Thread: Thought I might post my response to NZ Fuzz consultation of licence costs.

Hope this doesn’t cross the boundaries of the forums political commissars.

Not trying to influence anyone, just sharing in case it helps anyone else to have their say.

Q1 - Should the firearms safety training course fee be set on a full or partial cost recovery basis?

My response - Disincentivising attendance at a safety focused event appears contrary to encouraging safe firearms use.
There is a strong argument for making the safety training free at the point of delivery, since the benefit to society at large far outweighs the cost of delivering this vital information.

If the NZ Police could distance itself from the politicisation of this legislation, and seek to distance itself from the Government’s drive to remove firearm from fit and proper citizens, it might actually rebuild the good relationship it had with firearms user groups.
This would further reduce the cost of safety trading placing an equally valid choice of “no cost recovery”.

Q2 - Potential rates of fees for a firearm licence
My response- Large license fee rises will deter a number of individuals from compliance. These honest hardworking Kiwis will do this, not through any desire to break the law of the land, but through challenging financial necessity. This is entirely foreseeable and absolutely counterproductive to responsible firearm ownership.
It must also be obvious to all that NZ Police are inadequately resourced to deliver real enforcement when people, who simply want to put food on the table are criminalised.

The argument that setting fees too low will make it too easy to obtain a firearms licence, makes it entirely obvious that NZ Police have adopted a political position on firearm ownership, rather than their core function, to protect & serve.
It is unethical to adopt a position where the legitimate use of a firearm (by a person meeting the fit and proper criteria) is trumped by implementing a licensing regime which discriminates against less affluent citizens.

Q3- If the fee for a firearms licence is increased significantly (that is the fee set at more than 50% of the cost), would you support Police investigating an option to issue a firearms licence conditional on a specified payment schedule?
My response - Yes, It would appear from the wording of this question that a rise of 50% is more likely than not.
This disingenuous approach once again reinforces to fit and proper firearm users that NZ Police political motivations are entrenched in this “consultation”.
It is disheartening that NZ Police are not prepared to work with the firearms community to maintain a significant and important part of the New Zealand culture and identity.

Q4 - Do you have any suggestions for support mechanisms outside the general firearms licensing system?
My response - Yes, A minimum increase in firearms license fees is justified.
Anymore than this would be unreasonable, unethical and will disadvantage those citizens on lower incomes.
Rather than seeking to implement additional “support mechanisms”, which in and of themselves will cost taxpayers more money, simply keep increases to the minimum.

Keeping firearm license fees for firearms management, rather than NZ Police’s previous approach of siphoning license fees for other purposes will make this achievable and successful.

Q5 - 5. If the fee is set at 50% or 75% of cost, do you consider a 10% discount is sufficient to encourage timely applications before their licence expires?

My response - No, Once again, it would appear from the wording of this question that a rise of 50% is more likely than not.

A minimal fee increase would alleviate the need to apply a discount, thus reducing administrative costs, thus ensuring fees are able to be used for their primary purpose i.e. managing the licensing process.

I did not respond to any other questions as I have no direct knowledge of them.
Perhaps others can add their thoughts.

Well said

Having had a chat with a guy from fish and game, apparently the level of their licences sales , the group age from 18 to 25 is where they dip down.
To put it more simply, if they had X junior licences sold to 17 years old in year one, in year two those number drop down significantly and do not recover till year X+7. And that is just to pay a 100$ licence!
So imagine what the firearm licence fees climbing several hundreds of dollars will do for that age class.

Fish and game have published their very comprehensive response to the matter. If you have a license you should have recieved a copy. Basically it says what boner does but significantly expands on it.

I have no qualms about my firearms licence being increased by about twice (at the most) as it's been about 16 years since it last went up in price and that was only due to the increase in GST from 12.5% to 15%. A buck ain't worth what it was 16 years ago.

Meanwhile my NZ trout fishing licence has increased substantially in that time to the current $135 and my Taupo (senior) fishing licence to $90.

https://fishandgame.org.nz/dmsdocument/2231

Theres the Fish and Game draft submission, I'm stealing a bit from it.

Well said Boner. I have also put in a word with the fuzz about this rubbish. Whilst not quite as wordy as yours, it implies the same end result, that a small increase is justified, but the huge increases that they are talking about is unfair and unlikely to be complied with.

This is counterproductive to what the Police state they wish to achieve. {ie 100% compliance}

The reality is that they are trying to make it too expensive for people to hold licenses and therefore do not have the right to possess firearms or ammunition.

Basically said the same but in a far more direct approach, Yours is far better written

Originally Posted by 10-Ring

I have no qualms about my firearms licence being increased by about twice (at the most) as it's been about 16 years since it last went up in price and that was only due to the increase in GST from 12.5% to 15%. A buck ain't worth what it was 16 years ago.

Meanwhile my NZ trout fishing licence has increased substantially in that time to the current $135 and my Taupo (senior) fishing licence to $90.

Considering what we pay is for a service (subsidised or not) and considering the level of service the Licensed community has recieved over the last few years, I would say we are due a refund.....

If they want to charge more, I would suggest that first they have to PROVE they can actually do the job first before I give them a cent extra. And 15 months for a renewal (of 12 month endorsements ) is NOT doing the job to an acceptable standard.

Mark my words- all the additional funds will be syphoned off elsewhere like they have always done with FAL funding- It has been underfunded / raided for so long that they cannot be trusted to run it .....

Originally Posted by timattalon

Considering what we pay is for a service (subsidised or not) and considering the level of service the Licensed community has recieved over the last few years, I would say we are due a refund.....

If they want to charge more, I would suggest that first they have to PROVE they can actually do the job first before I give them a cent extra. And 15 months for a renewal (of 12 month endorsements ) is NOT doing the job to an acceptable standard.

Mark my words- all the additional funds will be syphoned off elsewhere like they have always done with FAL funding- It has been underfunded / raided for so long that they cannot be trusted to run it .....

While I share your your concerns about licence waiting times, I also think that has to be tempered with the fact that we had a series of lengthy lockdowns over two or more years. No firearms licensing could be done at level 2 or higher. That lead to a massive backlog.

Originally Posted by 10-Ring

While I share your your concerns about licence waiting times, I also think that has to be tempered with the fact that we had a series of lengthy lockdowns over two or more years. No firearms licensing could be done at level 2 or higher. That lead to a massive backlog.

That is not really an excuse when those delays were occurring when I renewed mine BEFORE the lockdowns. One work colleague renewed his 6 months before expiry so it would be ready in time for an international shotgun competition. They took over 9 months and that was in the second half of 2018 (about the same time as Tarrant got his done in a few weeks...) so to be brutal- they cannot blame the lockdowns as their performance has only slipped slightly after the lockdowns. Most of the issue was the staff were being pulled from FAL duties to work elsewhere- It is like they did not give a rats arse about the 250,000 LFAO...

And dont forget, at the beginning of 2019 they were in the process restructuring the admin and vetting team to the tune of 75% of the staff were to be let go. Most had received their marching orders and final dates when the GOVT did a U turn after the March attacks and realised they did an oopsie

Originally Posted by 10-Ring

While I share your your concerns about licence waiting times, I also think that has to be tempered with the fact that we had a series of lengthy lockdowns over two or more years. No firearms licensing could be done at level 2 or higher. That lead to a massive backlog.

I think that the tiresome excuse that "the lock-down" is to blame, is a crock of shyte.
Apart from the face to face interviews, all of their intel' would/could/should have been done remotely. International and local enquiries as necessary, police/criminal records, etc., etc.
The decision of hierarchy to strip the department of staff, and reassign funding to "other purposes" was a recipe for the disaster that is now visited upon the LAFO, many of whom are still waiting.

You should see the Hastings Police. They have more Inspectors than any other centre in NZ. Some of the titles are truly amazing. Bureaucracy gone mad.

Originally Posted by TeRei

You should see the Hastings Police. They have more Inspectors than any other centre in NZ. ...

including the traffic one that couldn't tell the difference between a sheep and a human body..

Originally Posted by no1_49er

I think that the tiresome excuse that "the lock-down" is to blame, is a crock of shyte.
Apart from the face to face interviews, all of their intel' would/could/should have been done remotely. International and local enquiries as necessary, police/criminal records, etc., etc.
The decision of hierarchy to strip the department of staff, and reassign funding to "other purposes" was a recipe for the disaster that is now visited upon the LAFO, many of whom are still waiting.

not to mention every other government department and agency was using Microsoft Teams or Zoom to conduct meetings, including meetings with external individuals. As were all schools.