Should a former Act gun lobbyist be in charge of gun control reforms?
In forming his government, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon appointed a former gun lobbyist to review and reform laws on gun ownership. And now, as Associate Minister of Justice, Act MP Nicole McKee is overseeing these reforms in a way that is alarming those interested in keeping New Zealand safe from gun violence. Most significantly, the Police Association said this week that they lack confidence in the Minister’s integrity and independence. They have called on the Prime Minister to sack her.
Nicole McKee’s professional gun lobbying background
Nicole McKee was, before parliamentary politics, the spokesperson for the Council of Licenced Firearms Owners. She is also the owner of a gun consultancy firm. It’s in these roles that McKee has lobbied for many years against increased restrictions and regulations of gun ownership and use. And it’s on this issue that she rose to prominence and was recruited by the Act Party to run for Parliament.
The Police Association has reminded the Prime Minister this week that it was McKee who played a leading role in convincing the last National Government to keep gun regulations loose prior to the 2019 March 15 massacre in Christchurch. Back in 2016 she lobbied then Police Minister Paula Bennett to reject 12 recommendations made about gun law reform by Parliament’s Law and Order select committee, which had held a year-long study of firearms rules. One of the rejected recommendations was about tightening the law on semi-automatics.
At the time, Police Association President Chris Cahill said the minister had given into the pressure of a lobby group that he said represented fewer than 10,000 gun owners. This week, Cahill has reiterated that McKee’s lobbying had stifled reforms which “could very well have meant a much different outcome for New Zealand on March 15, 2019.”
After the Christchurch massacre, the Jacinda Ardern Government brought in much tighter rules, including a new firearms register and a ban on military-style semi-automatic guns. Immediately, McKee, as the spokesperson for the Council of Licensed Firearms Owners, led the charge against the new rules.
It was her bold advocacy for rural gun owners that led Act Party leader David Seymour to ask her to stand for Parliament. And two months before the 2020 election, she joined the party and was parachuted straight into Parliament by being third on Act’s party list.
Once elected, McKee’s focus on campaigning for firearm owners continued as her main issue. Notably, in her maiden speech, she thanked the Council of Licenced Firearms Owners, who honoured her with a Korowai clock to wear for the ceremony. McKee said: “You have persevered for a rational approach to firearms legislation wanting to be part of the solution. You have never been the problem, despite such accusations by the police, the Government, and the media.”
Then, late last year, in joining the National-led government, the Act Party negotiated that the new coalition would rewrite the law regulating gun use and ownership. Act also tried to get National to agree to the abolition of the gun register, but Luxon maintained his support for keeping it.
McKee was given a ministerial position and the responsibility on gun control. Critics said it was like putting the fox in charge of the hen house. And as Minister, McKee continued to campaign against the new gun register, saying: “Registering everything is not going to help keep New Zealand safe and actually ends up making criminals out of law-abiding people”.
While McKee has obviously given up her formal role as spokesperson for gun owners, she recently declared that she still owns her gun consultancy business, “Firearms Safety Specialists New Zealand Limited”. While there are no rules against ministers owning companies, the public might benefit from more information from the Beehive about how they manage McKee’s potential conflict of interest.
McKee’s first gun law reforms: helping shooting clubs
Ardern’s 2019 gun law reforms involved regulating shooting clubs and gun ranges, which until then were subject to virtually no rules. Under Part Six of the Arms Act, such clubs now had to meet certain obligations, including reporting on any sales of firearms and ammunition.
Earlier this year, McKee announced that she wanted to reduce “compliance costs and paperwork” for such clubs. Then, in June she enacted these changes to gun club regulations, pushing through an “Order in Council” change to the rules, bypassing Parliament, and avoiding consultation with the public.
Labour’s police spokesperson, Ginny Anderson, told media: “It's really concerning that these changes are being made in the shadows, without any public awareness of what the government is doing”. Similarly, Gun Control NZ co-founder Philippa Yasbek spoke out, saying, “I am worried the minister is proceeding in quite an anti-democratic way. She wants to use her position of power now to bring in changes and go back mostly to what things were like before the Christchurch mosque attacks”.
In response, McKee’s Beehive office explained that “While this meant there was no public consultation, the public will be able to have their say on this and other firearms reforms as bills go to select committee throughout this term.”
In the meantime, McKee has picked several groups that she believes are a “cross-section” of New Zealand society, provided them with documents on proposed gun law changes, and asked for feedback. The process lacks transparency.
As the Police Association has said, “It's not clear why the Government is running this sort of secretive campaign to only talk to their mates and us, and a few others.” And it’s illustrative of McKee’s orientation to the process that when the Association asked for copies of the consultation documents, her office told them that they would need to make a former Official Information Act request.
Consulting with gun owners, but what about non-gun-owners?
In carrying out her public consultation on the review of the Arms Act, Nicole McKee says she has undertaken “targeted consultation”, which means that only selected public groups have been invited to give their feedback. According to media coverage, the groups chosen by McKee are overwhelmingly gun groups, with non-gun-owning groups only a minority.
Most significantly, McKee has chosen not to involve the Police Association, the union representing sworn officers. This led the union's president, Chris Cahill, to write a scathing letter to the Prime Minister on Monday, raising concerns about McKee’s consultation process.
Cahill wrote that McKee “has deliberately excluded the association, an established key stakeholder in the firearms debate because our voice is not in lockstep with her desired outcome. Why else would the only body whose members deal daily with the consequences of illegal firearms and who understand the safety value of a registry, be shut out of this process?”
The agency of the New Zealand Police has also endorsed the need for the Association to be consulted in the review. On Wednesday 1News revealed communications between the NZ Police and the Ministry of Justice about the consultation process. In this, a Police policy advisor took issue with the decision to exclude the Police Association, saying: “Since when could they not be considered a stakeholder — what gives?”
The leading anti-gun group has also backed up the need for the Police Association to be included in the consultation. According to Gun Control NZ's Philippa Yasbek: “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.”
Yasbek claimed McKee’s stance on this was “anti-democratic”, saying that “Everyone who has an interest in this process should be allowed to have their say on it”.
1News also reported this week that documents “show McKee suggesting removing police feedback that she should consult with more non-gun owners”. The broadcaster asked the Minister if she had asked officials to exclude the Police Association from consultation, and she replied: “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.”
RNZ has also reported on this, with McKee telling the Checkpoint programme that input from the Police Association was unnecessary because she already had feedback from the Police in general: “We're doing targeted consultation scoping on some of the legislative reforms that we want to look to implement during this term of government and while the Police Association feel that they've been excluded, we have actually included New Zealand Police who represent all of the frontline, not just those that belong to the union.”
In response to Cahill’s complaint about being excluded from consultation, McKee has said that the Association will still have the chance, like all the public to provide feedback via the Law and Order select committee once new legislation has been written and introduced to Parliament. She said Cahill’s letter to Luxon showed a “paranoia ill-befitting of the organisation”.
Public confidence in the Government’s oversight of gun laws
On becoming the responsible minister last year, McKee promised to oversee gun laws without letting her own personal views influence her decisions. While that appeared admirable then, it also seemed naïve or even unbelievable.
McKee positioned herself as someone who would be highly consultative, objective, and fair in the ministerial role. Here’s what Herald political journalist Derek Cheng reported from an interview with the Minister: “She doesn’t want to rewrite the Arms Act – which will be reviewed this parliamentary term – based on her personal beliefs. Instead she sees herself as a ‘conduit’ for pulling together everyone’s good ideas into legislation that will survive a change of government – somewhat akin to what former Climate Change Minister James Shaw did with the Zero Carbon Act.”
In that interview, McKee suggested a generous approach to her portfolio, albeit one that doesn’t appear to have materialised: “I’ve got to make sure it’s not my personal views that go forward but rather collective views. Good legislation involves everybody, and bad legislation is usually when somebody goes off and does something by themselves… I’m never going to be arrogant enough to think that I have the answers to everything. I need to be able to pull on everybody else’s expertise from all different areas to get enduring law.”
These great intentions don’t appear to have eventuated. McKee can now be charged with having largely ignored non-gun-owning stakeholders. This has been reiterated today, with news that the Minister “has monthly meetings with firearms interest groups in her Beehive office”. Looking at McKee’s published ministerial diaries, journalist Amelia Wade reports that “she’s also met with police four times but never with March 15 victims or with the police union.”
Wade reports further about who McKee has meetings with over gun laws: “Since becoming the associate justice minister in November, McKee has had a standing monthly meeting in her office with the New Zealand Deer Stalkers Association and has also met with the Sporting Shooters Association, a shooting range, a competitive shooter and a firearms specialist. In March she spoke at and attended the annual general meeting of the Council of Licensed Firearm Owners (COLFO); the gun lobby group she used to lead.”
None of what McKee has done is unlawful or breaks any rules. But it reflects very poorly on her government. In largely ignoring the 94 per cent of society that are not gun owners – especially important stakeholders in gun law reform such as the Police Association – the Minister does indeed look like she is breaking her promises to follow the broader public interest rather than just the vested interests of the groups that she used to lobby for.
Dr Bryce Edwards
Political Analyst in Residence, Director of the Democracy Project, School of Government, Victoria University of Wellington
Key Sources
Benedict Collins (1News): Exclusive: 'What gives?' Police astounded union frozen out from gun talks
Derek Cheng (Herald): Nicole McKee, ex gun lobbyist now Cabinet Minister, on sidelining personal views, disappointing firearms groups (paywalled)
Felix Desmarais (1News): Gun reform stoush: Who is Nicole McKee?
Laura Frykberg (Stuff): Changes to some shooting club regulations ‘made in the shadows’ with no consultation
Laura Frykberg (Stuff): Gun law reform proposal process ‘non-democratic’ and ‘secretive’, excluded critics say
Oliver Neas (Guardian): Fears rightwing coalition will unwind NZ gun reforms brought in after Christchurch massacre
Russell Palmer (RNZ): Police Association urges PM to strip gun reform portfolio off Nicole McKee
RNZ: Firearms reform minister says Police Association input not needed
Amelia Wade (The Post): Ex-gun lobbyist minister meets monthly with firearms groups (paywalled)
Bridie Witton (Stuff): Police Association raises ‘serious concerns’ about ACT minister Nicole McKee
ACT was voted AGAINST by the vast majority of those who voted ... their gun business owning/gun lobbyist Minister should NOT be in a position to IMPOSE changes via sneaky Order in Council rather than through Parliament, & roll back legislation that will probably benefit them financially, exclude valid interest groups from discussions, & use the desperation of Luxon et al to have power in excess of their public support on the issue - the changes after the Mosque massacre were broadly supported by MOST NZers regardless of politics (apart from McKee & her minority "mates") She has NO MANDATE of any description to put more NZers (Police included) in future danger by rolling back sensible gun regulations.
I didn't vote for the GREENS when they were a coalition partner with Labour, but did admire their recognition that they were a MINORITY partner, and while fiercely advocating at times, didn't use their power to blackmail the govt into allowing them to do stuff AGAINST the public interest.
I am a licensed firearms owner. My license expired after 10 years, and when I returned from oversees I had to go through the entire process again to renew it. Part of the vetting and re-vetting process was rigorous. It felt emotionally invasive and uncomfortable, however I believe it is entirely necessary. The part of the process I am referring to is the interview conducted in your own home by a Firearms Regulation Authority officer. I was asked very personal questions about my habits, the nature of my romantic relationship and state of mental health over an extended period of time. As uncomfortable as it is, this is a valid part of the process and quite obviously extremely important. I also was required to provide two references. One from a family member who had known me all my life, and the other a licensed firearms owner of good standing who had known me for over 10 years. Both my referees were also interrogated in great detail about my character and mental health. The point I am getting to here... is that what happened in Christchurch has nothing to do with licensed firearms owners in New Zealand and everything to do with incompetence and negligence in the vetting process of Brendon Tarrant. He slipped through the crack. The particular safety officer involved in his vetting process was that 'crack'. If Brenton Tarrant had been subjected to the same intensive assessment process I and other license holders I know have been, he would not have been issued a license. The major problem with guns in New Zealand is of an illegal nature, and in my opinion Mr Cahill should be spending more time working out how to get them out of the hands of unlicensed criminals than writing letters to Mr Luxon complaining about the extensive industry experience and alleged "secret campaigning" of Nicole McKee. Instead, someone could shine a light on the terrible 'secret' incompetency that occurred in the particular vetting process that led to the tragedy which occurred in Christchurch. I believe Minister McKee is simply trying to protect the right of licensed firearms owners to not be viewed or regarded publicly as criminals. With all this deflecting of responsibility it appears to be the license holders who cop-the-flack of negative public opinion for what was indeed the 'devastating oversight' of one particular individual within the safety authority.