Dear Editor

The PTPM has done it again. Anything that reflects badly on the CoL gets buried so that all appears sweet, efficient and open on the outside. A lot like the mudguard of a farm truck ā€“ shiny on the outside, but covered with the brown stuff on the inside.

As our PM seems to be in the mood for apologies, there is one more which could raise her public image immensely if done with genuine sincerity. This one is not like her latest over an event which happened before she was born, but an event of the last week.

Her attitude this morning reported on TV3 that ā€œIt is all under control, there was no real breach of security, and there is nothing to see hereā€ does not do her credit. Whether the police staff or a contractor was at fault is beside the point. The number of people that accessed sensitive information is irrelevant. The register was proved to be insecure then and may well be insecure in the future if a national register of firearms is to be introduced.

Where does the blame lie? It must ultimately be her ā€œcaptains callā€ as it outlawed certain firearms causing a revision of regulations and the buy-back scheme resulting in the current register of owners.

What does she need to do? Firstly she needs to admit that there was a stuff up and issue an apology, not a denial as she has done today. Secondly, she should sack the minister responsible for the department, not push the matter under the carpet as has been done with the sex offender at the Labour Youth camp. Thirdly, she needs to call a halt to the review of the firearms regulations until the findings of the Royal Commission into the Christchurch are released.

It seems obvious that the original goodwill between firearms owners and police has seen a major setback and now only mistrust and suspicion remain. This needs to be addressed immediately.

So, Ms Ardern, what will you do?

OG


Send your letters to the Editor to sb at thebfd.co.nz

Please put Letter to the Editor in the subject line.

Letters to the editor are published to encourage debate and are offered for discussion and for alternative points of view. Content does not necessarily reflect the views of the site or its editor.