Webb DuncanHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Madam Chair. I just want to talk to another one of my tabled amendments. It's really around the searching of premises. It's marked D". The Minister the Hon Nicole McKee alluded to the fact that it is the intention of this legislation that any search exercised on premises is really only of that part of the premises that is relevant but there's no real test for that. This is in section 18AA(1)(c) and once you trigger the right to search they can search any premises in which the person is present or that the person occupies or controls. So they don't have to be there if it's their house—they don't have to be there; they can just bust in. Or their business—that would be "controls" as well or "occupies"—just bust in and have a look around. But even if it's where they're present—and if you think about it there are all kinds of situations.I think the Minister referred to a hotel or motel situation but there are others. One which is quite common certainly in my electorate is boarding houses where people have control over a small area—they might occupy common areas. You could probably at a stretch say they occupy common areas and they occupy and control their bedroom area. But on a straight-out reading—and we can always say "Oh but the Bill of Rights…" and "You've got to limit the words" but it's really important for someone who's reading it that it does what it says. And that would suggest that if there is a person with a firearms protection order in a boarding house the police can enter the premises—and the premises is clearly the whole boarding house—and search the premises. It's pretty much there in black and white. So that's why in my tabled amendment after that subsection (c)(ii) I've suggested we add in "may only search that part of the premises under the control of the person subject to an FPO" because it's only that area under the control of the person where the breach of the Arms Act of the firearms protection order is likely to occur.What we don't want—and I'm kind of cautious about saying this—is overly enthusiastic officers to think "Well they might have put it in their mate's room so let's have a look there anyway." I appreciate the evidence point and just returning to the Minister's comments on the Evidence Act and that if evidence is illegally obtained it can't be used. That's not what the Evidence Act says. The Evidence Act in section 30 is very clear that illegally obtained evidence can be used if its probative value outweighs the prejudice of the illegal search. That's quite unusual in many jurisdictions. New Zealand isn't thought very highly of for that particular provision but that's what it says. We know the police by and large do a very good job but every so often we can have a police officer thinking "I can search the premises so I'll look in this locked room of another resident of the boarding house as well."—what do you know they're growing some marijuana or they've got a stash of meth or whatever it might be. It's evidence and I am very concerned that if we have a culture of expansive search powers that are greater than are necessary that's kind of giving a tacit licence for that kind of behaviour.So I suggest that we amend that to say that you can only search the area in respect of which that person has control either immediate control if they're there or general control if they're absent as in a home their boarding house room or whatever the case may be. I'd welcome the Minister's comments."