Govt to expand police powers on firearm prohibition
The Government will expand police’s firearm prohibition powers in a claimed crackdown on gun-wielding gang members.
But the powers being provided to the police are not quite as promised on the campaign trail.
Associate Justice Minister Nicole McKee announced the National-coalition Government’s plans to legislate to expand the firearm prohibition regime, which came into effect under the prior Labour Government in November 2022, at the Wellington police station yesterday.
Standing in front of a table of seized firearms, McKee said the Government would be giving police “the additional tools that they need to take firearms out of the hands of gangs and criminals”.
The Government intends to expand the range of offences that lead a criminal to having a firearm prohibition order placed on them at sentencing, and police will also be provided with warrantless search powers that allow them to search people who have a prohibition order on them, at any time.
A process will also be set up so that people banned from accessing firearms can have the order revoked if they have demonstrated they can “behave”.
McKee said the changes would send “a clear message to criminals that gun crime will not be tolerated”, and the Government’s legal advice indicated the search powers would not impinge on the legal right not to be unreasonably searched.
Currently, 31 people have prohibition orders placed on them, a number McKee said was expected to rise to between 80 to 100 by the time the expanding regime becomes law at the year’s end.
“It’s small numbers but by extending the criteria, we expect that those that are committing harm in our communities will be captured,” she said.
Both National and ACT campaigned on an overhaul of the firearm prohibition regime, part of a broader claim that Labour was “soft on crime”, and had promised to give police the power to apply the orders to any gang member who had been convicted of a serious offence in the past decade. However, now in power, the Government is largely sticking with the existing regime. The orders will still be applied by the courts,
“Everything is on the table – the good, the bad, the ugly.” Nicole McKee Associate Justice Minister
at the application of police, to people being sentenced for certain crimes – not their involvement in gang activity per se.
The power to apply prohibition orders will not be retrospective. Under the Bill of Rights, a person should not be punished for an offence again, after they have been convicted.
“We certainly did want a stronger regime to make sure that we get firearms out of the hands of people who had not licensed and our committing harm,” McKee said. “But the reality is, under a coalition Government, you get to negotiate how it is that you are going to affect the safety of our community.”
The Government’s promise to hardened the firearm prohibition regime came at the end of a week when McKee faced questions about the Government possibly expanding access of banned semi-automatic firearms to sport shooters.
The Press reported on Wednesday that McKee believed there was “some merit” in expanding access to semi-automatic firearms, a move police has strongly opposed, when the Government produces a new Arms Act.
“Everything is on the table – the good, the bad, the ugly. The moment we start excluding anything, it means that we’re not having a full and proper conversation,“McKee said yesterday.
Lack of formal rules around receiving gifts means New Zealand politicians are largely guessing what is appropriate, researchers say.
A study published in the International Journal of Drug Policy says MPs are downplaying the importance and impact of gifts. It highlights the dangers of a relaxed attitude, that could create an impression of being vulnerable to bribes.
Ten New Zealand MPs, some current and some former, were interviewed about their perceptions of gift-giving in the political sphere.
Attitudes varied, but the most constant theme was a consistent downplaying of the importance and impacts of gifts.
“A gifting transaction generates a bond and a sense of obligation between the giver and receiver regardless of the intent,” the researchers said.
The study found that the MPs “tend to under-estimate the potential of gifting to influence relationships”.
“Political contexts are highly relational spaces, so it follows that gifting ontributes to the way political relationships are formed and maintained.
“Gifts in the political context come laden with meaning. Not all gifts are of equal value, from things as mundane as bottles of water to more lavish items such as gold-encrusted diamond brooches,” the researchers said.
The main official benchmark for political gifting is the Standing Orders of Parliament that defines gifts as, “hospitality and donations in cash or kind other than donations disclosed under Part 6A of the Electoral Act 1993.
MPs who receive a gift of more than $500 in value from a group or an individual are required to declare the details in the Registrar of Pecuniary and Other Specified Interests. Multiple gifts from a single person with a combined value of more than $500 must also be declared in the Register.
The study found that most MPs played down the impact of gifts on their attitudes and behaviour.
Some spoke of discouraging gifts, others spoke of reducing their impact by maintaining a “sceptical attitude” and others spoke of “transcending” their effects.
However when they were asked about the influence of gifting on how they operated in politics, they repeatedly stated that gifting had “little effect.”
The study also found there was a lack of set rules and guidance from Government.
The researchers recommended an improved awareness and understanding of the contribution of gifting practices to political relationship building.