Court Simon; McKee NicoleSIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. I note that there have been a number of amendments moved—Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Point of order Mr Chairperson. Thank you Mr Chair. I would like to get some clarification from the Chair and just some guidance because this is my first time doing something like this. Previously if we were doing something like this it would be considered to be repetition or out of scope so I just want to get some clarification from the Chair on how to balance that. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Dr Xu-Nan I realise that it would appear that the world has tipped itself upside down in the Chamber as it stands. However I am prepared that the questions being asked by the member are new-ish—Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Thank you Mr Chair. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): —but I'll be looking carefully. SIMON COURT: Thank you Mr Chair. I think it's important that the committee does have a chance to debate this and I do invite the member Lawrence from Te Pāti Kākāriki to participate in the debate—Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Lawrence Xu-Nan. SIMON COURT: —thank you Dr Webb—and maybe offer some constructive criticism on the bill because we're here to improve the legislation. Is that not right members? We're here to improve the legislation. I want to get to the next clause Minister. We're still on Part 2 Amendments to other Acts" but this one to the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 is a proposed change under clause 14 which is inserting new section 18AA "Warrantless searches associated with firearms prohibition orders". It says that "(1) A constable who has reasonable grounds to believe that a person is subject to an FPO" and coming down to subclause (2) it says that "A constable may exercise the power in subsection (1) without having reasonable grounds to suspect that any offence has been … or will be committed by the person." So Minister I'm assuming that that means that simply by virtue of the fact that a person subject to a firearms prohibition order who is otherwise going about their lawful business is regarded by the authority that issues the FPO—that person is such a risk that they shouldn't be allowed near firearms whether or not they're committing any other offence at the time and I'm wondering if some of these people that the FPOs are meant to apply to are perhaps people that we might be afraid to walk down a dark alley at night and meet them. I'm wondering if some of these people may be—to quote Kahurangi Carter from Te Pāti Kākāriki who would agree. Some of the people that we might need to be afraid of—just to quote the member. I want you to ask yourself: would you rather be walking down—Laura Trask: It was Hūhana. SIMON COURT: Well actually I'm just seeking clarification from my colleague here—and maybe the member would like to reply. I want you to ask yourself: would you rather be walking down a dark alley and see a patched member or a police officer? For many people in New Zealand they'd feel safer alone with a patched member than with the police and we need to ask ourselves why. Well we certainly need to ask ourselves why a member of the New Zealand Parliament would think that New Zealanders need to feel unsafe around police officers when compared to the level of unsafety that a patched gang member might present to a member of the public. So Minister given that some of the people subject to an FPO may well be patched members is it likely that a patched member subject to an FPO whether or not they're committing an offence will in fact be committing an offence by being in premises in a vehicle or in a place where firearms are present and they might have access to them? If that's the case who is more dangerous Minister: a patched gang member who might be subject to an FPO or a police officer doing their duty; and if that police officer was walking down a dark alley and there was a patched gang member there who was subject to an FPO and there were firearms present in that dark alley who should the many people in New Zealand be more afraid of: the patched gang member who is subject to an FPO and is in the presence of firearms—Steve Abel: Is this serious? SIMON COURT: —or the police officer? Well I'm just interrogating Mr Steve Abel from Te Pāti Kākāriki this concept as proposed by Kahurangi Carter of the Green Party that New Zealanders would feel safer alone with a patched member than with police. If this scenario occurred where there was a patched member subject to an FPO in a dark alley with firearms available to them—not necessarily in their possession but available to them—and a police officer went to carry out a warrantless search under the updated new section 18AA would that gang member be committing an offence Minister if they were in the dark alley with the firearms and were subject to an FPO? Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): I intend on answering only the question that related to this bill and it was a question at the beginning where the member asked about whether or not the police were able to search a person based on whether or not they thought an offence had been committed. The whole purpose of this particular regime is to give police the tools to be able to monitor the compliance of the firearms prohibition order that's been placed on an individual. It's not about looking for other crimes it's not about looking for other offences and it's not about looking for drug paraphernalia. It's about looking to ensure that the person with the FPO is complying with the regime that's been placed upon them and that is the only reason why police can use these search powers as designed in new section 18AA. It's to be able to monitor the compliance of the FPO regardless of whether a person is down an alleyway or not."