Webb DuncanHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's almost perplexing that we've got a Government who's Minister for firearms on the one hand is talking about doing away with a firearms registry and reintroducing military-style semi-automatic rifles and then tweaking the firearms prohibition orders—the inconsistency of that does not escape me. But we already have firearms prohibition orders. The last Government the Labour Government put those in place. We don't see that this legislation is necessary. Those firearms prohibition orders which are already set out in the Arms Act have just been there—we haven't had long enough to see them bed in. So this would be window dressing were it not such an overreach.I mean this Government is well used to overreach; they're getting quite used to it. I mean in the gangs legislation bill they slipped in at the last moment a prohibition on having gang patches in secret in your own home. And here again we've got a bill which has a very significant invasion of the home—and quite unnecessarily quite gratuitously. So I think we need to look very carefully not just at this particular overreach but the fact that this Government is eroding some pretty fundamental rights and doing it in quite invidious ways.So we've already got firearms protection orders. We want to see how they work; they might need some adjustments. But I'll tell you what they don't need: they don't need the kind of far-ranging warrantless search powers that this Government is giving to police. Whilst we accept that police officers by and large exercise their duties and responsibilities appropriately—Sam Uffindell: Do you want the gangs to have more guns?Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: —we know that there will be instances where there is overreach.Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: That's what you'll be doing with semi-automatics.Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: So if you look—and you're right Priyanca Radhakrishnan there they are chipping away whilst they're talking about reintroducing semi-automatic rifles. It's an absolute outrage that flies in the face of the harm to some of our most vulnerable communities—it's deeply deeply offensive.But if we do look at the warrantless search power in new section 18AA inserted by clause 14 the breadth of that search power simply makes no sense. The first thing to say is this as the Associate Minister of Justice herself identified in the House—I think it was yesterday—there is already a right of a constable to enter someone's home under the Arms Act to check compliance with the Arms Act. Now that search power—and the Minister's there; she knows the Arms Act. She was a gun lobbyist so she knows it pretty well. So if you look at that search power it talks about entry at a reasonable time. Now a warrantless search doesn't talk about entry at a reasonable time. In fact the very reason it's warrantless is so that they can catch people off guard—these are people's homes right?Now the suggestion is that this is not a punitive power—the suggestion that is protective of the public but it's hard to say that it's not a little bit punitive when your house is busted into at 3 o'clock in the morning. And let's not pretend that won't happen because if the police were going to have a look around—here's the other thing the trigger isn't that they think there is a breach. They don't have to even think there's a breach of the firearms protection order the wording is there in subsection (1): it's for the purpose of checking". Just checking up. "Gidday. Oh 3 a.m.? Sorry about that. Just want to check whether you've got a firearm around." There doesn't have to be any wrongdoing whatsoever. How many times can they do that? As often as they like.So sure they're not supposed to go in there and check whether there's illicit drugs or whether there's stolen property or whether any other criminal activity is going on but when you have an absolutely unfettered right to pop in for a check at any time of the day or night that is a recipe for overreach.Our law assists that because of section 30 of the Evidence Act. Section 30 of the Evidence Act provides that if evidence is found as a result of an illegal search then if it's useful enough you're still allowed to use it. Now that's problematic when you've got an ability to pop into someone's house at any time just to have a look around as long as they've got a firearms protection order.Of course the other thing is the scope of this power isn't limited only to people's homes; it can be limited to other places where the person is present. So be careful who you invite over—Hon Members: That's the point!Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: —because if they've got a firearms protection order your house. No I know you wouldn't invite a gang member or a person with a firearm they wouldn't go either. But the fact of the matter is that if there's a firearm protection order in place the police can enter any premises at any time to check. Not because they think offences are being committed but just to have a check up. That is highly invasive.What's more: not just the part of the premises where the person is in control or is it is present but any part of the premises. So that third party's home can be searched from top to bottom.Tim Costley: Gang pad.Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: No not a gang member. It can be the gang member's mum—and that's the kind of thing we've got to think about: that these are other people's homes. I'm sorry if you think that gang members' mums need to be turned over by the police but I don't. I think that people should be free from unreasonable search and seizure. And this is an extension—such an overreach that it is an unreasonable search and seizure.Of course then we've got vehicles that can be stopped—vehicles again for no purpose other than having a check. There has to be no suspicion that there's a breach in a firearm protection order. Just see that person driving past. "Oh yeah we don't particularly like that person. Let's let them know we've got our eye on him. Stop them get all the kids out of the car get the groceries out of the car give it a good working over." That is a recipe for police overreach so we need to be very very cautious in that regard.Of course this is the other thing that really is the icing on the cake and that is that even if the person doesn't have a firearm protection order on them as long as the officer reasonably believes they do—they don't have to be sure—the search is legal. Even if they reasonably believe. They don't have to check it; they just have to have a reasonable belief that that's the case. That's not good enough. If someone is searched and they don't have a firearm protection order on them it should be an illegal search. There should be no authority to search that person.This bill is one of many—the Minister in her speech made it clear that there's a raft of legislation coming around firearms. We've seen a raft of legislation around other areas and every time the New Zealand Bill of Rights—the ability to be free from unreasonable search and seizure the freedom of association the freedom of expression—is eroded.On the other side of the House they say "Don't worry it's just gang members." You know what? That's where it starts. Because if we don't strike the right balance in respect of all members of our community then ever so slowly the rights of all members of the community are eroded. It's an unnecessary bill it's a bill that's overreach it's a bill which won't work and it's a bill which simply is window dressing in respect of firearms protection orders already in place."