Whaitiri MekaHon MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): E Te Māngai o Te Whare tēnā koe. Otirā ngā mema o Te Whare nei tēnā tātou katoa. I'm pleased to take a call on the Arms (Firearms Prohibition Orders) Amendment Bill (No 2). I commend the member who has had this bill drawn Brett Hudson but clearly Labour will be opposing this bill.Essentially the bill attempts to do two things. It prohibits gang members from holding firearm licences making it illegal for them to possess firearms ammunition or parts and it also allows police to search the person's vehicle or premises of gang members for these items at any time. We've heard previous speakers on this side who are opposing this bill say that police themselves have reservations on this particular bill. But the point I want to make and hopefully the member who is sponsoring this bill can alleviate for the members of the House is the evidence that says firearms prohibition orders (FPOs) actually work. I'm keen to hear Mr Hudson express that to the House the evidence that he's obtained that shows that FPOs actually work.My understanding is that this is modelled on a similar piece of legislation followed by the New South Wales Government. Let's see what they've said about their own FPO policy. Obviously wherever we are in the country gangs are rife and should be addressed appropriately and I think we've got the tools and the mechanisms and the commitment from this side of the House to give the police the tools to do exactly that. But let's see what the FPO policy in New South Wales model talked about and what they actually found in addressing their own policy around firearms prohibition for gangs.Some of the issues that they raised in their own review of the FPO policy talked about an absence of record-keeping in terms of premises being searched. They were actually not lodged. Again I can only assume that that's a concern of the police. The review also appears to have found that the power to search without a warrant was misused; 92 people who were searched were not subject to an FPO—again concerns that our New Zealand Police have around this bill. Children were present during those searches. Their bedrooms or homes were searched and we can only understand the trauma that would have had on young people be them children be them teenagers when their homes were searched.I understand that in New South Wales you cannot request a review of how the police conducted a warrantless search. So again these reservations of the New South Wales FPO have demonstrated the misuse the trauma of innocent people perhaps or not so innocent people and the lack of recording when police instigate searches.Of the FPO searches in New South Wales 642 resulted in police finding firearms and only eight were recovered as an unlawful item and that's usually related to drugs. So there are many like I said when I opened my contribution—the evidence that the member sponsoring this bill could alleviate for the House's benefit as to where FPOs actually work in similar jurisdictions as New Zealand's because in New South Wales it hasn't worked. It has not worked. So I'm really keen to hear from the member himself where he can draw on evidence where it works. Of course gang activity is something that we are on all sides of the House abhorrent with—we are abhorrent with.But my key point that I want to make in my contribution is hearing from the member sponsoring this bill of where FPOs have worked where they are and he can express to this House where they have been successful to address the issue and the purpose that he's presenting. But on the base of it and on the conclusions that I bring to the House around New South Wales' own FPO being an abject failure Labour will not support this bill.