Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Madam Chair for the opportunity to resume the debate. I think that all the parties in the Chamber are on board with the aims of the legislation; others can speak for themselves obviously—ultimately—as to whether they wish to support it or not. From the National side of things we've made it clear that we do support the aims of the legislation but nevertheless we have been interested to know that the limitations that are imposed on criminal activity" are reasonable in their scope and the way they would be exercised. So the Minister in the chair earlier—the Hon Andrew Little—talked in terms of safeguards and he provided a number of different examples of the way that the legislation was designed to avoid overreach by the police and others who effectively would carry out the policy on behalf of the State.And actually I just do mention in passing as my colleague and friend the Hon Mark Mitchell has done—and perhaps others too—our gratitude to the New Zealand Police force for the difficult and dangerous work that they do. We are grateful to those who have advised the Justice Committee—of which I was a member I think as a substitute—and certainly colleagues had the benefit of their advice throughout this process. So the safeguards that the Minister was talking about—and no doubt his ministerial colleague the Hon Kiritapu Allan will be equally diligent in that regard and respond to any questions we might have. In my case I wish to just really point out a safeguard within a safeguard which is to say the search warrant regime that's set out in Part 3 of the bill. I mean if anyone's looking particularly—it's clause 20 and its new section 18C as it will be within the legislation; it talks about the content of the application. So the safeguard that Mr Little was talking about earlier was an application for a search warrant. And of course a search warrant is the mechanism by which we can require that those who would be conducting a search do so in a reasonable way as well as the fact of the search being reasonable in the first place.So the protection within that that I was quite interested in relates to the grounds on which the application was made but also the names of any persons other than persons who are gang members of the gang referred to in paragraph (e) whose places and vehicles are proposed to be entered and searched. Because of course if a person who owns a place or a vehicle will be subject to a search and they themselves are not particularly intended or expected to be exposed in any sort of criminal activity kind of a way then that's something that we should be interested in. But of course it might be that a person who has nefarious intentions might have their activity bound up in those places and vehicles none the less. So if we think about the freedom of association—and in a previous bit of legislation today we were talking about whether "associates" of criminals should be subject to the same strictures or similar restrictions. Well that's reasonable to the extent that we don't want criminal proceeds to be hidden effectively in the name of a family member or whatever. In this case it's slightly different but it's still that question of freedom of association because here we're trying to understand how we can ensure that the policy aim of deterring or detecting criminal activity is met notwithstanding that it might be on the property—the place or the vehicle—of someone who isn't actually themselves any kind of wrongdoer. So that's something that I know that the select committee was careful to avoid having more broadly prescribed than necessary; although I do note a sensible drafting change that they made along the way—no doubt on the advice of officials—whereby it's the addresses or descriptions of the places proposed to be entered or searched. And of course it might be that a physical street address isn't known but a warrant application shouldn't fail only for that reason. If a reasonable description could be made in the application for a warrant then then it should be good enough and the Chamber no doubt will accept that change and continue to pass the bill. I've got only one or two other comments—perhaps as the end of a five-minute block is ticking over I'll resume my seat. Others might have some other comments including of course the Minister herself."