Webb Duncan; McKee NicoleHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Madam Chair. Firstly a clarification from the Minister will be good on the offending that is required because she seemed to suggest that serious—I think she said serious violent" and then backtracked a bit on that but even the seriousness thing perhaps needs clarification. Because one of the concerns we have about this is the increase in scope the kind of wide range of people that this can be kind of cast over.So I mean I had an occasion to look at the Misuse of Drugs Act and one of the offences that falls within the scope of this bill is possession of drug paraphernalia. So that's just happening to have at your home or on your person something like a bong. Now that's an offence—as it should be—under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 and that's captured in clause 7 of this bill as is any offence whatsoever under the Misuse of Drugs Act. Another offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act is misleading an officer who is engaging in an inquiry. So just telling fibs. Now that might be very very serious or it might be a minor matter. So it's just recognising perhaps that there's some offences which some people would consider minor. And it may be that the three strikes—not that I want to take too many pages out of that particular book—but the three-strikes regime which uses the sentence imposed as the trigger rather than the offence itself would be more sensible. So a bit a bit of clarification around that.The other thing is a more practical point and about the bill as a whole because one of the real critical factors is that this gives a significant limitation on the rights or the ability of people and their subject to search and so on. My question is this: how can we be sure that when an officer is searching or exercising a power or doing something that they will know that there is a firearms protection order in place? Can we be 100 percent certain or certain beyond reasonable doubt to use that phrase that a person does have or doesn't have a firearms protection order in place? Because if we make mistakes about that they can be pretty significant mistakes.Now in the spirit of the committee of the whole House I'm not going to do a five-minute speech. I've asked a couple of questions and perhaps the Minister would like to respond to those.Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you to the member for his question. The specific offences for a firearms protection order (FPO) under clause 7 of the bill: a person who is a member or an associate of a gang or an organised criminal group at the time that the offences committed may be issued with an FPO for offences under the Arms Act 1983 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 Psychoactive Substances Act 2013 punishable by term of imprisonment of one year or more.So minor offences such as being in possession of a pipe or a bomb that does not have an offence of more than one year—Hon Dr Duncan Webb: It's "one year or more".Hon NICOLE McKEE: There's more there's more—there is more. May not come under the regime if it is under that time.Some offences under the Crimes Act 1961 specifically crimes against the person; crimes against the rights of the property; and threatening conspiring and attempting to commit offences will also be captured.But what's very important here is that a judge will not issue an FPO just because a person is convicted of an offence. The judge must be satisfied that the FPO is necessary reasonable and appropriate to manage the risk that that particular offender poses. How will the police know? There was good debate through the select committee process where we changed the words of "suspecting a person" to "believing that a person" is the subject of an FPO. And I think this is really important because if we do have an issue of mistaken identity it could mean that an actual relevant case is then thrown out.What has been put in place is the fact that we cannot have police constantly trying to search people because that would be unreasonable. And that they need to make sure that they're trying to search somebody in order to monitor the compliance with the regime not just search them for the heck of it. That they need to make sure that they are monitoring that compliance not just pulling somebody over and then searching them for other reasons."