Submission on the Arms Legislation Bill

The submission of Warwick Thorpe

“Consequences for NZ Police and its impact of public safety”

Governing statement:

The submission does not set out to simply add another echo to other submissions but rather seeks to
raise very serious issues and offer considered conclusions and advice to the select committee around
an issue that no one seems to have considered yet. It is at the very heart of the public safety
improvement goal’s success or failure. That is the issue of the real-world outcomes on, for and thru
NZ Police as the agency presently burdened with operational translation of the new legislation into
practice. I speak as a professional both in dealing with complex legislation and with firearms having
forty plus years with all types and having a very good name both with Police and the community as a
stickler for the rules and provider of professional and experienced firearms services both before but
particularly in support of NZ Police post Christchurch Terror attack. My analysis set out herein is
offered with impartiality and drawing on all of my wide training and experience in commerce,
social/pastoral work and the firearms world as a professional.

I disclose for the record that while I have not assisted COLFO at all I have read their submission as it
found its way to me in final form and in regard to all the many aspects I will not cover here I find
myself to largely agree with COLFO’s position albeit more emotive than I would have put things.
That is in the end however only barely relevant to the narrow scope of this paper but it seemed right to
establish a general view and so that will do for that purpose as far as it needs to here.

Definitions:

“The Bill” means the Arms Legislation Bill

“Social contract” means the essential but unspoken contract between governance and governed
“Competence and incompetence” always carries the literal meaning being either having the required
competencies or not and expressly carries no value judgment about the people (which is its colloquial
use)
“Beyond reasonable doubt” means in the absence of conclusive proof or the ability to obtain it in
time, the only rational conclusion that can be reached with the information received at that point.

Background:

For most people this process began in March 2019 but in fact it is much older. For at least ten years
and certainly for the last five I and others I know well, have had face to face conversations with senior
serving Police members and crown employees who while stopping short of whistleblowing needed to
“vent” about two issues. This was done in confidence and the well-known nature of the Police culture
makes it more than unacceptable for me to name them however adding weight is that the sources are
multiple and the story consistent… so it is beyond reasonable doubt to treat them as having no
substance. There is so much smoke at least some fire has to be present.

The first is that a cadre of senior Police under pressure from their Australian counterparts to bring NZ
into line with Australia in respect to firearms law were actively working to do that regardless our
statistics showed the domestic processes to be better law and outcomes significantly better than
Australia. The assertion was that pressure from Australian gun owners to adopt the NZ system was
embarrassing to deal with as the statistics favoured it. I am only reporting what I have been told both
face to face and by hearing of similar conversations with others- no proof but no reason to doubt it.

Submission on the Arms Legislation Bill: Warwick Thorpe 16 Oct 2019

Page 1
This was not at all the general view of Police but described as only a group of senior officers whose
names have never been quoted so I cannot speculate who.

This is important simply because of three undoubted facts-

1. This is widely believed across the firearms community and since I did not spread it, tells me
the scale of discontent and “venting” was (is) significant enough for it to be more likely true
than not.
2. It predates Christchurch by many years but emerged in recent years in the rhetoric of the
Police Union leaders regardless I have not met any serving officers who when asked agreed
with it. All told me that is not the general feeling among staff at least as far as they
experienced it.
3. Within hours of the Christchurch event senior Police were delivering not options but just a
single option and the notion it ought to be adopted quickly before “the gun lobby” (a fictional
entity, this isn’t the USA and we do not have an NRA style of movement here, COLFO is
very different) reacted. What has been noticed and widely vilified is the overt lack of even
allowing there were any options and that only lining up with Australia could save us. That
was of course completely irrational as was the illusion of “no time to think”. All this I relate
simply as matters of fact beyond reasonable doubt. No politics, just shedding light.

I will explain why this is so important to the future regardless I have no doubt it is beyond rational
expectation that anyone will know admit to any of it and I fully expect a flat denial. As I said I am
only relaying what was and is in the real world “public knowledge” that meets the beyond reasonable
doubt test for enough people that it has become a given when Police are discussed in relation to
firearms. That explanation I will cover under the social contract section next.

The second is that even after admonishment from Treasury about the way Police manage the money
allocated in the general budget for firearms management over a decade it continued to divert 50% and
more to other expenditure leaving the firearms management system on a downward spiral of
inadequate resources and staffing. Having been asked to proofread some confidential submissions to
the Royal Commission I know that this is an issue at the heart of the problem and will surface in the
future regardless of efforts to cover it over. OIA requests to Treasury have I am told confirmed all this
and no doubt by now the Royal Commission will have likewise discovered it to be so and having been
the case for many years. Those who volunteered it to me all said that the issue was district
commanders needed money and firearms was one of the few budget lines not directly monitored from
outside of Police on top of the fact firearms offending was such a low level it was considered safe to
proceed. Actual statistic of course bears that out. Last year an internal memo escaped into public
hands setting out a plan to move to an online system based at Kapiti and to disestablish virtually all of
the existing “Arms Office” network. This is I think mentioned in COLFO’s submission in regard a
plan to reduce to under 40 people in the field to do what almost 300 staff and volunteers struggle to do
now. As we speak every Arms officer, I have anything to do with is expecting to be made redundant
and most are already looking for new jobs. Marginal competence (it is very run down) is spiralling
toward inevitable incompetence unless there is serious intervention but this Bill will only accelerate
the plunge.

Why is any of that significant to the narrow scope of this submission? Well the Kapiti Centre is
up and running but the staff hired to run it have very little actual firearms knowledge while the
experience (human capital) in the existing system is disgruntled and looking at the situations vacant
adverts. This pending loss of expertise is no small issue and the reduction in field staff from almost 80
to under 40 is not made up for by the numbers in that centre. So much of what makes for public safety
has unavoidably tied to facetime between firearms experienced Police and the firearms owners
particularly in the vetting process. But on top of this the firearms community have been told by Police
statements that their licence fees don’t cover actual costs and so costs recovery is coming. What is
causing so much fury is the knowledge that Police say on one hand they don’t have enough money to
run the system while on the other have been caught diverting half or more of the funds provided to
Submission on the Arms Legislation Bill: Warwick Thorpe 16 Oct 2019
Page 2
other things and all it has been asserted, at no public risk. It doesn’t take a genius to work out why the
firearms community are getting angry about this bill that would give Police the power to keep the
budget money and divert it as usual while creating the impression shooters were not paying enough
and funding Kapiti on a user pays basis. That’s dear reader the issue; the community already know
what is really going on as far as they reasonably can and so the damage to Police credibility is
severe and Trust now close to zero.

Make no mistake, I am writing from a pro Police perspective but you will not understand unless I
share these present realities as believed to be beyond reasonable doubt by the firearms community and
therefore driving a growing mistrust and cynicism in regard to the real agenda behind this Bill or at
least how in practice Police will behave once empowered by it. The adverse effect on the relationship
and the credibility of both Police and those promoting the Bill cannot be overstated and it is not
reasonable to argue that it is an entirely unfounded position for the public to take given the history and
the issues widely uncovered. I liken my role here to that of the little boy in the story of the Emperor’s
new clothes. It may be going against the crowd mindset but someone has to point out the Police are
as naked as the Emperor as pretending it is otherwise is simply magnifying the final embarrassment
and loss of credibility when the delusion that any of this remains secret bursts as it inevitably will. For
the sake of the ordinary Police member who needs to be taken seriously to do their work I am obliged
to share these unpleasant realities before the damage becomes irreparable.

Breach of social contract:

The history of Policing in the western world is not that long but we all appreciate that it began as
essentially a mercenary force in cities like London employing essentially uniformed bouncers to keep
a semblance of public order but the more it matured into the sort of profile we assume today the more
that was paralleled by the maturing of a social contract in which people largely supported and worked
with Police for mutual benefit at the expense of criminals. In this model they joined the civil service
as servants of the public and it is an essential axiom that the relationship remains that way for it to be
considered a contract honoured in a modern democracy. It is the very real fear in an age we see
totalitarian despots globally using their Police once again as a mercenary force against the people
rather than servants of the people. I share that simply to contextualise the next issue.

It is the nature of social contracts that perception is everything. To break the contract is an end
to law and peace and justice by definition but just as dangerously the perception that the
contract has been fatally breached can have the same long-term outcomes no matter the
“offender” claims innocence or may be innocent.

The Crown and Police (until I pointed it out) have been unwisely referencing the 250,000 firearms
licence holders as the affected community but this is in practice not at all the case.
I had warned the crown as was my duty as a Christian minister to remember the commandment “in
your anger do not sin, do not bear false witness against your neighbour” because I could see plainly
what would happen and in fact my warning ignored it has unfolded just as expected, perhaps worse.

Let’s be generous and say beyond the 51 fatalities many more victims of Tarrant remain alive. Let’s
say it is 10,000 or 20,000 directly affected by Tarrant in their lives today in mental, emotional or
spiritual harm and in some cases physical injury. But the PERCEPTION of being scapegoated has
deeply injured 250,000 plus their spouses and partners, parents, friends and children and the more the
media, crown and police have continued the response process the deeper those wounds have grown
not least because of the two issues shared at he beginning of this paper. Forget actual justice, the deep
and abiding sense of injustice and betrayal of the social contract PERCIEVED has created damage to
a number closer to a million lives as more and more people discover the law changes affect them or
someone they love and these issues around why it is happening spread in the global mind of the
affected community. I have never in my life heard children and grandmothers speak with such

Submission on the Arms Legislation Bill: Warwick Thorpe 16 Oct 2019

Page 3
hostility toward Police and politicians and only a complete fool pretends it is otherwise. Whatever
harm Tarrant did is eclipsed by the damage this response is palpably causing. That these now
alienated and angry people were previously very much part of law-abiding NZ and express the loss of
any trust or ability to feel safe not from criminals but from Police is a social disaster. I am not
exaggerating; I have to deal with the fall out daily.

Once again it is delusional to pretend it is ok when it very certainly is not and the perception that the
social contract has been broken by the Crown and is about to be forever thrown away by the Police
empowered by this Bill is very real for at least a fifth of our society and therefore;

1. People are expressing an end to desire to cooperate with Police and the society they feel has
betrayed them though they did nothing.
2. Without the benefit of Trust and cooperation thanks to the perception of betrayal ( I will not
even attempt to wonder if it is real, perception is all that is needed) the ordinary Police officer
will not find the same welcome and will have to endure trying to work with a community that
wont want to speak to them. This also has profound consequences for GCSB and SIS trying to
gain intelligence on future Tarrants.
3. Perversely the very approach to clubs and ranges intended to expose the like of Tarrant will
instead serve to close the doors to police intelligence gathering and drive those like him
deeper off radar.
4. The impact on the rural community is greater than the urban and of course this is exactly
where Police rely even more heavily on “locals” to support them with fewer staff and bigger
areas. The inevitable creation of “them and us” this growing mistrust brings will leave rural
police isolated even within their own communities … a disastrous outcome.
5. Knowing the Police are no longer trusted by shooters the criminals become bolder knowing
they are less likely to be reported. While Police have been tasked to look for I think mythical
armed white supremist groups the actual criminals have already started to use firearms more
freely and gangs have become bolder…. They know anger with Police among the “good
guys” makes it less likely they will be reported or stopped. It may seem ironic but this is the
usual experience based on overseas examples and it doesn’t get better.
6. A permanent rift has formed already. The relationship with Police is for most shooters now
perceived to be negative with expectation of further betrayal and abuses. This is what
children, friends and loved ones witness and listen to the hurt and anger and take on board.
Let the reader be in no illusion otherwise; this is HOW the alt right was born in Europe
though there it was largely immigration law not gun law but the rift, mistrust and rejection of
the lawmaker and law managers that sent previously middle ground quiet people into the arms
of the crazy right who promised to save them is ripe to repeat here. I see this effect forming
already and it worries me to death. This Bill is in the end a greater threat to long term social
stability and public safety than anything Tarrant did or represents and no I am not
exaggerating. History is a great teacher; we are at the edge of making a terrible mistake that
will cost us our kiwi society but here I am most concerned that it will result in ordinary Police
members being shunned and the ability to Police in the democratic sense end up undermined
and crippled.
7. It is pertinent to remember that shooting is very expensive so most firearms owners are
educated and working, voting and influencing. This is who the process has wounded and who
will end up splitting from the society they perceive rejects them and the Police. A real recipe
for social disaster particularly for the Police. If these people teach their kids you cannot trust
the Police or politicians it can only end badly in the long run. That it is all avoidable is the
greater tragedy in the making.

Some realities that must not be avoided:

The following are some myths and realities that must not be hidden from if a mess far greater than the
firearms problem that needed solving is to be avoided.

Submission on the Arms Legislation Bill: Warwick Thorpe 16 Oct 2019

Page 4
Some I don’t even want to share as they are unpleasant but I must to be impartial.

Myth – The Police are competent in the subject of firearms.

I find it distasteful to have to share this as my intention is to protect the Police but the reality is they
need protecting from themselves or at least their own unrealistic self-belief.

Watching the last select committee I and other firearms experts cringed as mistake after mistake was
put forward as fact and a growing picture of the actual degree of knowledge Police have about
firearms emerged. Embarrassing pictures such as a senior Police officer demonstrating how two large
capacity magazines could be tapped together for even more capacity only demonstrated an education I
suspect from the movies rather than reality ( no one would actually do that as the weight and handling
would reduce the firearm to an awkward degree… it’s a Hollywood image and simply doesn’t happen
in the real world) . I hate saying that but having spent months now in close contact I discover a ready
admission from Mike McIlraith and others that they know very little about actual firearms and the
process I have just been thru helping them left me certain that it is a complete myth that Police
understand let alone are experts in any way regarding firearms or firearm activity. I have no doubt
Mike and his team mean well and are doing their best but objectively they are at almost beginner level
at present. Hardly the competency required to manage such an important issue.

Police have an accident with firearms rate that is not published but is certainly well circulated in the
firearms community as the events are often so bad any civilian would lose their licence on the spot.
Recently an officer without authorisation to even be armed fired a number of rounds from his Glock
deliberately at his own Police car which an offender was stealing since he left the keys in the ignition
along with the offender in the front seat. Police are exempt from the Arms Act but not from the
Crimes Act yet unlawful discharge endangering life earned this fellow merely a trip to do a course,
that’s all. More recently another officer shot himself in the leg holstering his Glock and an instructor
is said to have not realised he had a live round in his bushmaster rifle and fired it in the classroom
penetrating several walls but thankfully no people as well. Again, this isn’t knocking the individuals
but simply highlights the fact the contrary to what the public and the Crown are expected to believe
the reality is the Police are largely incompetent (as I defined that). Friends in Police agreed with me
about the general lack of ability and confidence around firearms yet with all of this very evident this
Bill proposes to hand over regulation to those the community affected consider lacking in the
necessary competencies and often literally unsafe with firearms. By way of further example, a Police
car was left in front of my friend’s house recently with the boot left open while the two officers went
up the road with their Glocks to some incident. There left unattended was the open gun locker with
Bushmaster and loaded magazine for any passer-by to uplift and be off with. While I can hear the
howls of protest already (Pride at stake) this is never the less one of the awkward and very
uncomfortable objective realities the crown ignores at the long-term peril for community safety and
not least the ability of Police to actually cope.

They have no depth of knowledge or experience, yet this Bill will ask them to certify ranges and
regulate all manner of things that require expertise they simply do not have and their client
community know it. This Bill therefore places on Police a burden they are very plainly incompetent to
carry and that is before the full corrosive effect of this process on the relationship with those who do
have the expertise (people like myself) shuts them off from gaining it.

Did you know NZDF relied on NZDF members who competed in 3-gun events now ended by the ban
to teach and maintain vital close quarter shooting skills needed for deployment? Now that is gone and,
in a generation, that skill will vanish from NZDF unless very expensive overseas trainers are brought
in. The unintended effects of alienating the crown from civilian marksmen and subject experts
actually only now is starting to become clear and Police will suffer it most of all as may officers
joined Pistol clubs to supplement the limited training provided on the job so that should they have to
be armed they could have some confidence in their own ability but will find less and less welcome.

Submission on the Arms Legislation Bill: Warwick Thorpe 16 Oct 2019

Page 5
Make no mistake, I am speaking to a real issue of competency in what is a specialist area in which
competency only comes via immersion and years of experience. Nothing in the Police system outside
of STG provides that, not now and not tomorrow. The Myth that Police are the experts to defer to is a
dangerous one not only for the crown and public but I assert the understandable pride driven desire to
think of themselves as the authority and the experts is self-deception on the part of Police and will
lead to their own failure to meet the burden this Bill imposes while the very people they need will
have been alienated. I have already told Mike McIlraith that I cannot morally have any part in this Bill
and while my support generally will go on, I will not be spending the huge hours at my own cost to
rescue them from themselves anymore. There is a line and this Bill crosses it so I am certain that they
will not cope, ordinary Police will suffer the consequences and both Policing and Public safety will
end up significantly harmed and diminished in ways not easily recovered from.

The conclusion is unavoidable for anyone with first hand knowledge but we need solutions… that will
be at the end.

Myth 2- Mass shootings will no longer occur.

While slightly off topic I cannot leave the select committee in the dark about something they were
deliberately lied to about in the first select committee process. The crown was presented supposed
evidence that since the adoption of the Australian response to Port Arthur there had been no more
mass shootings and extrapolating from previous data the new rules avoided, I think it was 15 such
incidents. The media picked this up and the Police embraced it as fact. I cringed because it was
embarrassing to see both Police and the Select committee manipulated and misdirected by these
academics. I mention it because you will be facing the same kind of so-called academics again armed
with pseudo-science and supposed statistical evidence but learn.

“Mass shooting” is a defined term in Australia and requires at least 4 deaths in one event but none of
the victims are allowed to know the shooter. What they didn’t tell you was there were 9 mass
“homicides” (meaning the victims had some kind of relationship with the shooter) since the new law
came in so any reasonable person has to dismiss the effect of the new law as a force in stopping actual
mass killing by firearm. In addition, it is important if a bit unpleasant to comprehend how easy it is to
create a mass shooting statistic by their measure. Let’s assume a 20-minute armed response time for
urban Police so that means 5 long minutes are available to shoot each of 4 people. That means in the
real-world grandad’s single shot (no magazine at all) .22 is more than capable in the hands of even an
amateur, double that even triple casualties an easy reach in a crowded area before Police could stop
them and a bow and arrow shoots even faster. Semi auto and large magazines are irrelevant and in no
way needed to commit such a crime successfully , that’s just the reality.

I do not wish to be morbid only rational and objective…. The type of firearm has no bearing on the
ability to carry out a mass shooting as defined by these “experts” and so the impression they gave you
that this otherwise costly and socially destructive process promised actual safety was plainly false and
probably deliberately so as even an amateur ought to have seen thru it let alone supposed experts.

So please don’t be swindled again but more importantly ask how it was Police also fell for it if they
have the competencies this bill demands them to have. Zeal and good intentions are one thing, but
competency cannot be substituted for. I hate to say it but it is unavoidably the case.

Myth-three… Police are expert in understanding the legislation

I am an expert, my entire professional career in senior management demonstrated that and made me
well known to most of the senior commercial legal profession in Wellington and many QC’s when it
came to litigation. That is why I am still asked to consult.
My recent experience was, I again hate to say it, frightening. Over and over I have had to engage
about what the Act actually says rather than what some senior police member or another wished it
said. The Bill for instance greatly expands the scope of what is supposedly captured by “Dealer” and
Submission on the Arms Legislation Bill: Warwick Thorpe 16 Oct 2019
Page 6
would require a dealer licence. This is extraordinary given I have repeatedly pointed out that ONLY
retail sale and gunsmithing can meet the requirements of section 7 as all these other activities require
the firearms to have mobility and not be trapped by section7 at the address of the storage as every
firearm held on a D licence is so restricted. This precludes guiding, culling, theatrical and so on yet
Police have told me they want all of those to be dealer activities and so attract another $204 cost
annually notwithstanding no one in those activities could put the firearms on that D licence ( it
remains of their personal licence) as that would instantly preclude their use for the lawful activity. It
amounts then to having a licence with no firearms on it simply to do what? Well again this destroys
trust and credibility as already the professional community and especially rural based professionals
perceive it as nothing more than revenue grabbing for a very expensive but otherwise useless bit of
plastic.

I don’t want to labour on this point too much as frankly it is depressing to me to relay but the reality is
Police turn out to be very very poor at comprehending the legislation correctly and if given wide
regulatory powers this weakness will turn without doubt into an irrational process that will alienate
even strong supporters such as myself. They simply do not have the competencies they imagine
themselves to possess, their ability falls well short of their zeal and good intentions. Mike and the
team are nice people, friends even, but this is a reality I cannot pretend isn’t so and will end in tears
left unstopped.

Myth-Four… The data base is robust and trustworthy

Personally, I don’t care much about registration beyond the fact that even if perfect it actually offers
no benefit at all to Policing as it only tells you at best what is supposed to be at an address not what
is there. Back in the real world rather than the fantasy land the anti-gun lobby are speaking from we
have two obvious issues being criminals who will never register anything and now I am sad to say I
suspect law abiding people made criminal when out of the effects I have been highlighting simply
wont cooperate by registering things. One issue is enough to make a register useless in practice but
both together make what would end up on the register so recognised as a completely unreliable
database that Police would be obliged to assume it was wrong all the time operationally as Canada
discovered and as is the case in Australia and the UK. That by itself is more than enough reason to not
waste vast resources to achieve nothing worth a nickel operationally in the end.

But the biggest problem is actually the existing database and what it teaches us. Presently only
managing restricted and former MSSA’s with now Prohibited items joining, this database is
something I work with constantly. I and every endorsed person along with every honest Arms Officer
and Vetter will assure you the database is constantly in a broken state. Firearms suddenly appear and
vanish from our licences and sometimes over and over. To get my P endorsement I found myself
asked about a large number of firearms the Kapiti centre thought I had which I don’t but because I
keep scrupulous paper records ( hard copy signed Police documents) I was able to get their system
back to “true” but heaven help anyone who hasn’t kept good paper records. Once I got my P I asked
for a full audit list and again a page full of errors, all at Kapiti end as my paperwork was correct, the
database had wandered off again since my last audit. This is so regular we all automatically assume
every audit we will have to fix the data record again and assume it is always incorrect… the scary
thing is the Police assume its their problem as well each time. This is with skilled and experienced
field trained staff who are heading toward redundancy to be replaced by data entry people without the
skills to solve these endless issues. So this has taught us all that the Police are incompetent ( again in
its literal meaning) in maintaining the integrity of a relatively small database so with the threat of
severe penalties and a regime of burden of proof shifting to the user you will understand the push
back against the Police desire for this new management environment is rationally considerable and
people will simply never accept it. Even if it is passed this Bill will become the target of zealous
political energy and while we don’t have an NRA here this Bill is likely to birth one. Eventually it
would be a condition of getting elected to get rid of it and everyone who supported it. The mood is
totally uncompromising about that out here in the community.

Submission on the Arms Legislation Bill: Warwick Thorpe 16 Oct 2019

Page 7
Once again none of this is to belittle the Police who are my primary concern as they will end up the
victims most ruined in the end by this Bill as they attempt to do what in reality they have no hope of
managing. They do not have the human or intellectual capital to do so and that I hate to say is the
objective reality.
To push this Bill thru as it is will result in the Police failing publicly, relationships with the
firearms community ruined and public safety lost as the consequence. That is completely unfair
on the loyal and decent ordinary Police members who will bear the consequences if pride
prevails over objectivity as I fear it will. It is bad enough being hated by criminals and ignored
by youth without ending up shunned by the very backbone of society, all the more so in rural
areas.

Justice Thorp (No relation) extract from his report 1997

Quote “The long-term method of firearms administration is a matter for the Government. Whichever
arrangement it may prefer, the reform process should be managed by a body which is not part of;
nor controlled by, the Police. A special-purpose Authority with the sole objective of advancing
firearms control should provide:
•informed management of firearms administration by persons with skills appropriate to that
business;
•separate accountability for its performance;
•ongoing monitoring and research into firearms regulation;
•a customer-service orientation; and
•the better use of modem technology to improve effectiveness.”

Justice Thorp in his full review made it clear that there are intractable cultural issues that effectively
preclude police from being the appropriate managers of this process and activity and everything I
have shared here from first hand experience and the weight of the evidence in the public arena leave it
beyond reasonable doubt that he was right and remains right.

For their sake and thereby for the sake of public order and safety it is very clear where the road leads
and it leads back to the better option of creating a stand alone firearms ( better all weapons based
activity) management authority.
This means taking the time to consult and set it up probably something like this:

(example only)

Answers direct to Ministry of Justice- The only way to heal the rift is to arm’s length it from the
perceived betrayal of trust as that perception is unlikely to heal. It doesn’t matter that Police will not
see what they have done wrong, perception is everything here and trust is dead.

Only employs people with the specific experience and knowledge to recover credibility – for the
same reason as above, it will have to be openly separate and independent from Police.

Takes over the Police firearms budget and adopts user pays in addition – Police will only be left
with dealing with actual offences. The new unit will need to demonstrate it uses its funds to provide
quality service to both crown and firearms owners.

Runs a modern stand alone database – This can be relatively cheap as the software would not need
to dovetail into any functions outside of the unit and simply generate data reports tailored to end users
including Police. A first year physical audit to check the database accuracy would be followed by
simpler more robust internal practices to maintain data integrity.

Runs the community advisor process which would include representatives from Police and all
the main Firearms community groups – Transparent fact-based Policy making and statistics
gathering in a genuine partnership model.
Submission on the Arms Legislation Bill: Warwick Thorpe 16 Oct 2019
Page 8
Carries out all Policy and administration functions concerning firearms and liaises with NZ
customs service – This is the only way to recover trust and avoid the otherwise inevitable
consequences for Policing and public safety. Police simply deal with offences and this unit support
them with data. Frees Police manpower and increases focus on actual crime.

Monitors all weapons related issues including archery , hunting and DOC related issues – As a
specialist unit it would be able to give highly targeted advice to the Crown agencies in which firearms
or other deadly force or dangerous missile use arises.

Operate a crime buster hotline- By knowing it is firearms savvy people at the other end of the line
not Police prone to over react this unit would be able to operate an anonymous tip line to receive
concerns about individuals and have a process for initial enquiry and escalation to Police where
offences were indicated or SIS where wider issues might emerge.

Oversees a restored network of volunteers and field officers – this is the critical recovery of face to
face relationship in community, rural in particular. Vetting, training and administration developing
systems that are user supported and provide service at economic efficiency. Provides standardised
training for range officers and oversees any required range certifications and templates.

Summary

We stand at a critical cross roads from which a wrong turn has very real potential to destroy the lives
of hundreds of thousands of our people and leave them afraid and untrusting of Police and Govt for
little or no discernible benefit. Real or perceived the now embedded belief that they have been
betrayed in order to achieve an agenda and then be asked to fund that has alienated them and brought
about the most serious set back to equity and inclusiveness I have ever seen in my 57 years and for the
Police members I wrote this to try and protect, loss of trust, respect and support is a certainty. That
they do not actually have the means to carry out the task the Bill demands of them while suffering the
loss of the support of those who do have those abilities means the sense of isolation from those they
mean to serve will rise significantly. This can only increase stress and increase emotional and mental
burden on officers, rural in particular. It is far too late to create a Police based solution, the damage is
done and as Australia demonstrates it never heals.

So make no mistake, I have submitted this agreeing with Justice Thorp and have done so in order to
seek you halt this process I firmly believe will harm the NZ Police and public safety and instead put
the time and energy into creating what will in the end be forced upon the process politically when the
consequences of going ahead with the Bill emerge. I accept that it is not easy for Police to admit they
are out of their depth and ability and that it isn’t easy to agree someone else is better suited but for the
sake of the society I live in I urge they do just that .

Of course, it is unlikely in the current climate that such pragmatism will prevail over emotive
arguments no matter how baseless but I must at least have put it before you. If it is ignored and the
whole thing implodes as I genuinely expect it to it won’t have been for lack of trying to avert it.

The outcome is mostly in your hands though of course as a minister I look to a higher authority to
decide the ending and expect justice for the oppressed and maligned will be delivered as is Gods
nature. Perhaps that has no meaning for you but it is all that matters to me in the end of course.

Beyond reasonable doubt as far as I can determine the truth of all this, so I have given my testimony
to you and recommendation. Take care to think very hard before running with assumption over reality
as the consequences will be very hard to resolve.

Shalom
Submission on the Arms Legislation Bill: Warwick Thorpe 16 Oct 2019
Page 9