SpeechHon CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Kia ora. Thanks Madam Speaker. What Paula Bennett actually said and I know there's been a few references to her speaking on this legislation was that some people have fewer human rights than others. I think this bill or the previous version of it inspired that particular comment which is a pretty extraordinary thing to say to be honest and I think we should all just pause and reflect on that. But actually that's what sits behind this piece of legislation.As I've been sitting here listening to the speeches and reflecting on what's being said I've wondered given that this is the Arms (Firearms Prohibition Orders) Amendment Bill (No 2) whether if it's not passed through this House today we'll see another attempt to put it through in exactly the same form as No. 3 because No. 1 was as I understand it exactly the same piece of proposed legislation. At that time I understand that it was the police prior to its first reading that recommended to the Government not to support the bill as it had serious flaws; that it wouldn't deliver on the intent as outlined in the general policy statement; that there were concerns raised about police accountability and human rights violations where searches could be based on subjective reasoning instead of sufficient facts; and the fact that the bill was based on the New South Wales legislation an Ombudsman's review had found multiple failings and you know this is a kicker: including no firearms located in over 600 searches.So if you sort of draw it together you come up with something that's wrong ineffective and is based on a mirage and a set of contradictions. So you have to ask yourself: well if it failed back in 2018 as No. 1 and now here it is as No. 2 in pretty much exactly the same form what is the point?—what is the point? Keen to hear that from the member when he gets up and speaks again. Is it a place filler or is it actually something that's supposed to mean and be effective in some way or another? It seems to me that it's a waste of this Parliament's time to put up a piece of legislation as a member's bill that has already failed has clearly got no substance to it isn't going to be effective where there's been clear recommendations that it breaches human rights and police say it's not workable and don't support it. But I guess what really sits behind this—Brett Hudson: So to that member it's about the colour of the party not the bill.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Mr Hudson.Hon CLARE CURRAN: —is that it's about how it appears. It's that whole tough on crime Look at us we're tough on crime. Never mind whether we're effective or not or whether it's actually right and proper legislation which is what the people of New Zealand expect of us. But oh no it looks as if we're being tough on crime."To be honest I feel embarrassed to be speaking again. I didn't speak last time but I have read some of the transcripts from members who did speak against it. I'll just read actually quoting David Clark who spoke on it back in 2018 who said that "This is a bill that undermines human rights principles and enables the extension of searches without warrants … puts the police in an invidious position. [And] they've recommend the Government not support this bill." And at the same time he said—and again he said this is a kicker—"there's a National Party member who said not … long ago that the National Party firmly believes or this person firmly believes that searches should not be enforced without warrants [which is] apparently in complete contradiction to the bill's intent." So I kind of leave you with that thought and I think it would be a good idea for the member to withdraw the bill before it got to the vote."