Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Madam Chair. I want to drill in a little bit into the Minister's responses to Simeon Brown's questions around clause 12 because I think this is a significant issue of potential concern. We have seen a number of images of roadblocks that have been staffed by people who are not members of the New Zealand Police; in fact on many occasions they haven't been sanctioned by that and this is going to tidy that up on one level. But I think it also raises a number of questions.The Minister rightly points out subsection 5 of clause 12: that an enforcement officer may also stop personal vehicles but only if acting under the supervision of a constable. We don't have supervision" defined. I think it's quite important to reflect on where the term "supervision" is used in other legal situations. We have it in for example a corrections sense when somebody is sentenced to supervision. In our medical and healthcare system we have a number of trainees that from time to time might be practising under supervision. But that does not mean that the person charged with supervising them has to be physically present at that time. Even if one looks at the plumbers and gasfitters legislation where trainees are able to practise under supervision the qualified plumber doesn't need to be there at the time.Now the Minister has quite glibly said "Oh well of course there will be a police officer there." but that's not actually clear in the legislation if one takes a broader definition of as it is in other laws of what "supervision" actually means.That then leads on to the question of: what are we supervising and how qualified and trained are the enforcement officers going to be? Yes they may be members of the armed forces. Yes they may be Māori wardens or Pasifika wardens—that's fine. But what specific training are they going to receive in order for them to be able to exercise what are significant powers and constraints on peoples' freedom of movement? So I think the House in order to satisfy itself into what it's actually sanctioning here needs to have a sense of what sort of training is going to be undertaken.If there is a physical police presence it's important to understand what the ratio of sworn officers to enforcement officers will be. One could envisage a scenario at the border in the lead-up to Christmas where the police frankly do have other things to do and—some would argue; I would—better things to do that this law could be complied with with one sworn officer and dozens of enforcement officers. So is that an adequate level of supervision given the powers that are being conferred?The fourth question I have is: to what degree does this confer a power to arrest or detain? It may have the power to detain and that in itself is a significant thing. Will it have a power of arrest? If there is an enforcement officer on the boundary who stops a vehicle checks a vehicle and then the persons inside the vehicle become non-compliant what further powers will the enforcement officer have? Because in law the person inside the vehicle has complied chooses—perhaps of its own volition rightly or wrongly—to decide it has met those requirements and goes to move off will the enforcement officer have the power to physically detain a person against their will?These are really important questions. I want to hear from the Minister on this. What is his definition of "acting under supervision"? What will the training requirements be? What will the ratio of sworn officers to enforcement officers be? What powers of arrest or detention will they have?"