Andersen Ginny; McKee NicoleHon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much Madam Chair. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes new questions please because I've got to the point where it is getting quite repetitive.Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Yes Madam Chair. My question is in relation to Part 1 and in particular it's around when a firearm prohibition order (FPO) is made. I would like to ask the Minister what is the operational system capabilities for police to be able to make sure this is being done appropriately? Because this has been raised in some of the analysis we've seen that if you're doing those check-ups we need to make sure that the person actually has an FPO on them. There have been some issues raised that there is a risk that those capabilities are not in fact in place. So I would like a level of reassurance from the Minister that front-line staff won't be apprehensive about conducting searches in order to avoid the risk of conducting a potentially illegal search.There's also a risk there that's been outlined in the supplementary analysis paper that there's a risk of mistaken searches of individuals who are not subject to a firearms prohibition order being in place meaning that a search would potentially be deemed in breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. And any—CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We've delt with that. We've been down the bill of rights track.Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Well I'm talking about police capability to be able to make sure that police have the confidence—CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I got that bit. Now the next bit is repetitive.Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: All right. So I would be interested from the Minister just to know what's in place and what police have to make sure that evidence obtained would not be ruled out as inadmissible because of those grounds.I'd also like the Minister's view in terms of the revocation provisions. This is a new addition to this regime. So that enables a firearm prohibition order that would be in place for someone for a number of years to potentially be able to be revoked or done. So given the fact that no consultation was done on this I'd be interested to know because the Minister's relying on the consultation from the first firearm prohibition regime which was in place in November 2022. This is the new regime which didn't have any consultation but this provision—new section 39FA: Varying modifying or revoking FPOs"—I understand to be a completely new provision within the firearm prohibition orders regime. That provides that a person who's subject to an FPO at any time after the FPO has been in force for five years that the court can vary or modify the conditions or actually revoke that FPO.So I'd be interested into why this provision has been included in this new regime and also to understand what analysis what consultation has been undertaken to arrive at why this is a necessary pathway to have in the bill. Because it's quite clear in the legislation that there's a clear pathway in subsection (3) that "if it is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the condition is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent the applicant from accessing possessing or using any firearms or related items" then the judge can just take it off. So really interested to understand why that new provision is in there and what the Minister did to identify that as a necessary addition to the previous regime. It's important to note I think that the varying provision—there's not a lot of detail in the varying. So from my understanding judges can pretty much put on any conditions to an FPO. So are there any limits that a judge can put on an FPO? Do they have to be wearing their pyjamas or what are the types of conditions that a judge would be able to be including in an FPO and how would they be varied in order provide additional public safety if anything had substantially changed over that period time? And keeping in mind that public safety is paramount here very interested to know how the Minister has undertaken the analysis or the consultation to understand how this provision would enhance public safety.Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): Thank you Madam Chair. In answer to the member's question about police and operations police are developing their operational guidance on the new powers that they receive and police have a lot of experience in executing search powers in a reasonable manner. And they are constantly updating their operational practice to ensure that they are exercised reasonably because of course if they're not then they can be in trouble for breaching the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. So it's in their interest to make sure that they do do it well.With the five years it's an incentive as this Government has said about correcting bad behaviour about allowing people to be rehabilitated and giving them that incentive to come off the 10-year regime to five years if they can show indeed that they have rehabilitated. I mean that is just common sense from our side of the House. We in the coalition Government will be making reforms in the corrections space so we are all about making sure that people have the opportunity to rehabilitate. And if they do rehabilitate in such a fashion that it is good for them and for society and they can show that then there should be an incentive there for them.The conditions on a firearms prohibition order—well that's up to a judge. And the varying conditions can actually talk to a person perhaps being in a workplace where firearms are and they are showing that they have rehabilitated in such a way that they can be around them. More importantly it's also about the operations of being around family members say if there's a tangi that's taking place they're going home mum and dad have firearms in the home. As long as those firearms are locked up and the conditions are varied then that person is able to go home for a couple of days stay overnight so that they can be around their family in certain times where there's need for them. So the variations will depend on the individual's situation the requirement that they're seeking what they've done in the past what they may do in the future and that really is going to be up to the judge at the time to consider all of the elements before they make or don't make any variations to the firearms prohibition order."