One of the most enduring cliches of politics is that it is the art of the possible.
Something that most would have deemed impossible - wide-ranging consensus on firearms laws - was achieved this week by Associate Justice Minister Nicole McKee when she unveiled preliminary details of her long-awaited revamping of the Arms Act.
Both Gun Control New Zealand and the Council of Licenced Firearms Owners, organisations which seldom agree on anything, each offered limited praise to Mrs McKee for her efforts.
GCNZ supported improving the workability of the legislation; COLFO, while lamenting the Bill did not go as far as it would like, conceded that on balance there were more wins than losses for licensed firearms owners.
The draft Bill is not yet available, but on policy details released by the minister on Tuesday the legislation seems likely to strike a careful balance between the rights of those who wish to lawfully use firearms for work or recreation and those who wish not to fall foul of unlawful use of firearms.
It is a ban which Mrs McKee objected to in her pre-parliamentary career as a firearms advocate, and which many expected her to try to overturn once in a position to be able to do so.
Since becoming a minister Mrs McKee has consistently maintained that she would take a careful and measured approach to firearms reform, and she has been as good as her word. It was apparent to her that any relaxing of the ban would attract considerable public opposition and more than a little political opposition.
It was a fight that she knew that could not be won and, sensibly, Mrs McKee did not even pick it. She signalled her personal views to her base by Act formally invoking the ‘Agree to Disagree’ clause in the Act-National coalition agreement over this issue, but pushed no further.
More than most, she knows that the Arms Act is a byzantine and confusing patchwork of inclusions, omissions and contradictions: addressing its considerable shortcomings was the first order of business.
Mrs McKee promised a plain English law, structured logically - which anyone who has ever had to deal with it will greatly appreciate - with public safety at its core.
That last ambition remains to be fulfilled, as will her avowed intention of making it much more difficult for firearms to get into the hands of criminals. For example, one change, making gang membership an automatic disqualifying factor for holding a firearms licence, is sensible, but presumes that gang members are so law abiding that they would apply for a firearms licence.
Likewise, the new provisions making manufacture of 3D printed firearms and parts, and possession of digital files, illegal, is a long overdue catch-up with emerging technology - but suffers from the same caveat, that those who wish to circumvent the law will not be endeavouring to comply with it.
Promised increased fines and prison sentences sound strong on crime, but will be subject to scepticism that they will be a genuine deterrent.
That said, an enhanced ‘‘red flag’’ designed to alert authorities to a licenced owner who may no longer be a fit and proper person holds promise, providing it proves workable and is not overly intrusive on personal rights.
Firearms owners will welcome simpler rules covering firearms storage locations; the proposed law change will recognise that a person’s home might not be the ideal place for them to store their firearms.
The most questionable aspect of the reforms in the proposal to establish a new regulator to replace the Firearms Safety Authority. The current system has acknowledged shortcomings, but there will need to be clear indications that the proposed replacement will be an improved regime.
In June last year, when Mrs McKee began legislating firearms reform, we wrote that it was vital that there was a measured, respectful and comprehensive debate if a meaningful result was to ensue.
With this carefully thought through suite of common sense and practical reforms, Mrs McKee has played her part.
We also said this is an area of law where New Zealanders would need to place great trust in the parliamentary process. First reading and a promised full six-month select committee process are still to come, where partisans from all sides of the debate will have their say.
However, and creditably, sensible middle ground has already been made ready for the government to land on in this most fraught area of law making.
