Andersen GinnyHon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I'd just like to continue the discussion on new section 18AA which is to be inserted in the Search and Surveillance Act by clause 14 which is the warrantless searches associated with firearms prohibition orders (FPOs). I would like to just ask the Minister: in terms of what was originally provided under the first firearms prohibition orders regime from my recollection that basically invoked section 18 of the Search and Surveillance Act which enabled there to be—if someone had an FPO on them it basically kicked in that search power. So if the police suspected that someone had a firearm and that person had an FPO that enabled the police to search if I remember rightly. What I'd really like to understand is this. Where this bill started off was with its search powers and then after the select committee where it ended up was looking quite close to where we were under the initial regime. It's looking quite close so I'd really like the Minister to spell out what the difference is between an FPO regime that invokes section 18 of the Search and Surveillance Act and the somewhat watered-down provision now under new section 18AA which now has the changed wording which is believe". So they can't suspect that someone has an FPO; they must believe that the person has an FPO on them in order to legitimately search that person and their house and we're not sure about the car because the Attorney-General thinks that that might be out if there are people in the car. So I'm quite interested to know specifically what the difference is that this bill does and I'm also really really keen to understand how this is going to play out for operational information for police. How are we going to ensure that through operational instructions to front-line officers we are able to make it clear to police officers where that line lies and where they're able to act? As we're aware in the heat of the moment and when you're in difficult situations on the front line there's a split-second decision that often gets made. While we are thankful and grateful for the great work police officers do and for that split-second decision that they need to make I guess what I'd like to know is what is the check when that doesn't go well and what is the check when there has been a search that's not justified and there in fact wasn't an FPO? I know we've spoken about the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and where that kicks in but I think it's important that we understand that if a police officer did execute a search under new section 18AA and in fact the person didn't have an FPO and we later on find that the police officer didn't even have grounds to believe that the person had an FPO what happens at that point in time? I think that that's really important information to have. So just to recap my two main questions are: how is this new regime in terms of the warrantless search associated with FPOs—what is the material difference between that and the previous one which invoked section 18 of the Search and Surveillance Act; and secondly if a police officer did execute a search without a warrant on someone and later on we find out that they did not have grounds to believe that the person had an FPO what is the follow-up process in relation to that I guess wrong call or that unwarranted search? Are there any repercussions or is there any information that would be able to be taken action on by the person who was unrightly subjected to that and wrongfully searched; and secondly what kind of reassurance can the Minister give us that police operational instructions will be giving a sufficient level of specificity to officers in training and on the front line to ensure that they are equipped with the right advice so that they're not endangering themselves by executing a warrantless search without knowing where the line lies?"