Hipkins Chris; Mitchell MarkSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki) (remote): Thank you Mr Chair. It's always good to see an O'Connor in the Chair. A quick question Minister. It really is around expected workload and time frames or actually mainly just workload capacity for the police and the courts. So obviously I support firearms prohibition orders (FPOs). As you'll know National feels you could have gone further but has any work been done around—well potential work—obviously police officers and the courts with the context being they're already busy? I can obviously accept FPOs are just another standard piece of business or will become so for the police but they're already stretched they're already busy so too the courts. Have you or any of your officials done any work around how much time or workload this may cause?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Police): That would be a very difficult thing to model because of course it would suggest that we could separate this out from the other work that police are doing. In fact in many instances this will just be one component of an investigation or one component of the work that police are already doing. It is an additional tool for them to use where it is appropriate for them to do so.Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): Thank you Mr Chair. I'm coming back Minister to new section 42A because what you say in this House matters and it's important and it will be used as a reference point.So I just want to be clear with the Minister that he seemed to have intimated to the committee that with the example that I gave—which is the most common one—where police officers stop someone who is known to them. In having a firearms prohibition order (FPO) if they speak to that person and ask them if they are in compliance with that FPO and if they're in compliance with section 42A(1)(a) and (b) how have they got any way of actually checking and making sure—because he keeps putting up the reasonableness test and I'd like him to lay out to this committee what is the reasonableness test. How are they able to check and make sure that that person—and let's use a gang member as an example—is in compliance with the law in terms of the firearms prohibition order that's been put against them?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Police): The reasonableness test is already something that police are well familiar with. In fact there are several judgments that have set out the reasonableness test. I'm happy to quote a couple of them for the member and I'm just making sure that I quote them accurately.So in terms of one that was specific around warrantless searches when it comes to firearms Ward v R from 2016 the Court of Appeal described the test as—and I'll quote it directly—We are satisfied that the power to conduct warrantless searches under section 18 continues to be subject to the requirement that one a constable exercising a warrantless power of search actually believes that there are reasonable grounds to suspect a breach of the Arms Act and two the grounds for suspicion are objectively reasonable."If the Parliament wants to start to define what is objectively reasonable in a very specific statute it will be tying the police's hands behind their back because ultimately it will increase the number of loopholes that will allow offenders to get off."