Meager JamesJAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): I think that we need to clarify a couple of points that have been made in this debate because there's been a bit of back and forth on clause 14 and new section 18AA(c). Now I wanted to state a number of points for the Minister and just see if the Minister can seek some advice and make sure I've got this clear. Because if the members recall we actually had a very very detailed back and forth on this during the Justice Committee and we actually sought some specific advice on the premises" question.I wanted to state my understanding of it and seek the Minister's clarification as whether that's correct because I'm not sure whether we are confused because the section states that you may "search any premises—" and then it goes on to say "that the person occupies or controls." It's not a blanket allowance to be able to search any premises. The two subsections are tied together. So it's "search any premises that the person occupies" "search any premises that the person controls" and that in itself puts a limiting factor in it. I wanted to clarify that that understanding is correct.The second point was—and this was raised in the Justice Committee as well—the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (BORA) does require a general rights-compliant interpretation of the section. I recall when we had that conversation—Dr Webb will recall this—we went back and forth as to whether or not we could specify and get granular as to what could or couldn't be searched. We came to the conclusion that the combination of the terms we had here in the bill combined with the reasonable search requirements in NZ BORA would have been sufficient to limit it to places that the individual actually occupies or controls. I want to clarify whether that is correct and still the understanding.The third part is a part that Dr Webb raised and it's a part that's been missed out. It's about ownership of the property. The Justice Committee removed that because we didn't want the situation where an individual owned a property but perhaps rented it out and simply by fact of ownership that property was able to be searched. I said "Scott so I can't"—I don't know if I can refer to Scott but he's getting up and sorting that. We removed that because we didn't want to have the ability for any property that the individual owns to be searched but they actually have to exert some sort of occupation or control over it.The fourth point on that—and again sorry to labour it but to clarify—the boarding house example and the hotel example that's why it's "occupies or controls" or "is present". Because we wanted to have the ability for if you are in a hotel but you're not physically in the room to still be able to search that room because you have in effect occupied the room. But you don't have control over the room because the hotel maintains ultimate control over the room. They were my understanding of how that section works and I think it would be helpful if that's clarified—and I'm getting some quizzical looks so it might not be the case.Further to that point I would like to know the Minister's view on NZ BORA and whether or not these limits are reasonably justified limits. I know I can't seek a legal opinion or a legal view from the Minister but I have long held the view that should legislation like this pass through the House that is in itself a demonstrable step by the democratically elected branch of government that those limits are justified. I would like to be able to place on the record views of members—and perhaps of Government—whether or not that is a reasonable approach to take.They were my main points. The one final point is a little bit of history revision for Arena Williams. Yes the National Government in 2017 did propose these orders. The reason they didn't go in was because the Government changed and then the Labour Government of the time shot down the member's bill from the National Party and voted against firearms prohibition orders and then were pressured into bringing them in themselves. So if we're going to revise history let's revise it correctly.If the Minister can address those initial points—just to clarify that particular passage to the committee. I know we went back and forth on it for a long long time in the Justice Committee and I think it would be worth having it stated for the record—finally—what the position is. Thank you."