating circumstance).”

Mitchell said there was a view in Cabinet that there was “no clear policy basis for deferring the ammunition as an activating circumstance regulation”.

“Police advised that that was a simple implementation and if not implemented, would put the public at risk. Act do not share our view on this either.”

He said he wasn’t “convinced that disagreeing with police’s clear public safety advice on the basis of there being no definition of ammunition in legislation is a sufficient reason to jeopardise public safety”.

“Cabinet has not agreed to the proposal to defer the purchase ammunition as an activating circumstance from 2025, with an agree to disagree [agreement] between National and Act. Our position on this was very clear; nothing at the expense of public safety.”

Cabinet did decide to defer the dealers’ obligations until 2027, however. Mitchell said this would allow more time for a workable system to be built.

He said that, despite these differences, he enjoyed “a strong, respectful working relationship with minister McKee”.

“Although there are some things we will debate and work through, we are both united on improving public safety.”

‘Clear cracks’

Speaking to the Herald, Labour’s Ginny Andersen said the revelation demonstrated “clear cracks in the coalition relationship”.

“The information I have received showed that the firearms registry is working incredibly well,” Andersen said.

“Police want it in place. It’s only the gun lobby that wants to unpick the good work we did when we were in Government.

“It needs more time to bed in. It’s a shame that the minister is so biased she can’t take this information on board.”

Andersen also called for the review’s findings to be made public.

In an interview with the Herald last month, McKee questioned whether the registry was worth the money.

There were several privacy breaches in the early days of Te Tari Pūreke Firearms Safety Authority (FSA), the last major one in July 2023, according to a list compiled by the Council for Licensed Firearms Owners (Colfo).

“If the registry is going to stay in its format then a lot of work needs to be done by Government to create trust and confidence in that regime,” McKee said.

She has previously argued in favour of what existed before the Christchurch terror attack, meaning all pistols and restricted weapons had to be registered.

But this didn’t exist in a form similar to the current registry, where the information can be searched and shared with frontline police officers in real time. Nor did it have the same impact on gun owners selling firearms to the unlicensed, which criminals say the registry helps prevent.

A 2023 survey found 71% of New Zealanders support the registry, while only 14% opposed it.

Jamie Ensor is a political reporter in the NZ Herald Press Gallery team based at Parliament. He was previously a TV reporter and digital producer in the Newshub Press Gallery office.