Webb DuncanHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Well that was quite a press release but not much else frankly. It is disappointing when you're trying to do something as significant as this. I'm surprised that it's the ACT Party. I actually went online and looked at the ACT Party's—Hon David Seymour: It is significant. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: —constitution. Oh it's good to see that the leader's come down to give the Associate Minister of Justice (Firearms) a bit of support because she's going to need it with this piece of legislation—Hon David Seymour: That's what we do in our party. Where's that member's support?Hon Member: Where's your leader?Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: —because here we have a piece of legislation which fundamentally cuts across the rights of people and intrudes on houses. I'm not one to kind of cast back too far but it was actually in the 1700s when there was a guy called John Entick and his house was invaded and they had a bit of a search for papers. Now in 1765 it was an open question as to whether the Government had a licence to walk into your house and have a look around or not. In 1765 that question was closed because it was said that no one should be subject to arbitrary search.Now we've heard the Minister talk about why dangerous people should be subject to search and we know that. There are really good grounds. But we know also that we have a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act where that right found in the case of Entick v Carrington is now expressed.Hon Member: Is this lecture available online?Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: It says there in section 21 Everyone has the right"—it's funny that the party—Hon David Seymour: If this speech doesn't improve I'm going back to my office!Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: —who claims their individual rights are sitting there heckling when I'm talking about rights because it just goes to show the cheap shots that they'll now take. But you know everyone should be secure—Hon David Seymour: Oh look it's not improving! Come on!Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: —against unreasonable search and seizure. Now the Search and Surveillance Act has lots of powers of search warrantless searches—Hon David Seymour: Sorry no good. Ka kite.Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: —and that's fine because there are certainly cases where a warrantless search is appropriate.Hon Rachel Brooking: A point of order. Mr Speaker I believe that somebody was on their feet moving whilst heckling and that is out of order.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): I did not notice that but I will take that under advisement and if people are moving through the House to not heckle as they move as well. But thank you for that notice.Hon James Shaw: Point of order. Just to take the earliest opportunity I'm afraid Mr Speaker which was during the course of that debate there was also an interjection reflecting on the Leader of the Opposition being absent from the House and locating where he was. That is also out of order.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Thank you. I'll just take some advice on that. It's important that we take points of order when they arise and not five minutes afterwards. So I take the point and I appreciate the energy in the House—I'm impressed by the energy in the House—and that you guys are so enthusiastic and I commend that enthusiasm but I would like now for the Hon Duncan Webb to continue.Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Thank you Mr Speaker. The thing about this bill though is that the trigger for search is not only low it's non-existent. To search someone who is subject to a firearms protection order might be justifiable but the legislation that that Minister has brought before the House is triggered by a suspicion that someone might be subject to—the police don't even have to be sure. Now look if you want to go and check on someone's bail or parole you can only do that if they are subject to bail or parole. That Minister wants the police to be able to have a reckon and that is absolutely—you know the fact is that the police can check on that kind of thing pretty much instantaneously on the National Intelligence Application. I think that that's a reasonable thing for the police to do.But that's not the end of it. This is not only a warrantless search on the suspicion that someone might have a firearms protection order but do you know what the trigger is for entering someone's home entering their car waking up their kids? The trigger is nothing—nothing. The bill before the House says that this can be done without any reasonable suspicion that any offence or breach has occurred. I must say that I read this several times because I was flabbergasted that anyone in a democracy somewhere where the rule of law exists would put before the House a warrantless search on the suspicion of something that existed without any reasonable—Hon Rachel Brooking: Oh look lawyers on the other side are hanging their heads in shame.Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: —cause whatsoever. It is—that's right; they should. They should absolutely hang their heads. It is shameful that here in a modern democracy we have the suggestion—and look let me tell you what could happen: a police car goes past a supermarket car park and says "I think that guy might have a firearms protection order." So they go along and they stop that person. Do they think anything's going wrong? No they think he's doing his shopping but they stop him anyway because they want to. That's all they need: just to want to. So they search the car. They search him. Do you know what else they can do? They can search his partner and they can search his kids. That is what this bill does: a warrantless without cause search on the suspicion that someone might have a firearms protection order of them their car and anyone in the car.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The member's time has expired."