Jevon McSkimming ‘strongly denies' acting inappropriately in firearms licences vetting process
'It is being looked into as part of a wider investigation into concerns that have been raised. That is still under way.
'The police commissioner was first made aware of those concerns in March and directed the investigation occur. This is a separate issue to the criminal investigation into Jevon McSkimming.'
In response to questions from RNZ, McSkimming released a statement through his lawyer.
'Mr McSkimming strongly denies any allegation he acted in any way inappropriately in relation to the vetting process for firearms licences.
'As the overall operational lead on firearms, at one time Mr McSkimming raised issues about how the vetting process was being applied. He took those concerns to the executive leadership team and, following discussion at the ELT, the process was subsequently modified.'
In response to questions from RNZ, Mitchell said in a statement he was aware 'some concerns have been brought forward'. He said the police commissioner was 'looking into the matter'.
There were no timeframes for the various investigations at this time.
The firearms regulator was established after the Christchurch Mosque attacks in 2019.
According to its website, it has three main functions, including implementing the firearms licensing system, managing the Firearms Registry and educating people to enable compliance and promote the safe use of firearms.
RNZ revealed last week pornography found on McSkimming's work computer is being investigated as alleged objectionable material. He declined to comment on the allegations through his lawyer.
Last Friday evening, his lawyer Linda Clark was granted a rare 'superinjunction' by Justice Karen Grau that prohibited reporting that disclosed the nature of the allegedly objectionable material, as well as the existence of the injunction itself, until 2.15pm on Monday.
On Monday, Justice Cheryl Gwyn held a teleconference from the High Court at Wellington to discuss the injunction with Clark, the police, and legal counsel for RNZ, Stuff and NZME.
After that conference, the order prohibiting publication of the nature of the allegedly objectionable material was continued – but the order prohibiting the existence of the injunction was not continued, meaning RNZ can now report the fact of McSkimming's application and the interim result.
Chambers said in a statement last week that he appreciated the resignation of McSkimming raised questions, but said the criminal investigation couldn't be 'compromised by commenting on the circumstances of it at this point'.
'However, I can say that I have always made it very clear that trust and confidence in police is a top priority for me as commissioner,' Chambers said.
'I take very seriously anything that puts trust and confidence and the reputation of police at risk and will act to address it.
'I have high expectations of all police staff and will address it if those standards are not met, irrespective of rank or role.'
In announcing McSkimming's resignation last week, Mitchell said McSkimming resigned before he could be dismissed.
'I instructed the Public Service Commission to commence the process to remove Mr McSkimming from office after allegations of a very serious nature recently came to light, separate to the investigation that led to him being suspended.'
He did not say what the allegations were. Mitchell said the Policing Act was 'very clear'.
'A deputy commissioner of police must be a 'fit and proper' person. They are rightly held to the highest standards of conduct and this new information called into serious question Mr McSkimming's fitness for office.
'When Mr McSkimming was invited to respond to these allegations he chose to resign. Mr McSkimming's resignation has confirmed my view that his continuation in the role was untenable.'
Police advised Mitchell that their investigations into McSkimming would continue, notwithstanding his resignation.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
Government to fund one-off national day of reflection for survivors of abuse in care
author:ellen_o'dwyer] Erica Stanford. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone The government has confirmed a one-off national day of reflection for survivors of abuse in care will take place on Wednesday, 12 November, 2025. Lead Coordination Minister for the government's response Erica Stanford said a $1 million fund had been set up for survivor-led groups to apply to hold local or regional events to mark the day. But a survivor says the day felt like "symbolic lip service" with many survivors still waiting for justice or fair redress. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon promised a National Remembrance Day in his apology to survivors in Parliament last year. A year on from the apology, Stanford said the day aimed to acknowledge survivors of abuse in care, raise awareness about a part of New Zealand's history, and remind people of government progress in responding to the recommendations of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care. The final report from the Royal Commission found abuse was rife in state and faith-based care settings over decades, and the state failed to respond to signs of systemic abuse and neglect. The Commission made 138 reccommendations to the government to right past wrongs, and prevent abuse from occurring again. Stanford said survivors had indicated they would like to mark the one-off day of reflection in their own way - the day would consist of community-led events and activities, as well as activities organised by government agencies that demonstrated "progress, accountability and transparency". "Survivors have indicated they would like to mark the day in their own way and their preference is for survivor-focused groups and organisations to hold local, regional or national events." Up to $10,000 would be available for local events and up to $25,000 for regional events, and applications were open until 31 August. At the time, Luxon said the day would "provide us with an opportunity to stop and reflect on what you endured and ensure we are doing all we can to prevent future abuse". But survivor Tu Chapman, who is the spokesperson for Tikanga-based survivor movement He Kura Morehu, said many were expecting the national day of remembrance to be an enduring event, rather than a one-off day. "It's a little bit of a joke to be honest, one day doesn't acknowledge the decades of abuse, the decades of violence and harm that continues to plague survivors today, and impact us today." Tu Chapman is the spokesperson for Tikanga-based survivor movement He Kura Morehu. Photo: RNZ / Cole Eastham-Farrelly Chapman said the day felt like lip service when many survivors were still waiting for justice or fair redress. The announcement earlier this year from the government that no public servant would be held accountable for abuse against survivors meant justice had not been delivered, Chapman said. A lack of legislative change designed to prevent abuse in care from happening again was also unjust, Chapman said. Survivor groups applying for the fund for the day of reflection must have legal entity status to apply. Chapman said that would mean some groups would miss out on holding events, because with only four months to apply, there was limited time to set up a legal and governance structure and meet the criteria for funding from a government agency. That would impose barriers on many survivor groups, Chapman said. "We will miss out and other groups will miss out, because the rules aren't realistic for survivor groups." Chapman also questioned whether the $1m was coming out of $774m set aside for abuse in care redress, or another source of funding. The government earlier this year committed $774 million on its redress system, increasing average payments from about $19,000 to $30,000, and opening up an option to top up previously settled claims by up to 50 percent. But it did not follow through on a pledge made on the national day of apology to set up an entirely new redress and compensation scheme, recommended by the Royal Commission of Inquiry and survivors. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
Last-minute change puts oil and gas cleanup decisions in ministers' hands
Resources Minister Shane Jones has vowed to restart the oil and gas industry. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii The government is set to repeal the oil and gas ban this week, after a significant 11th-hour change handing discretionary powers to two ministers. A 25-page amendment was published at 5pm on Monday, leaving opposition MPs less than 23 hours to prepare for the debate. The change largely deals with the rules for decommissioning oil and gas fields, and who is responsible for paying for the cleanup. Taranaki's Tui oil field was abandoned in 2019 after its Malaysian owner Tamarind Taranaki went bust, costing taxpayers a total $293 million to clean up, with work concluding just last month. The government initially set aside up to $343.4m for the project. The Labour government in 2021 introduced a law to prevent the government being lumped with such costs again in future. Resources Minister Shane Jones has vowed to restart the oil and gas industry . He said the aim of the amendment was to close a loophole in that 2021 law. "It did not seem correct or moral that the Crown should be left with that liability and the people [at fault] - with some very shrewd manoeuverings of script - would escape liability. We have solved that problem," he told the House. Taranaki's Tui oil field was abandoned in 2019 after its Malaysian owner Tamarind Taranaki went bust. Photo: MBIE / Supplied The changes replace the process of going through the list of previous permit-holders to figure out who pays for decommissioning, instead putting that decision in the hands of the Resources Minister and the Finance Minister. The amendment also removes several clauses from a previous amendment the minister made to the bill, which itself amends the Crown Minerals Act. Labour's Energy and Resources spokesperson Megan Woods led the 2021 law change in response to the Tui Oil Field debacle, and told the Parliament the changes showed the government capitulating to the industry's wishes. "They have bowed to the suggestions of the oil and gas companies and done what they wanted. They have further bowed to the interests of the oil and gas companies in taking eight months to sit with them, find out what they wanted and then bring a bill back to the House. This is not a government that is putting New Zealand first." Labour's Deborah Russell pointed out the Regulatory Impact Statement referred to consultation with affected stakeholders. "Those consulted preferred ministerial discretion to the current act and approach in the bill. In other words, these shadowy participants in the oil and gas industry - a dying industry - who we don't know who they are, much prefer to be able to lobby a minister." Labour MP Deborah Russell. Photo: RNZ / REECE BAKER Jones was unapologetic about those he consulted with. "Why would you not engage with the stakeholders, the risk-takers, the providers of what precious little gas we have, ruined by the cancel culture." He was unapologetic about a lack of consultation with others, including iwi. "So in the future the engagement will happen. This highly technical matter was not the subject of consultation in a detailed way, it was dealt with with a great deal of confidentiality. And in terms of providing a Māori dimension, I interviewed myself." The amendment passed with the coalition parties in support, with the opposition parties opposed. The third reading, which would see the oil and gas ban repealed, is expected on Thursday. A gas company warned investors would be cautious about coming back to New Zealand without broad political consensus - and with the opposition parties currently staunchly opposed that consensus seems vanishingly unlikely. The government also has a $200m fund set aside in this year's Budget to allow the government to co-invest in new gas fields. It last month pulled out of the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance , an international coalition for phasing out fossil fuels, in a move the local World Wildlife Fund called an "international embarrassment". That was despite the Climate Minister, Simon Watts, previously saying New Zealand would not need to exit the group. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
2 hours ago
- RNZ News
When it's worth waiting for democracy
Photo: RNZ / Nate McKinnon Undemocratic and a breach of human rights. That is what most experts and officials think of the government's proposed changes to the electoral law. Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith last week announced a suite of changes around who can vote and how they do so. Those include more opportunity for digital enrolment methods and introduce automatic enrolment updates. But the big one is the moving of the enrolment deadline. At the last election, you could rock up on election day, enrol and cast your vote at the same time. But under this bill New Zealanders would have to enrol 13 days before election day to be eligible to vote. Goldsmith says it is to ensure a final election result is achieved sooner, but he is being met with fierce critics, including from some within his own party, who think the change takes things a step too far. While entities like the Ministry of Justice can - and do - offer advice in the form of policy papers and regulatory impact statements, electoral law expert Graeme Edgeler says the final decision falls on the shoulders of who New Zealanders have elected to represent them - the politicians. "The government and the MPs are the ones that are elected, so they get to make the policy calls and argue for them and the opposition, if they want to, gets to argue against them," he says. Edgeler says the Ministry of Justice had its own suggestions for reducing the number of special votes, for example, automatic enrolment updates. "So if you tell MSD, 'here's my new address,' they'll tell the Electoral Commission, 'hey, this person has updated their address with us'; the Electoral Commission will see person's already enrolled ... and so your enrolment should be updated automatically now," he says. The government took this suggestion on board, but Edgeler says stopping enrolment 13 days before election day takes things a step further. Goldsmith told RNZ that people do not start coalition negotiations until they know the final outcome . But while it might be a political preference to wait until the special votes are counted, Edgeler says there is nothing legally stopping politicians from starting negotiations as soon as election day finishes. "The John Key-led National government, when it was first elected, it had its coalition negotiations complete and John Key was sworn in as prime minister before the special votes were announced," he says. Edgeler says that is because the initial count on election night made the result clear, and he thinks that was the case with the last election as well. "Prime Minister Chris Hipkins came out on election night and said, 'we've lost, we're not going to be the next government'," he says. National, Act and NZ First could have started coalition negotiations that same day if they had wanted to, so Edgeler does not think special votes delaying coalition negotiations is a good enough reason to push the enrollment deadline out to 13 days. Newsroom political editor Laura Walters confirms that waiting until the final result is announced before starting negotiations is the preference of some political leaders. "Winston Peters, the New Zealand First leader, he doesn't like to actually start negotiations proper, if you will, until they have that final result back," she says. Walters says Peters told her advanced enrollment also benefited political parties. "He said if people don't enroll ahead of that voting period how do they know who they're campaigning to, who their message should be pushed towards," she says. David Seymour was more blunt in his support of the change, saying only "dropkicks" enroll on election day. But Walters says those "dropkicks" include quite a broad sector of society. "What we do know from Electoral Commission data is that these people tend to be younger, we've also seen a higher proportion of Māori and Pasifika and Asian, but especially Māori," she says. Walters adds renters and people who move around a lot and forget to update their enrollment details as people who might also be caught out by these changes. Exactly how many people will be impacted by this change is unclear, but if last election is anything to go by, Walters expects the number of people impacted is in the hundreds of thousands. "There were 450,000 people who registered or enrolled to vote during that advanced voting period and 110,000 people did that on election day," she says. It is these figures which the Attorney General Judith Collins referenced in her report examining whether or not there was enough justified reason behind the changes to the election law. She ruled that denying voters the political franchise is a "heavy price" to pay just to have the election result a week or two sooner. Aside from the automatic enrollment update, Walters says reaction to the bill has been mostly negative. "Essentially people are saying nothing should ever be done to suppress or reduce the number of people who are able to vote. Anyone who is eligible to vote, eligible to register to vote, should be given every opportunity to exercise that right. "Is this worth it? Should the government and the Electoral Commission be bearing a little bit more administrative cost, a little bit more administrative burden, maybe waiting a little bit longer after the election to get the results, isn't that just the cost of democracy?" Check out how to listen to and follow The Detail here . You can also stay up-to-date by liking us on Facebook or following us on Twitter .
