Xu-Nan Lawrence; Andersen Ginny; McKee Nicole; Kuriger BarbaraDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. So I would like to start with just getting some clarifications from the Minister if it's OK regarding this particular bill. My understanding reading from Part 1 is we're looking at adjustments to how the firearm prohibition orders (FPOs) are issued and one of the things that's kind of really drawn my attention to this and I couldn't find it in the regulatory impact statement (RIS) as well is it talks specifically—let's say clause 7—around when an offender is sentenced and then the FPO is issued. But one of my questions is: if the intention of this bill is to provide for greater public safety one of the things we hear a lot from migrant communities in general is people who may not have had offended in the first place but who may be on any form of watch list etc. So noting that the regulatory impact statement didn't actually mention that there is any form of public consultation and the previous consultation based on select committee and also previous things in 2020 may have been outdated as well I was wondering if the Minister wouldn't mind clarifying or reassuring us that there has been some form of consultation or appropriate consultation that's been done with the migrant community around other potential risks when it comes to something like this.Again you know when we're looking at the issues of FPO specifically in the context of those who offended what are some of the provisions around those who have not offended but should be issued or should have some form of FPO that's kind of been put in place because of the idea of public safety and again in the regulatory impact statement it talks about public safety in the context of gangs again and this is something we've discussed in previous bills but again I'm not seeing it from the perspective of genuine firearm safety in public. So again I would like to get some clarifications from the Minister on what level of consultation they've done with the migrant population and I think in this case particularly I'm thinking of the Muslim population and our Muslim whānau. But also in this case when we're looking at this not being included in the RIS is there any other consideration around this idea of FPOs actually providing public safety? Thank you.Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I'd just like to ask the Minister her views on some of the risks that have been highlighted as part of the—it's not a regulatory impact statement; it's a supplementary analysis report. I understand there was insufficient time to pull together a complete regulatory impact statement but it's still a brief outline of what some of the implementation risks are. It would be good to have a level of reassurance in particular around human rights and litigation.So changes regarding the search power it's been identified are likely to limit section 26 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (BORA) which is the right to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure and so I understand that the Attorney-General will provide a report into whether the bill implementing these changes is consistent with the NZ BORA prior to its introduction. So it would be good to have an update from the Minister as to when that section 17 report from the Attorney-General will be made available.The supplementary analysis report has identified risks associated with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act being inconsistent including that the courts may read down relevant legislation in order to be more rights consistent and it's important to note here that these firearm prohibition orders—the way they're structured—are the same as the previous regime that it's still issued by a judge at sentencing. So there may be some challenges in that space.I'm interested to know from the Minister if she's got a view whether individuals may submit claims for monetary damages either for breaches of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act or unreasonable search and if that's been factored into any of her calculations—it's been identified here in the supplementary analysis paper—and whether there's any calculation in the Government's budget for the potential for damages for breaches of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act as a result of this. I'm sure there's some ways in which there will be mitigations for those risks but it would be really good to hear from the Minister what's in place there and also if there's budget in place for that. The other area that she might want to speak to is the fact that it's still the judge who has the power to lay one of these and I do note that when looking back over official information requests and looking at their earlier drafts that initially it was I think the Commissioner of Police who was potentially the person who could determine a firearm prohibition order would be laid upon someone. Clearly there's been a discussion about that and it's decided that it's best to remain with a judge issuing. But with that there is a risk that the imposition of new search powers may potentially have a negative effect if it results in the willingness of the courts or the unwillingness of the courts to issue these FPOs. You're still reliant upon a judge to think that this is the best pathway for the offender before them. So I'm interested to know what views the Minister has on how you guess if a judge is going to put one of these on someone and if it fails its Bill of Rights vet will that potentially affect whether a judge considered that these expanded search powers are necessary in these circumstances and if they in fact believe that the expanded search powers reduce the circumstances when a firearm prohibition order will be considered reasonable? So there is potential there and I'll be interested to know what the Minister thinks that this may result in fewer firearm prohibition orders being issued and therefore reduce public safety which would be the antithesis of what this bill is aiming to achieve.So if the aim of the bill is to increase public safety benefits from this regime the fact that there may be New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—we'll find out—issues it's still being done by a judge and so you could have even fewer firearm prohibition orders being issued as a result of that.So I'm sure there's a plan in place for police and for her officials to mitigate that risk to ensure legislation—and the associated materials clearly indicate that there's legislative intent behind these changes—but I would be interested to hear from the Minister as to how she intends to develop that guidance for how FPOs will apply. Thank you. Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): Thank you Madam Chair. I'd like to respond first to the Green member's comments which I was a little confused on so please feel free to stand up if I don't answer in a way that answers your question. The reason why I'm a little confused is because I had made mention already that there had been extensive consultation in 2021 regarding the search powers so we feel that the consultation had taken place. You specifically mentioned the Muslim community and where I'm confused is the firearms prohibition order is to actually stop people who should not be in possession or use of firearms from being out on the streets and using them and the way that you spoke didn't speak to that. So that's why I just got a little bit confused because I would think that any vulnerable community would be happy with the fact that we are looking at utilising the monitoring of compliance on those people with FPOs to make sure that they don't cause harm in any community whatsoever regardless of ethnicity or race or religious belief; that anyone who should not be in possession of a firearm is able to be monitored for that compliance. So I hope that addresses—and please feel free to stand up again if it doesn't. Not right now because I'm talking—Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Not right now? OK all in good time.Hon NICOLE McKEE: You'll get another go.To the member from the Labour Party regarding the human rights. The Attorney-General actually found that the bill was consistent or is consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. She concluded that the purpose of the proposed search power is not to locate evidence of offending but to ensure compliance with the FPOs. The Attorney-General also noted that searching to monitor compliance is generally reasonable where a person is subject to a community-based sentence or on bail or engaging in activities such as driving a car on a road when they shouldn't be. We already have these sorts of things in place.She also noted that administrative searching and surveillance to ensure compliance with the law is also common to some highly controlled industries and she noted that the exercise of the power could still breach section 21—the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure—if it was used unreasonably for example through excessive searching for searching at unreasonable times or searching for an ulterior purpose.The Auditor-General's report also has been published when the bill was introduced. So it is already public although the member is still looking for it. Another point that I would make is that licensed firearm owners are also restricted—they are open to being searched at any time whatsoever just for being a licensed firearm owner. So the ability to actually monitor compliance and search those for the firearms prohibition order seems reasonable in this case.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I'm going to call Lawrence Xu-Nan because I believe you've got a clarification?