Arms Bill

2.1. Are there any publicly available inquiry, review or evaluation reports that have informed, or are relevant to, the policy to be given effect by this Bill?

NO

2.2. Does this Bill seek to give effect to New Zealand action in relation to an international treaty?

NO

2.3. Were any regulatory impact statements provided to inform the policy decisions that led to this Bill?

YES

The Ministry of Justice produced the following 4 regulatory impact statements on

29 May 2025 to help inform the main policy decisions taken by the Government relating

to the contents of this Bill:

•       Firearms Reform—Encouraging a culture of community safety and support:

•       Firearms Reform—Enabling legitimate possession and use:

•       Firearms Reform—Ensuring compliance through education and enforcement:

•       Firearms Regulation—Maintaining public interest and safety.

The Ministry of Justice produced the following 3 further regulatory impact statements

on 28 August 2025 to help inform the main policy decisions taken by the Government

relating to the contents of this Bill:

•       Firearms Reform—Permits to Possess and Manufacturing:

•       Firearms Reform—Appeal pathways:

•       Firearms Reform—Offences and penalties.

Copies of all regulatory impact statements can be found at—

•       https://www.justice.govt.nz/justice-sector-policy/regulatory-stewardship/regulatory-impact-assessments/

•       https://www.regulation.govt.nz/our-work/regulatory-impact-statements/

2.3.1. If so, did the Ministry for Regulation provide an independent opinion on the quality of any of these regulatory impact statements?

NO

As agreed in consultation with the Ministry for Regulation, the regulatory impact statement was assessed internally by the Ministry’s Regulatory Quality Assurance Panel and determined to meet the quality assurance criteria and one RIS partially meet the quality assurance criteria.

2.3.2. Are there aspects of the policy to be given effect by this Bill that were not addressed by, or that now vary materially from, the policy options analysed in these regulatory impact statements?

NO

2.4. Has further impact analysis become available for any aspects of the policy to be given effect by this Bill?

NO

2.5. For the policy to be given effect by this Bill, is there analysis available on:

(a)   the size of the potential costs and benefits?

YES

(b)   the potential for any group of persons to suffer a substantial unavoidable loss of income or wealth?

NO

Analysis of the high-level costs and benefits of legislative policy options was included in Regulatory Impact Statements prepared by the Ministry of Justice.

2.6. For the policy to be given effect by this Bill, are the potential costs or benefits likely to be impacted by:

(a)   the level of effective compliance or non-compliance with applicable obligations or standards?

YES

(b)   the nature and level of regulator effort put into encouraging or securing compliance?

YES

Refer to the RIS for information relating to compliance here: https://www.justice.govt.nz/justice-sector-policy/regulatory-stewardship/regulatory-impact-assessments/   

3.1. What steps have been taken to determine whether the policy to be given effect by this Bill is consistent with New Zealand’s international obligations?

Consistency with New Zealand’s international human rights obligations was a part of the Ministry of Justice’s analysis of the policy options informing the development of the Bill. Obligations under the Protocol against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, their Parts and Components and Ammunition and United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime are relevant to this Bill.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade were consulted during the formation of the policy advice and drafting of the Bill.

3.2. What steps have been taken to determine whether the policy to be given effect by this Bill is consistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi?

Consultation has been conducted with government agencies including Te Puni Kōkiri on the policy decisions leading to this Bill.

The Ministry of Justice carried out public consultation on the rewrite of the Act between 13 January and 28 February 2025. A total of 8,448 submissions were received during consultation. In total, over 700,000 individual points were made by submitters. This included a Māori Focus Group Wānanga coordinated by the Ministry.

Some stakeholders submitted that many Māori have issues with accessing firearms due to difficulties navigating the licensing system and historic distrust of Police. There are programmes in place, such as Whakatūpato, seeking to address these concerns.

3.3. Has advice been provided to the Attorney-General on whether any provisions of this Bill appear to limit any of the rights and freedoms affirmed in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990?

YES

Crown Law is providing advice to the Attorney-General on whether the Bill complies with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

Changes in the Bill are likely to engage sections 17 (freedom of association) and 25(c) right to be presumed innocent.

Advice provided to the Attorney-General, or a section 7 report of the Attorney-General, is expected to be available on the Ministry of Justice’s website upon introduction of the Bill. Such advice, or reports, will be accessible on the Ministry’s website at: Compliance reports | New Zealand Ministry of Justice

3.4. Does this Bill create, amend, or remove:

(a)   offences or penalties (including infringement offences or penalties and civil pecuniary penalty regimes)?

YES

(b)   the jurisdiction of a court or tribunal (including rights to judicial review or rights of appeal)?

NO

The Bill repeals the Arms Act 1983 and replaces it with a rewritten Bill. As a result, there are a significant number of offences throughout the Bill. The new offences are mostly contained in parts 2; 3; 6 and 8.

3.4.1. Was the Ministry of Justice consulted about these provisions?

YES

The provisions were developed by the Ministry of Justice so no separate consultation was necessary. Police and the Crown Law Office we consulted on the new offence provisions.

3.5. Does this Bill create, amend or remove any provisions relating to the collection, storage, access to, correction of, use or disclosure of personal information?

YES

The following provisions have been amended to reflect that the Chief Executive of the new firearms regulatory agency will now be responsible for regulatory functions, including the collection, storage, and use of personal information for the purpose of carrying out duties and functions under the Act: cl 69, 71, 73, 74, 84, 102, 114, 123, 125, 127, 128, 137, 168, 169, 170, 179, 190, 199, 201, 208, 209, 217, 218, 223, 224, 233, 234, 307, 355, 357 – 359, and 367.

Part 6 (relating to direct access agreements) is carried over from Part 7 of the current Act with references to the Minister of Police and Police replaced with references to the responsible Minister and the arms regulatory agency, respectively

Cl 324 refers to requests for information from a panel of the Firearms Licensing Review Committee.

Cl 350-352 provides for information sharing between the arms regulatory agency and Commissioner.

3.5.1. Was the Privacy Commissioner consulted about these provisions?

YES

The Ministry of Justice consulted with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner during policy development and bill drafting. It identified that there were privacy implications regarding the establishment of a new firearms regulatory agency, but due to time constraints, was unable to undertake a fulsome analysis.

The Office viewed the information sharing provisions (cl 350-52) to be beneficial from a privacy perspective.

The Privacy Commissioner raised concerns about the operationalisation of the automatic disqualification policy by relying on the National Gang List.

3.6. Has there been any external consultation on the policy to be given effect by this Bill, or on a draft of this Bill?

YES

The Ministry of Justice carried out public consultation on the rewrite of the Act between 13 January and 28 February 2025. A total of 8,448 submissions were received during consultation. In total, over 700,000 individual points were made by submitters.

3.7. Have the policy details to be given effect by this Bill been otherwise tested or assessed in any way to ensure the Bill’s provisions are workable and complete?

[YES/NO]

The Ministry of Justice has worked closely with relevant agencies to ensure that the proposals given effect to by the Bill are workable and can be operationalised.

4.1. Does this Bill contain any provisions that could result in the compulsory acquisition of private property?

NO

4.2. Does this Bill create or amend a power to impose a fee, levy or charge in the nature of a tax?

NO

4.3. Does this Bill affect rights, freedoms, or impose obligations, retrospectively?

NO

4.4. Does this Bill:

(a)   create or amend a strict or absolute liability offence?

YES

(b)   reverse or modify the usual burden of proof for an offence or a civil pecuniary penalty proceeding?

YES

Strict Liability Offences

The Bill carries over a number of strict liability offences from the 1983 Act.  These offences all now carry the defence of without reasonable excuse (and inserts an element of knowledge to the offence).  These offences relate to possession or the sale of firearms, in cases where the defendant is best placed to justify their possession of the firearm.

The strict liability offences are in clauses 14, 16,17, 20, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 34, 36, 37, 40, 44, 46, 47, 50, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 62, 63, 64, 66, 88, 90, 91, 96, 98, 105, 109, 110, 111, 131, 132, 133, 135, 136, 137, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170,  179, 202, 209, 218, 225, 234, 235, 249, 254, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 269, 273, 298, 325, 326, 327, 328, 330, 334, 350.

Reverse onus

Clause 248 reproduces s66 of the Arms Act 1983 which provides a reverse onus related to the unlawful possession of a firearm when it is on a person’s land or building or in the vehicle they are driving. For the reverse onus to come into effect, Police must prove beyond reasonable doubt that:

·         the defendant was occupying the land or building or the driver of the vehicle; and

·         that the firearm was found in or on the land/building or vehicle.

It is then up to the defendant to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the firearm was not their property and that it was in the possession of some other person. The reverse onus is limited to unlawful possession offences in the Act. In these cases, ownership, use, or carriage of a firearm needs to be justified, with the defendant being in the best place to argue the justification.

Currently, this is relied on by Police in a number of high-risk situations where public safety is paramount. This includes matters relating to gang activities and organised crime. These are complicated situations, and it is often very difficult for the Police to prove the absence of lawful possession or carriage purpose. These are complicated situations, and it is often very difficult for the Police to prove a possession charge.

Clauses 250, 251, 253, and 256 also contain a reverse onus.  There is a high degree of risk to public safety and harm present with unlawful carriage and possession of firearms. The reverse onus is an important legislative provision to ensure consequences for unlawfully possessed firearms and weapons.

The reverse onus is limited to unlawful possession offences in the Arms Act. In these cases, ownership, use, or carriage of a firearm needs to be justified by the defendant once the prosecution has proven the possession or carriage (and public place where appropriate to the offence). The onus is then on the defendant to prove the lawful and proper use of the firearm. This is because the defendant is considered to be in the best place to provide the justification. The provision also gives the defendant the opportunity to provide a lawful purpose for why they were carrying or possessing a firearm or weapon.

As with clause 248, these provisions are relied on by Police in a number of high-risk situations where public safety is paramount.

4.5. Does this Bill create or amend a civil or criminal immunity for any person?

YES

Clause 13(7) of the Bill provides that, except with the leave of the Attorney-General, a member of the Police who is acting as an undercover agent cannot be prosecuted for acts done in good faith under the Act.

Clause 319 of the Bill provides that members of the Review Committee are not personally liable for any acts or omission done in relation to the function of the Review Committee, unless the act or omission was done in bad faith.

Clause 321 of the Bill provides that members of the Arms Advisory Group are immune from civil liability for good-faith actions or omissions in relations to the duties, functions or powers of the Group.

4.6. Does this Bill create or amend a decision-making power to make a determination about a person’s rights, obligations, or interests protected or recognised by law, and that could have a significant impact on those rights, obligations, or interests?

NO

4.7. Does this Bill create or amend a power to make delegated legislation that could amend an Act, define the meaning of a term in an Act, or grant an exemption from an Act or delegated legislation?

NO

4.8. Does this Bill create or amend any other powers to make delegated legislation?

YES

Clause 362 empowers the making of regulations relating to a detailed and technical matters relating to licencing; security and storage of arms items, clubs and rangers, the licencing review committee, arms registry, technical guidance and infringement offences.

Any regulations made under this clause must be consulted with the Privacy Commissioner, Police, the new arms regulatory agency and other persons or organisations that are likely to be affected by the regulations.

4.9. Does this Bill contain any provisions (other than those noted above) that are unusual or call for special comment?

NO