Paul Henry’s recent comments on semi-automatic firearms have prompted discussion among New Zealand’s licensed firearms community. Whether intended or not, they have left many wondering how his views fit alongside the work ACT has undertaken on firearms policy over recent years.
For many recreational shooters, hunters and farmers, the issue extends well beyond a particular type of firearm. Since 2019, much of the debate has centred on licensing, regulatory oversight, due process and rebuilding trust between lawful firearms owners and government. Nicole McKee has been at the forefront of that work, advocating a regulatory system that distinguishes between responsible licence holders and criminal misuse.
Against that background, statements suggesting there is “no need” for semi-automatic firearms inevitably attract attention. Some licence holders interpret those remarks as inconsistent with the relationship ACT has sought to build with the firearms community. Others may see them simply as a personal opinion rather than a statement of party policy. The uncertainty itself is the issue.
Political parties inevitably attract candidates with differing backgrounds and perspectives. That diversity is healthy. Where policy areas have been developed over many years, however, consistency matters. Voters are entitled to understand whether public comments reflect established party policy or an individual’s personal view.
CORANZ has long argued that firearms policy should be evidence-based, proportionate and focused on competence rather than assumption. Responsible firearm owners deserve regulatory certainty, just as the wider public deserves confidence that the law effectively addresses genuine risk.
This is not about questioning Paul Henry’s right to express an opinion. It is about recognising that high-profile candidates carry influence. Where their comments appear to depart from the expectations created by their party’s established policy, clarification helps maintain trust. In public policy, certainty is often as valuable as the policy itself.
Nicole McKee has brought some sanity to the firearms debate.
Paul Henry has since sought advice and been brought round to ACTS policy on firearms thanks to Nicole’s background in firearms safety.
A rare Minister who has first hand knowledge of her subject.
No harm done it appears.
Very good article Andi. Paul Henry’s uninformed remarks may have cost ACT a great many party votes at the coming election. I think Paul Henry needs to make it publicly very clear that his personal opinion was made without the benefit of a thorough understanding of what it is that Nicole McKee is trying to achieve. Nicole is working hard against a veritable tsunami of ignorant, ill informed and even malicious propaganda from the anti gun movement and elements in the Police to ensure that New Zealand has, once again, the best most cost effective firearms laws in the world which was the case before Ardern’s stupid interventions in 2018 and 2019.
Paul Henry is an ego-obsessed gad fly, here now, there for a flutter, then gone. No substance.
I think ACT have been bedazzled by his tv celebrity status. Poor decision.
People want stability and practical common sense and a politicians respect for others.
Similarly NZ First have made a mistake making court jester Shane Jones deputy leader instead of the very able Casey Costello.
Nicole McKee is a quiet achiever, a very good spoeaker and top MP (there’s not many in the House). Paul Henry would be well advised to (a) put his brain into gear before speaking and (b) seek the party’s and Nicole McKee’s policy/views before making nonsensical remarks.
With Shane Jones dragging NZ First down with his subservience to his fishing buddies and Paul Henry now doing similar for ACT, it is getting harder and harder to find a party worth voting for! At this rate I may have to reconsider National for my party vote – my how the mighty have fallen…
Paul Henry seems such an odd choice for ACT. He’s played leap-frog his entire career and has shown his utter contempt for authority. Hard to see him fulfilling a role as an MP let alone a minister. A showman? true, a politician? falls well short of the mark – unless you count the ability to bullshit of course.
ACT were doing so well in my book, now with his attacks on law-abiding gun owners, Paul Henry has lost ACT my party vote in an instant.
Among many licensed firearms owners, the reaction has been one of disappointment rather than anger. That may be politically more significant. Voters who lose confidence seldom make a great deal of noise-they simply change where they place their vote.
The issue is not whether Paul Henry is entitled to his opinion. He is. The issue is whether ACT can afford to create uncertainty among one of the constituencies that has supported the party most consistently on firearms policy.
Elections are won as much by retaining supporters as by attracting new ones. For many in the outdoor recreation community, consistency matters. When prominent candidates appear to send conflicting messages, trust inevitably becomes part of the debate.
Many hunters, recreational shooters and outdoor enthusiasts have looked to ACT as the party most willing to engage constructively on firearms policy. If uncertainty begins to replace confidence, some supporters may simply decide to look elsewhere on election day.
ACT has invested considerable political capital in rebuilding trust with New Zealand’s licensed firearms community. Comments that appear inconsistent with that work risk undermining years of effort. Whether intended or not, confidence once lost can be difficult to regain.
Crossing ACT of my Christmas list – sad end to what was a great affair
Will Seymour have the wherewithal to bring Henry into line – or better yet admit the mistake and drop him before it’s too late.
Since Paul Henry’s comments became public, I have received numerous emails from hunters, sport shooters and other licensed firearms owners expressing concern. Many have indicated they are removing ACT from consideration for their party vote unless the party clearly reaffirms its existing firearms policy. We cannot say how widespread that sentiment is, but it is real enough among our readership to warrant attention.