About the New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties

1. The New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties (‘the Council’) is a voluntary, not-for-profit organisation founded in 1952 which advocates to promote human rights and maintain civil liberties.

Introduction

2. This bill rewrites our firearms law.  The Council has no position on the bulk of the changes.
   
3. Holding a firearms license is not a right. However, the government may not lawfully deny a privilege if the reason for that denial involves illegal discrimination. 

Freedom of Association

4. Sections 68(c) and 69(1)(m) of the bill disqualify members of gangs from holding firearms licenses.

The Arms Regulator opposes disqualifying gang members

5. The Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) notes that the Arms Regulator opposes disqualifying gang members:¹

The regulator considers the current criteria fit for purpose. In its submission it noted the ability to apply discretion during a fit and proper person assessment enables tailored interventions for licence holders in line with the levels of risk, the actual or potential consequences, and the behaviour, attitude and capability of licence holders or applicants.

The Ministry of Justice opposes disqualifying gang members

6. The Ministry also opposes disqualifying gang members on several grounds. First, that membership in a gang is not an indicator of criminal behaviour:²

Offending is not unique to gang members, nor necessarily mostly committed by them.

7. Second, the Ministry opposes disqualifying gang members on bureaucratic grounds namely, as the Council has consistently stated, that the National Gang List (NGL) is not sufficiently well maintained to be used in this manner:³

In addition, the NGL is an operational practice, but if used to apply prohibitions could have implications for how the list is created and controlled. For example, people are added to the NGL based on an assumption they are associated with a gang, however this is not a conclusive test. Furthermore, if someone ceases to be associated with a gang, they may struggle to be removed from the list.

8. Finally, the Ministry opposes disqualifying gang members for Human Rights reasons:⁴

Any interventions that target gang members will have a disproportionate impact on populations that are overrepresented in gangs. Gang membership is known to be concentrated among populations that are on average younger, disproportionately male, live in more deprived communities and Māori.

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination 

9. There is a regular review of our conduct under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD). The Committee issued their most recent concluding observations on New Zealand in December 2025.  Among the Committee’s many criticisms it said:⁵

Racist organizations and propaganda

23. The Committee observes that, although far right extremism and white supremacism have increasingly been recognized as significant threats to national security, such groups have so far been able to promote and incite racial discrimination with limited accountability. It also notes the information that the lists of organizations targeted under the Gangs Act 2024 largely exclude many far right extremist and white supremacist groups and their activities and symbols, further reflecting systemic bias in the administration of criminal justice.

The Council’s observations

10. The Council agrees with the Ministry and the CERD that Aotearoa New Zealand’s anti-gang laws are racist.
    
11. The Council notes that the existence of sections 68(c) and 69(1)(m) are evidence that the Minister agrees that being a member of a gang does not automatically indicate that someone is neither fit nor proper.  Without 69(1)(m), section 69 already sets a very high standard for being fit and proper, one of the highest anywhere in our laws.  Section 69(1)(m) is the Minister’s admission that some gang members are fit and proper people of the highest standard. 

Recommendation 1 Remove sections 68(c) and 69(1)(m) from the bill.

Official Information Act

12. The Council reminds the Committee that the Official Information Act (OIA) is long overdue for update.  Specifically of interest for this bill, government agencies are not automatically subject to the OIA.
    
13. Too many agencies have sought to be excluded from the OIA for dubious reasons, and the courts have unfortunately supported some of these loopholes.⁶
    
14. The new Firearms Licensing Review Committee isn’t scheduled under either the Ombudsman’s Act nor under the OIA.  Neither was the previous Arms Advisory Group.
    
15. The Arms Regulator is part of New Zealand Police for the purposes of the OIA. Section 300(2) says “The Arms Regulator is an autonomous agency of the New Zealand Police.”[emphasis added]
    
16. Section 313(2) about the Firearms Licensing Review Committee is not as clear. It says “All secretarial and administrative services required by the Review Committee must be supplied by the Arms Regulator” [emphasis added]
    
17. Section 321(4) about the arms advisory group is also not clear: “The Secretary for Justice must provide the resources and administrative support necessary to enable the advisory group to perform its functions” [emphasis added]

Recommendation 2 Make explicit that all of the bodies created by this bill are subject to the OIA, either by clarifications in this bill or by scheduling them in the Ombudsmen Act.

18. The Council thanks members of the Committee for their time and consideration of our submission.

__________________

1. https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Publications/RIS-Quadrant-1-Encouraging-a-culture-of-community-safety-and-support-FINAL_Redacted.pdf at paragraph 95 ↩︎
2. RIS at paragraph 89 ↩︎
3. RIS at paragraph 102 ↩︎
4. RIS at paragraph 105 ↩︎
5. CERD/C/NZL/CO/23-24 at paragraph 23 ↩︎
6. OpenGovernment Briefing – Secrecy Clauses
   https://nzccl.org.nz/open-government-briefing-to-minister-part-one-secrecy-clauses/ ↩︎