Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Amendment Bill

Members, the committee has resumed. Before the dinner break, we were in the Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Amendment Bill. We had just completed Part 1, and now, members, we come to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 10 to 14, “Amendments to other Acts”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to first ask the Minister for clarification around clause 14 and particularly the subsequent new section 18AA addition. Now, previously the Minister has mentioned, if I remember correctly, that there’s no violation in terms of the search and seizure when it comes to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. However, if I go to the Attorney-General’s report—and I want to draw attention to paragraph 30 of the Attorney-General’s report, where it says, “We consider the unfettered ability for police to search any other person present in a vehicle with the person suspected of being subject to an FPO amounts to an unreasonable search and therefore a breach of [section] 21 of the Bill of Rights”. I kind of want to get some clarification from the Minister regarding what she mentioned before—that it’s not a violation of section 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

I think, in this particular case, I also want to draw attention to a few subsequent paragraphs in the Attorney-General’s report, which I’ve noticed aren’t part of the commentary on this particular bill. I think one of the things that really drew my attention is new section 18AA(1)(c)(i) and (ii), which is the big concern there, partly, for the first part, the first question. The concern there is we’ve seen this previously with an amendment that was added to 8A of the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill where anyone at any stage could be going into a property if there is a firearms prohibition order (FPO)—I think, in that case, if there has been a gang insignia order, etc. My second question: I want to get some reassurance from the Minister that this new section 18AA(1)(c) isn’t going to be used as a way for police to unreasonably search gang members’ houses or property, particularly new section 18AA(1)(c)(ii), if a person has an FPO.

The third part is in new section 18AA(1), where it said, “A constable, who has reasonable grounds to believe that a person is subject to an FPO”. Now, this is very similar to the recommendation that was made in the Attorney-General’s report, paragraph 32, where it says, “As above, we understand this element of the search power may be qualified by Cabinet before the Bill is introduced, by introducing a requirement that the constable have ‘reasonable grounds to believe the person is concealing a firearm.’ ” Now, those two “reasonable grounds” are very different. One is around the reasonable grounds to believe that the person is subject to an FPO and one is reasonable grounds to believe that the person is concealing a firearm. I think this is with regards to, particularly, new section 18AA(1)(b) and (d). Oh, here we go—nope, I take that bit back. I think it’s now in new section 18AA(1)(d); I did see the second part of reasonable grounds.

Sorry, Madam Chair, and sorry, Minister, I did answer my questions for part of that, but I would still like the Minister to answer the question around 8A: what is the comparator to 8A of the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill around “search any premises”; whether that’s going to be used as a tool to conduct unreasonable searches of premises for those who have an FPO. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the member for the Greens Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan for your questions. I’ll try to answer as clearly and with as much information as I can on that.

There were concerns through the select committee stage about the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (BORA), specifically around the searching priorities. This is where the Justice Committee actually made the recommendation to make a higher threshold around when a search can be conducted. I have agreed with this amendment, where, instead of police suspecting a person, they need to have that belief that a person has a firearms prohibition order (FPO) upon them in order to initiate that search to monitor the compliance. The raising of that threshold from “suspect” to “believe”, I think, adequately meets—and the Attorney-General has also confirmed that it adequately meets—the section 21 BORA condition there.

Of course, it comes down to reasonableness of the searches. If police undertake these searches and do quite a lot of them and there’s no reasonableness in them, then that in itself holds the police to having a look at whether or not they are committing any offences themselves against section 21 of BORA. I think the select committee have done a really good job in being able to raise the threshold from “suspect” to “believe”, and they’ve actually made some key changes in regard to the search.

Of course, as you questioned—and I guess an example that I can give you—originally, as the bill was drafted, it meant that police could actually search anybody that was associated or around the person with the FPO. But the changes that have been made mean that they cannot, as an example, search passengers in a car without having reasonable cause to believe that they are hiding a firearm. That does not mean that they can search people in a vehicle because they suspect that they might have drugs on them or they suspect they might have a knife on them—this is about monitoring the compliance of a firearms prohibition order, so it’s about ensuring that the person with the firearms prohibition order is the one that is being monitored as to compliance.

If they’re, say, in a vehicle, and the police believe that there is a firearm in the vehicle that’s been moved away from the person with the FPO and they have reasonable belief that it’s actually moved to someone else in that vehicle, then they have the right to be able to search them. Ultimately, we want the same outcome, I believe, which is to get the illegal possession of firearms out of the hands of anybody that should not have possession of them in the first place. To enable police to do that, we’ve got to give them the power to be able to monitor that compliance. I think that that’s really essential, in that it’s reasonable.

We also made a change to make sure that not everybody, anywhere, can be searched. I think the select committee realised that, “Well, hey, wait, if somebody’s in a hotel—as an example—does that mean that the police have the ability to go through every room within that hotel?” And, of course, the answer is no, because the select committee made changes to ensure that that wouldn’t happen as well, because we don’t want innocent people being caught up in the regime and also being searched. We want to make sure that the target is the person with the FPO. This is about the monitoring of compliance of that FPO, not about going around searching for any other item that they may have, whether it be drugs or whether it be other weapons. This is about the monitoring of the compliance of the firearms prohibition orders, and we want to make sure that innocent people are not inadvertently caught up, because that, to the member, would then create issues with BORA in section 21.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a good point, with that discussion from the Minister, the Hon Nicole McKee, about the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. She quite rightly observes that the committee had concerns at the threshold that would trigger a search, and certainly “reasonable grounds to suspect” that a person is subject to a firearms prohibition order was considered woefully inadequate. The committee—by majority, I think it was—replaced that with “reasonable grounds to believe”.

Now, my tabled amendment, marked “E”, suggests that the only people who should be subject to a warrantless search are people who are, in fact, subject to a firearms prohibition order. I think it’s really important to recognise and just state bluntly what this is. This is a right of the police to either stop a person at any time or to enter their premises at any time without warning. This is entering someone’s home at 3 o’clock in the morning. If the police are wrong about them having a firearms protection order, it should be recognised that the search is illegal. If the police make an error and think that I or someone in my house is subject to a firearms protection order, even if they have reasonable grounds to believe, that’s not good enough; the police need to be sure. Now, errors will be made, but let’s not think that that makes it a legal search; it’s an illegal search without authority in law, because there is no firearms protection order in place and it’s only the firearms protection order that warrants that entry into property.

My tabled amendment suggests that the wording of new section 18AA(1) as amended should read “that a person who is subject to a firearms protection order made before, on, or after the commencement of this section, may, without a warrant, be subject to any or all of the following for the purposes of checking”—and so on. The police have all of the tools at their disposal, and I asked the Minister earlier in this debate how we could be sure that the police wouldn’t make an error, and the tenor of her response was, “Don’t worry. The police get it right. They know what they’re doing.” I believe her, almost all of the time, but if they get it wrong, let’s not give it some colour of right; let’s not make it legal. Let’s recognise it for what it is: an illegal search, and all of the things that follow from a search being illegal and a home being invaded without cause should flow from that. We shouldn’t be authorising illegal warrantless search with no foundation in law.

Thank you, and thank you to the member for his question. The member referred to a tabled amendment that he’s made marked “E”. I’ve not actually seen that paper myself just yet, but I do note—oh, sorry, it’s right here—that the member kept referring to “firearms protection orders” and they’re actually firearms prohibition orders (FPOs). We’re not protecting them; we’re trying to prohibit them.

💬 Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Very substantial criticism.

Well, it’s not a criticism. I actually wanted to correct—because I was going to ask whether or not you had the right wording on your tabled amendment, and I see that you do. That answers that one.

When we talk about entering a home at 3 a.m. to check on the compliance, I think we come back to the reasonableness again. Many of these people would have committed some serious crime; quite possibly a number of them would have had to have left prison before the (FPO) is placed upon them. They’re likely to be bailed, they’re likely to come under some of those conditions anyway, and, quite frankly, at the moment people on that regime are still getting door-knocked at 3 a.m. in regard to ensuring that they are where they’re meant to be.

Ensuring the compliance of having a firearms prohibition order, I think, is just. If it’s unreasonable, then there will be a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (BORA) issue with that. We need to make sure that the police can comply with or can check on the compliance of individuals with an FPO, because the regime that was enacted back in 2022 didn’t allow that. We put the firearms prohibition orders on people, but we weren’t able to check whether or not there was compliance.

The reality is, and I’ve mentioned this before, licensed firearms owners are subject to a search at any time—and they hold licences. They have been deemed to be fit and proper by New Zealand Police and yet they can enter their homes when they want and search them when they want. I don’t understand why there’s an issue with searching somebody who’s deemed to be, or have, an issue around with or using firearms illegally, also not being able to be searched in case they do have continued possession of illegal firearms. I think, on the balance of whether or not we are utilising NZ BORA 21—section 21—in the right way is actually going to come down to New Zealand Police and the way that they implement it; and the reasonableness, the belief, about it as well. I think the Justice Committee have done a good job in trying to find that balance.

At the end of the day, we want our front-line police to be kept safe. We don’t want them having firearms presented at them. We do not want our police being shot at—and it’s not the licensed firearms owners that are doing it; it’s the criminals who the judges have decided to require have a firearms prohibition order placed upon them because they have deemed that they are a danger to society with firearms. It’s so important that we give police that ability to be able to go and search those people, but to do so reasonably, because they’ll be held to account if they’re not.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It was reassuring to hear from the Minister that if there is an unreasonable search, then it will be subject to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I would take issue, however, with the Minister’s statement that it isn’t licensed firearms owners who shoot at people, because, actually, it sometimes is licensed firearms owners who shoot at people, and the Christchurch shooter was a licensed firearms owner. I think we need to be careful not to condemn or assume that people who have licences may not also be criminals or dangerous. But, to my point, I think if we have checks on unfair searches or illegal searches, we do need to know what the consequences of those are. I’d be really interested to hear what the Minister thinks would be an appropriate consequence for the situation where things go wrong, when assumptions are made and an unreasonable attempt has been made to check on someone to prosecute through this bill, because I think it’s really important that we provide not just Police but everyone with assurance that there aren’t going to be biases and there isn’t going to be targeting of particular population groups with this bill.

Understanding what that process will look like is a really key part of my question, but also understanding what the consequences of an illegal search would be for those who undertake it, so what are we thinking of there? I’m interested in what the Minister might say on that, and this is where I could refer to—I think this is the right part that we’re discussing here—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): This is the right part, and I was just thinking it might lead to the changes that you’re recommending in here that you might like to discuss.

Madam Chair, you’re reading my mind. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): It’s in my hand.

Thank you. I believe I have a pathway that I can offer the Minister that will help and give people reassurance that we’re not going to simply screen for the most vulnerable communities but we are going to apply this fairly. That is the tabled amendment—and it’s numbered (i)—that says, “In clause 14 after new section 18AA(3), page 6, after line 25, insert ‘Any person who is subject to warrantless search under subsection (1) shall be entitled to reasonable compensation if it is subsequently found that they are not subject to a firearms prohibition order.’ ”

Now, this, to me, seems like a very reasonable amendment to make, because it gives a safeguard and it will ensure that a reasonable approach is taken and that there has to be evidence, some sort of belief, rather than just a suspicion. This is what I’ve heard from the Minister, that the bill has been strengthened. There has to be a demonstration of belief. So we do need to understand that if that is there, not just a suspicion, and if it is simply a suspicion, we need some recompense for people who have been targeted. I think this amendment does that very simply and clearly and should make a difference and should ensure that it is indeed acting on a belief rather than a suspicion that will enable police to use their powers.

I encourage the Minister to consider this amendment, and, well, in fact, I think it will help improve the bill and sharpen it from our perspective. I appreciate your thoughts on the matter, Minister, in the time that remains to us.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’d just like to continue the discussion on new section 18AA, which is to be inserted in the Search and Surveillance Act by clause 14, which is the warrantless searches associated with firearms prohibition orders (FPOs). I would like to just ask the Minister: in terms of what was originally provided under the first firearms prohibition orders regime, from my recollection, that, basically, invoked section 18 of the Search and Surveillance Act, which enabled there to be—if someone had an FPO on them, it, basically, kicked in that search power. If the police suspected that someone had a firearm and that person had an FPO, that enabled the police to search, if I remember rightly.

What I’d really like to understand is this. Where this bill started off was with its search powers, and then after the select committee, where it ended up, it was looking quite close to where we were under the initial regime. It’s looking quite close, so I’d really like the Minister to spell out what the difference is between an FPO regime that invokes section 18 of the Search and Surveillance Act, and the somewhat watered-down provision now under new section 18AA, which now has the changed wording, which is “believe”. They can’t suspect that someone has an FPO; they must believe that the person has an FPO on them in order to legitimately search that person and their house, and we’re not sure about the car because the Attorney-General thinks that that might be out if there are people in the car.

I’m quite interested to know specifically what the difference is that this bill does, and I’m also really, really keen to understand how this is going to play out for operational information for police. How are we going to ensure that through operational instructions to front-line officers, we are able to make it clear to police officers where that line lies and where they’re able to act? As we’re aware, in the heat of the moment and when you’re in difficult situations on the front line, there’s a split-second decision that often gets made. While we are thankful and grateful for the great work police officers do and for that split-second decision that they need to make, I guess what I’d like to know is: what is the check when that doesn’t go well, and what is the check when there has been a search that’s not justified and there, in fact, wasn’t an FPO?

I know we’ve spoken about the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and where that kicks in, but I think it’s important that we understand that if a police officer did execute a search under new section 18AA and, in fact, the person didn’t have an FPO and we later on find that the police officer didn’t even have grounds to believe that the person had an FPO, what happens at that point in time? I think that that’s really important information to have.

Just to recap, my two main questions are: how is this new regime in terms of the warrantless search associated with FPOs—what is the material difference between that and the previous one, which invoked section 18 of the Search and Surveillance Act; and, secondly, if a police officer did execute a search without a warrant on someone and later on we find out that they did not have grounds to believe that the person had an FPO, what is the follow-up process in relation to that, I guess, wrong call, or that unwarranted search? Are there any repercussions or is there any information that would be able to be taken action on by the person who was unrightly subjected to that and wrongfully searched; and, secondly, what kind of reassurance can the Minister give us that police operational instructions will be giving a sufficient level of specificity to officers in training and on the front line to ensure that they are equipped with the right advice so that they’re not endangering themselves by executing a warrantless search without knowing where the line lies?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll address the two questions that have been asked by the member from the Greens and the member from the Labour Party.

To the first one, from the member from the Greens Scott Willis, when you initiated the five minutes that you had to talk about licensed firearms owners who also commit crimes and spoke of the heinous one that we all are aware of, that man did not have a firearms prohibition order (FPO) upon him, and this bill is about those that do have firearms prohibition orders. But what’s really, I think, quite important to note is that any licensed firearms owner that commits a crime—especially any of those 42 crimes that are within the old three-strikes regime and the new crimes that have been elected under the Misuse of Drugs Act, the Arms Act, the Psychoactive Substances Act, and, of course, the three under the Crimes Act as well—any licensed firearms owner that does commit a crime in that space is more than likely going to have a firearms prohibition order placed upon them, and then they will come under this regime.

I understand your concern and I’d just like to, I guess, advise the member that those that have current licences, licensed firearms owners, actually are kept abreast by police of the way that they behave. They come to the attention of police if they do things like get multiple speeding tickets, have a drink-driving conviction. I would argue that licensed firearms owners are actually more looked upon by New Zealand Police than any other member of society for their compliance with the law and every law in New Zealand, full stop, but once they break that law, and if they commit any serious crime punishable by one year or more, and any of those crimes that we’ve mentioned, then they are eligible for a firearms prohibition order. And, of course, that means that they cannot frequent ranges, they cannot go into retail stores that sell firearms, they can’t be around firearms or people with firearms. It would be unfortunate for them to get to that point, but that’s part of the conditions if they break those rules.

When it comes to the person that you mentioned, there’s an ongoing coronial inquiry at the moment as to how that person even obtained a licence in the first place. I think that is a completely different argument—or not even an argument, but discussion—to be had in the House in upcoming months as we look to rewrite the Arms Act. But, for the firearms prohibition orders, it’s of no relevance for this particular bill that’s going through. I just want to assure the member that should a licensed firearms owner actually break the law and commit any of those crimes, it is more than likely they will have an FPO placed upon them. And, more importantly, because they do know people with firearms and probably do have a whole lot of friend groups and associates, it is really important that we are able to allow police to monitor the compliance with that FPO on those particular people.

You ask, what is an appropriate consequence for an unreasonable search of somebody, what safeguards are in place? I’d just like to reassure the member that we currently do have some safeguards. As it mentions in the bill, the search must be for the purpose of monitoring compliance with the FPO. It’s not about looking for drugs or looking for other weapons; it’s about the compliance of the FPO. If the search is for another purpose, the search could be found to be unreasonable under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, which we have discussed. If this happened, the evidence could be deemed to be inadmissible in court and the Crown could be liable to pay damages to the person. Not only would the evidence be inadmissible for prosecution if deemed so, in circumstances where the Crown may have to pay damages—and there is already significant case law about this. The member’s tabled amendment, I believe, already reflects current law and opportunities to look for redress where it is deemed that the search has been unreasonable, or even breached the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act; we have case law already to allow for people to seek compensation.

Moving to the member from the Labour Party who was asking about section 18 and new section 18AA and the differences, people need to understand that when criminals have firearms, they tend to try and hide them; they’re not open with the fact that they have them. People with firearms prohibition orders have been identified, quite rightly, as posing a very high risk to public safety. This new search power allows for the proactive monitoring of their compliance with the conditions of the firearms prohibition orders, and those conditions can vary because the judge decides what those conditions are going to be on the individual. Under the current settings, the searches can only be conducted where police have reasonable grounds to suspect an offence has been, or is about to be, committed, and this late point of intervention limits the public safety benefits from the regime. We do not, as I mentioned earlier, want police to be getting into a situation where a firearm is being presented at them because they weren’t able to take it away when they were searching under compliance. It’s really important that we give police those tools.

When you asked about how the police are going to operate under this regime, they’re developing the guidance on how they’re going to use this new power. Police have a lot of experience in searching people, doing it in a reasonable manner, complying with the law when they do it, because if they don’t do it right in the first place, a lot of the evidence that they find will become inadmissible and we end up having criminals who were in possession of firearms potentially either using them against our front line, which is unacceptable, or getting away with it. We can’t be having that. We’ve got to support our front line here. The police will develop the operational guidance on how they will utilise this new power, new section 18AA. In all respects, I believe that we’re doing the right thing by allowing them to try and take the guns off the gangs before they’re used against our front line.

I’m going to take a call from Arena Williams, but I am starting to hear some repeat questions from Part 1. Part 2 is actually really around the amendment to the Sentencing Act, and the amendments to the Search and Surveillance Act is most of it. I’m going to be listening very carefully now to questions on those two specific things rather than go over the some of the ground that we’ve already traversed.

Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity to take my first call in this debate. I do have a few, but I want to traverse four questions in this call because I’m not confident of getting more calls with my very active spokespeople beside me who have got a number of amendments that have not yet been spoken to.

My question is about the amendments to the Search and Surveillance Act, but before I get on to that, I want to congratulate the Minister on her elevation to the role. We were colleagues on the Justice Committee that shepherded through the legislation the first time in 2021. That was a regime to introduce firearms prohibition orders. When, in fact, the previous National Government had not chosen to do so but had considered it, Labour instigated that move. Now, as my colleague Ginny Andersen has introduced, the new section 18AA amendments that the select committee have introduced bring it back to something that’s more similar to the work of the Justice Committee in the last Parliament on the firearms prohibition order (FPO) regime that Labour introduced.

The question that I have, and I’ll tease out over these four different parts, is we support on these benches law in this area which makes New Zealanders safer. I know that the Minister does too, because I have sat around the committee table where it’s been her expertise that has—she was able to come to that select committee room and raise a number of issues which were taken into account in that regime and we reported back to this House on. I want to ask her if we are moving to a situation which is more similar to Labour’s amendments to section 18 of the Arms Act; do these amendments in her view make New Zealanders safer? I think they do, but the Minister’s criticism—and this has been published as early as two days ago, on One News, I believe it was. She made the comment that Labour’s regime did not make New Zealanders safer. I want her to explain why now, with these amendments, new section 18AA will make New Zealanders safer.

I also want to ask her about her criticisms at the time of the 2021 regime about the way that the search powers given affect to in new section 18AA will affect legitimate gun owners. This is a new item here, because what I want the Minister to give us a sense of is—there were some very real concerns in 2021 about how legitimate gun owners might be subject to a warrantless search. I think the example that the Minister gave at the time was a father who is a legitimate gun owner invites his daughter and his son-in-law around for dinner, and the son-in-law is subject to an FPO. In that situation, I don’t think it would be reasonable, and we on this side of the House don’t think it would be reasonable, for a legitimate gun owner’s guns to be searched and then their entire property to be searched. Imagine that over a Sunday family dinner, especially if you’re the daughter and you’re introducing your new boyfriend to your parents for the first time. That is an incredibly invasive situation and it is an invasive situation for legitimate gun owners who do deserve protection under this bill. I want to ask her about the advice that she’s had and the moves that she has made, because she is an expert in this area, to protect the rights of legitimate gun owners in this situation that new section 18AA has introduced and has subjected them to.

The two other questions that I have are about necessary changes to two different Acts. New section 18AA introduces a new power into the Search and Surveillance Act. I want to ask the Minister whether the Intelligence and Security Act and the Privacy Act were part of her considerations and whether subsequent amendments were considered to those. The Intelligence and Security Act was something that around the same time this was introduced in 2021 Labour Ministers of the time also considered changes to, and the Justice Committee of that time considered at once things like police protection orders, which might have been what my colleague the Hon Duncan Webb was referring to there, because they are an important part of this regime—they were also considered at the time.

It’s relevant because, when you have overlapping powers of a Government, a State, whatever department it’s so exercising its powers through, reaching into the lives of individuals—and many of these individuals will not have committed any crime, will never have contemplated committing any crime—what are the powers that are engaged in the Intelligence and Security Act in the situation where new section 18AA changes the rules for police to do so, and is it necessary for the intelligence framework to take that into account?

The next question is about the Privacy Act. In 2021 the Privacy Commissioner—[Time expired] Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Really quickly—not a full call.

Thank you, Madam Chair. In 2021, the Privacy Act was something the committee considered really carefully, and amendments were considered around whether new powers for, say, a Privacy Commissioner or a reporting body might be required in a situation where you’ve got, again, people who have never committed a crime, never contemplated committing a crime; their privacy is being breached in this way.

I wanted to ask you specifically two questions which the committee that we were on considered. How will private information that has been obtained wrongfully by police when they are engaging their powers that are new under new section 18AA be dealt with? That’s private information. How will the agencies hold that? What uses will it be put to and at what point will it be deleted? Then, I also want her to consider legitimately discovered information; that’s information which is discovered in the process which is completely compliant with 18AA. How will private information of individuals be treated in that situation? I thank the Minister. I have some more questions but accept she’s got plenty to answer.

Thank you for giving me my first and probably last call on this bill, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): You’ve been very patient, I must add.

Ha, ha! My contribution might seem a little bit pedantic, but I think this is the purpose of this stage of legislation. I’m a bit concerned about new section 18AA(d): “search any [vehicles] in which the person is present and any other persons present in the vehicle whom the constable has reasonable grounds to believe are in possession of arms:”, and (f) “seize and detain any arms found.”

I’ve looked back—and I do appreciate, Madam Chair, that I’m straying a little bit into Part 1—but Part 1 defines “firearms” but it doesn’t define “arms”. Are we to take that the definition for “firearms” stands for the arms here? I think that is definitely important to get clarified, because otherwise the definition for “arms” might be overly expansive. For example, a baseball bat might in some context be considered arms, and then that could be grounds—I mean, I know we are talking about firearms, here, so I think it’d be good to have a little bit more specificity and clarification from the Minister that it is “firearms” that’s meant here.

I don’t want to ask about scenarios where it actually meant “firearms”. I noticed that the definition covers imitation firearms and any part of a firearm. For example, if there was a makeshift firearm and a component of that was a steel pipe or a trigger, would that be grounds for activating the provisions for the search under this? It does seem like a little bit of a pedantic contribution, but I do want some clarification around whether “arms” does mean firearms and whether the Minister might be open to clarify or to an amendment that kind of explicitly states that it actually does just mean “firearms”. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. To the member Arena Williams from Labour: I will try my best to answer—there was quite a lot in there. Feel free to come back if I don’t get everything. Thank you for your kind words, too—it is appreciated, because, at the end of the day, what we are trying to do is promote public safety and the safety and welfare of our front-liners as well.

You asked me why I say Labour’s regime didn’t make New Zealand safer. I only have five minutes, so I won’t go into full detail, but in relation to the firearms prohibition orders (FPOs), I think that, collectively, as a Government, we actually went about introducing a regime that has started to make New Zealand safer and that these changes just advance that even more. It’s safety for our front-liners. It’s safety for our elderly that are in their homes, answering the door, and the children that are asleep on their couches, that are being shot at by these people committing drive-by shootings, of whom my understanding is they don’t have licences and they’re in illegal possession of firearms.

You mentioned the legitimate owners and how I had queried about legitimate owners being caught up in the regime and felt satisfied at where we came to in 2021, after having those discussions and making the small amendments that we did. Keeping in mind, as I’ve mentioned earlier, the fact that licensed firearms owners are able to be searched at any time as well, under section 18 of the Search and Surveillance Act, I’m really inclined to make sure that those firearms prohibition orders placed upon them come to a similar level, if not more, of a regime of being able to be searched, because they do not have the same requirements placed upon them as the licensed firearms owners do—so getting them up there.

In regard to what happens with the information that’s being captured, that’s not covered in here. It’s not an answer that I can give you, because it’s not covered in the FPO. However, what it does say is that New Zealand Police have a regime in place anyway, about what they do with the collection of information. I would expect that they would adhere to their own operation matters in that regard.

I’ll just move to the Green member Francisco Hernandez—you asked about the firearms definition and arms definition. We have the Arms Act 1983 currently in place. We don’t call it the Firearms Act 1983. You yourself mentioned—and this is why it’s arms—that it encompasses so much. There is a definition for what is a firearm, but we also have collector items that have been made inert, for example, so they’re still arms but they’re not capable of firing. That’s a very crude way of me trying to explain, but they are still arms and the definitions are contained within the Arms Act. The Arms Act also puts controls over restricted weapons as well, so the definition is fine. When we call it “arms”, it relates to firearms, but it also relates to different types of parts, it relates to restricted weapons, it relates to things like grenades, if you like—you know, things that you wouldn’t normally think of as just being a firearm. That’s why we call it “arms” and that’s why we currently have the Arms Act 1983 instead of the Firearms Act 1983. It just encompasses a lot more, so I hope that answers that question.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to talk to another one of my tabled amendments. It’s, really, around the searching of premises. It’s marked “D”. The Minister, the Hon Nicole McKee, alluded to the fact that it is the intention of this legislation that any search exercised on premises is really only of that part of the premises that is relevant, but there’s no real test for that. This is in new section 18AA(1)(c), and once you trigger the right to search, they can search any premises in which the person is present or that the person occupies or controls. They don’t have to be there, if it’s their house—they don’t have to be there; they can just bust in. Or their business—that would be “controls” as well, or “occupies”—just bust in and have a look around. But even if it’s where they’re present—and if you think about it, there are all kinds of situations.

I think the Minister referred to a hotel or motel situation, but there are others. One which is quite common, certainly in my electorate, is boarding houses, where people have control over a small area—they might occupy common areas. You could probably, at a stretch, say they occupy common areas and they occupy and control their bedroom area. On a straight-out reading—and we can always say, “Oh, but the Bill of Rights…”, and, “You’ve got to limit the words”, but it’s really important, for someone who’s reading it, that it does what it says. That would suggest that, if there is a person with a firearms protection order in a boarding house, the police can enter the premises—and the premises is clearly the whole boarding house—and search the premises. It’s pretty much there in black and white. That’s why, in my tabled amendment, after that subsection (c)(ii), I’ve suggested we add in “may only search that part of the premises under the control of the person subject to an FPO”, because it’s only that area under the control of the person where the breach of the Arms Act, of the firearms protection order, is likely to occur.

What we don’t want—and I’m kind of cautious about saying this—is overly enthusiastic officers to think, “Well, they might have put it in their mate’s room, so let’s have a look there anyway.” I appreciate the evidence point, and just returning to the Minister’s comments on the Evidence Act and that, if evidence is illegally obtained, it can’t be used, that’s not what the Evidence Act says. The Evidence Act, in section 30, is very clear that illegally obtained evidence can be used if its probative value outweighs the prejudice of the illegal search. That’s quite unusual in many jurisdictions. New Zealand isn’t thought very highly of for that particular provision, but that’s what it says.

We know the police, by and large, do a very good job, but every so often we can have a police officer thinking, “I can search the premises, so I’ll look in this locked room of another resident of the boarding house as well.”—what do you know, they’re growing some marijuana or they’ve got a stash of meth, or whatever it might be. It’s evidence, and I am very concerned that, if we have a culture of expansive search powers that are greater than are necessary, that’s kind of giving a tacit licence for that kind of behaviour. So I suggest that we amend that to say that you can only search the area in respect of which that person has control, either immediate control if they’re there or general control if they’re absent, as in a home, their boarding house room, or whatever the case may be. I’d welcome the Minister’s comments.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’d like to ask a question under Part 2 under new section 111A, “Firearms prohibition order”. There’s two subsections—(1) and (2)—and it provides that “(1) When sentencing a specified offender, the court may make a firearms prohibition order against the offender under Part 7A of the Arms Act”. I did have an amendment up under Part 1, which I didn’t have the opportunity to speak to—but I’d just be interested, because I think it also fits here. I don’t have it here, but I’d like the Minister’s view as to whether this would strengthen the current provision in terms of public safety. My amendment was in relation to the fact that, down the line, we potentially in New Zealand could see those more high-calibre weapons, those military-style semi-automatic (MSSA) weapons. The Minister might have another term because she knows more than I do around technicalities around firearms. She may have another term, apart from MSSAs, that she prefers.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I think we’re getting into future pieces of legislation. Please relate it to the FPOs—firearms prohibition orders.

It does relate to this. I’m tying it back to this. My question would be: if there was an offender who had one of those, is there any provision, or does she think it would be a provision, of making it more stringent? When a firearms prohibition order is being made against the offender and they have had access to or fired or—whatever—got their hands on one of those weapons which is more deadly, as we know in New Zealand, has she considered there being additional provisions?

This is the first tranche of four tranches of firearms reforms, the fourth being the rewriting of the Arms Act. There must be cognisance within the Government of what the later tranches will mean when we’re writing this. What I’d like to understand from the Minister is: given the potential that there’ll be changes to the firearms registry and also changes to what weapons are able to be used on ranges down the line, what does this mean in terms of how we can make this firearms prohibition order as strong for public safety as it possibly can be? Therefore, has she taken into consideration any additional safety protections for those criminals or offenders who have accessed those more high-calibre military-style semi-automatic weapons? One possibility would be for them to be able to have harsher conditions, or they would be able to not be revoked, or they were entrenched for 10 years. Have any of those concerns or any of those potential things being raised?

I’d also like to speak to the tabled amendment proposed as “G”, which is under the name of my learned colleague the Hon Duncan Webb, and that’s to amend clause 14, new section 18AA(2). This provision proposes that it would remove the text that says “may exercise the power in subsection (1) without having reasonable grounds to suspect that any offence has been, is being, or will be committed by the person.” and replace that with “must suspect that an offence against section 42A of the Arms Act has been or is being committed by the person in order to exercise the power in subsection (1).” It’s important to note that the select committee—and it’s been acknowledged by the Minister, and I thank her for that—made some really good changes in terms of that threshold of when you suspect that someone might have an FPO. Instead of just thinking that they could have one, we’ve now moved on to say that the police officer has to believe that they’ve got some pretty good grounds that they’ve got one on them already. This amendment is really taking that vein of reasoning to say: let’s raise that as well and replace it with “must suspect that an offence against section 42A of the Arms Act has in fact has been or is being committed by the person in order to exercise the power in subsection (1).”

Just finally, I’d also just like to ask that—we know that a lot of the weapons that we’re going to be putting firearms prohibition orders on under this do come from that A category of weapons. We know that, as a weapon of choice, quite often people are accessing those alpha-carbine weapons. They’re easily cut off. They’re quite popular with the criminal fraternity. So my question would be: is there anything, in addition to what we’re doing here for public safety, that can provide for the fact that A category weapons potentially could be, in tranches down the line—[Time expired]

James Meager. Oh, he just ceded to the Hon Ginny Andersen.

That’s nice. Thank you. My question was that those A category weapons, which do include Alfa Carbines, are often around about 70 percent of the firearms seized by police which criminals are accessing.

There are views, I know—from the Minister—that those A category weapons would be excluded potentially from the firearms registry down the line. Has she taken into account that if A category firearms were excluded from the firearms registry, what the impact of that would be to this firearms prohibition order regime? And are there any additional protections for public safety that we should be considering in order to give our police that front-line safety—police have been quite vocal on this one—to make sure that the provision for those weapons that criminals are accessing are also able to be—I guess my question is: how is this working in conjunction with the firearms registry? How is this working to ensure that front-line safety is given the maximised potential, and has she taken into consideration those latter changes in the further tranches the firearms reform she’s proposing when we’re passing this legislation in relation to firearms prohibition orders?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ve got a few there to answer, but I’m just going to come back to the Green member’s question, the Green member that—oh, I can’t speak to people who aren’t here, but perhaps it could be passed on. I have a more fulsome reply. The definition of “firearm or related item” in the firearms prohibition orders (FPOs) regime is the same as the definition of “arms item” covered in the whole of the Arms Act, except “firearm or related item” also includes ammunition and imitation firearms. I suspect, once we look to do a rewrite, you might have to add 3D-printed in there somewhere as well. That sort of speaks to all of that, if you wouldn’t mind passing that on.

To the member the Hon Duncan Webb, who talked about the intention to search—and gave the example of boarding houses being occupied and controlled by an individual, and spoke of boarding rooms being occupied by other individuals who are not under the control of the person with the firearms prohibition order and was worried about them also being searched—I think that we’ve made it very clear within the legislation that it’s actually unable to happen or should not happen. In fact, it would be grounds for an unreasonable search, if indeed that did happen, because police need to specify that the search is for checking for compliance. They also need to make sure that they are only entering into the areas where that individual is. It may be their boarding room, it may be the bathroom, it may be the kitchen. I don’t think I’ve aware of many criminals who blatantly show that they are in possession of illegally held firearms—they rather go about trying to hide them—but we do need to respect the privacy of individuals that are not caught up within that regime.

Now, there could be a difference if that individual is associating with someone else in the boarding house who is part of an organised crime group or part of a gang and is known to be associating with that person and meets the criteria within the regime. That will come down to New Zealand Police at the time that they instigate their search, as to what that relationship may be and whether or not the person with the FPO is able to have quick access to that individual’s room. I’ll also note that the member the Hon Duncan Webb said that I referred to the Evidence Act. I did not refer to the Evidence Act, so I’m not taking on board what the member said there because I didn’t refer to that.

To the member the Hon Ginny Andersen, who asked questions about the amendments for public safety and an offender with what we now call prohibited firearms—they come under many categories now, quite a number of them. They’re not just what was previously noted as military-style semi-automatics but they also encompass a whole lot of other firearm types as well, so we’ll just call them prohibited firearms.

I was asked about the regime for people breaking the rules with regard to firearms. What we currently have in the legislation is that there is a penalty or an offence that could have a person imprisoned for five years, if they were indeed in possession of an illegally held firearm. If that firearm happened to be a prohibited firearm, it goes up to seven years of potential imprisonment. If there are other offences—say, they’re in possession of other types of prohibited weapons or ammunition—they face a penalty of up to two years. Now, if a licensed firearms owner sells a firearm to a person who has an FPO upon them and they’re aware that an FPO is upon them—if that firearm is a category firearm, it would be a five-year offence of potential imprisonment, and if that person sells a prohibited firearm to a person with an FPO, that is a seven-year jailable offence for that person as well.

When I’m looking at section “G”, which is about 42A—just going off the top of my head, and I might be wrong here—I think that’s what I refer to as the drive-by shooting clause. Looking at what the member’s saying about, you know, wanting to insert the word “must”, I don’t want to have our front line get to the point where they are really waiting until the last minute to try and take firearms away from these people. If they reasonably suspect that there is a firearm in a vehicle and an event’s about to take place, I don’t want them to get to the point of “Let’s wait till we get to that point.” If they think that a crime is about to be undertaken or is being planned, I’d like the police to have the ability to go and search that person with an FPO, to monitor their compliance to make sure that they are not in possession of a firearm. If anything, that also protects the person with the FPO, because it will be shown that they don’t have a firearm upon them.

At the end of the day, this is about the monitoring of the compliance of the firearms prohibition order and everything that’s placed upon them. The member the Hon Ginny Andersen also spoke to Alfa Carbines in category A, and I’ve made a very good point of notifying the committee that we have four phases that are going through. I have not spoken to what would be ruled in or ruled out at this stage, because I really want the people of New Zealand to be able to have a conversation about this. There were 250,000 people who were restricted in their time to be able to have a debate, and I think it would not be good of me to rule things in or rule things out. I think it’s a discussion that needs to be had, and that will come at the time that we produce the Arms Act rewrite for consultation.

I do understand the member’s concern around those particular types of firearms and how they are being utilised, and perhaps we need to look at how we address those ones, particularly, but I also think we need to have a look at technology advances in New Zealand and also really just modernise the Arms Act overall, so that public safety is adhered to but we also have the tools in the toolbox to make sure that the Arms Act is fit for purpose as things, technology, etc., modernise around us. I look forward to having that discussion when we go through the Arms Act rewrite, and, ultimately, look at the public safety outcomes that we can achieve together across the House.

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. 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 to 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. 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—is the boarding house example and the hotel example; that’s why it’s “occupies or controls” or “is present”. We wanted to have the ability, 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. That was 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. 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.

Thank you, Madam Chair. To the member, the chair of the Justice Committee, you summed it up very, very well and also quite correctly, especially the point around the fact that the ownership of a property had been removed from the original draft for reasons that you just suggested, which is a person may own a property and be actually renting it out to somebody else; it does not mean that they should be able to go in there and search for firearms. This is about the person with the firearms prohibition order, not their property but the ability for New Zealand Police to be able to search their premises where they occupy and control certain areas. I may have actually been misrepresenting there, on reflection, a person who could be staying in the boarding house, that is an associate of a gang member, also being searched. That would only occur if they actually had a firearms prohibition order upon them as well. My apologies for the error in what I suggested there and my thanks to the chair of the Justice Committee for seeking clarification on those points.

While I’m on my feet, I’ve just been given some information for the member Arena Williams, who asked me some questions earlier about the Privacy Act and the collection of information and what happens to that information. I’m advised that the interplay of the Privacy Act, in regards to information that is obtained by police when searching and how long that information can be kept, is actually already within legislation. Information privacy principle number 9 in the Privacy Act provides that an agency “must not keep that information for [any] longer than is required for the purposes for which the information may lawfully be used.” They must get rid of the information if it’s no longer required in order for them to make their prosecution.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, looking at new section 18AA(1)(a), (b), (c)—particularly (c) provides for a constable without a warrant who has reasonable grounds to search any premises. Now, thinking about the type of premises that police may be concerned about where people are possessing firearms and are the type of people that these firearms prohibition orders (FPOs) are intended to control, in the past 24 hours, a judge has ordered the Head Hunters to forfeit cash and property, including the Head Hunters’ prized pad in Marua Road, Ellerslie, in Auckland.

Minister, I would hope that a constable who has reasonable grounds to believe a person is subject to an FPO or who meets the test—say, for example, if they were visiting the Head Hunters’ former pad now, in Marua Road, Ellerslie, or their new branch that they’ve opened in Glenfield on the North Shore—a constable who has reasonable grounds to believe a person is subject to an FPO made before, on, or after the commencement of the section may search those premises without a warrant, may search any people they find there, and may search anything in that person’s possession or under that person’s control. One thing I do know about these gang pads: that’s where they accumulate a whole lot of big flash utes; very, very expensive motorcycles and parts; and that sounds just like the kind of place where people would want to secrete firearms, particularly those people involved in organised crime.

I’m interested, Minister, would that type of premises—a known Head Hunters gang pad—be the kind of premises which a constable would have reasonable grounds to go and search? And a further question, Minister: what would be the options available to police should they be searching the gang pad, find a person there who was subject to an FPO, and while searching for weapons turned up some of the other things that Head Hunters and these gang members are often known to be storing or possessing or using in the gang pad? Minister, what options would be available to the police if they were to find drug-using paraphernalia like the old glass pipe or a glass bong, I think, as was raised earlier in the Chamber this evening, or drugs themselves, Minister?

I’m wondering, firstly, would that type of premises be one of the premises that a constable who had reasonable grounds would be able to search without a warrant, and what options would be available to the officers should they find other contraband or other materials that people there were not lawfully entitled to possess, Minister?

Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you to the member for your question, and I guess it’s one that everybody at home really wants to know: what happens when a gang pad has been searched, and if a person with the FPO happens to be there? Well, that’s going to be determined upon why the gang pad is being searched in the first place, because there’s a difference here from being searched, looking for certain things, and monitoring the compliance of a person with a firearms prohibition order. If the police decide that they are going to turn up to the gang pad because there is a person with them in residence at that gang pad, then they have the ability to go in there and to search that gang pad. Should they find firearms there, then the person with the FPO placed upon them has committed an offence, even if there happens to be a legitimate licensed owner also residing at that pad. One of the main conditions about an FPO is a person should not be anywhere near firearms, including around firearms where there are legitimate owners and those firearms are not locked up or there’s not been a variation to the firearms prohibition order in the first place.

In answer to the second part of the member’s question around what if police go in there and they find other things, they find drugs—they might find stolen vehicles—the reality is police do have the ability to seize such items and also consider prosecution of such items when they’re carrying out that search. What’s really important is that they’re not there to look for those things; they’re there to monitor compliance with the FPO that has been placed on that person and the conditions that have been placed on that person. But, if they happen upon other illegally held substances, as the case may be, then they can seize and they can prosecute for that as well. In fact, there is a process within the regime where a person with an FPO, having committed further offences, can have that FPO changed, where it may start again—the 10 years may start again—or there could be other variants placed on that person such as not being able to reside at that certain place.

The options are there, and at the end of the day, I think what it’s important to remember is that it’s not going to be New Zealand Police that place the firearms prohibition orders on individuals; they need to apply to the court and a judge will place it, along with variations. I actually recall the member Arena Williams asking me what about somebody going home, for example, and they’re around family members that have firearms. There is the ability for a variation to be made in the firearms prohibition orders so that, say, anybody that has one—maybe it’s a gang member—who needs to attend a tangi of a loved one or a close one, they can actually apply to the court for a variation. They can spend up to two days in a residence—it could be a family member who has a firearms licence—as long as they adhere to the conditions such as the securing of their firearms. That person may be able to attend at that house for two days as well as overnight, if need be, so that we do ensure that families are not pulled apart by the regime, but there is the ability to ensure that they don’t have easy access to firearms as well.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Minister, the Hon Nicole McKee, thank you. That was a very helpful and enlightening explanation about how this is likely to work.

Just coming back to new section 18AA, warrantless searches associated with a firearms protection order, I’m interested, when you got to that point in describing, in terms of new section 18AA(1)(f), whether any arms found that were seized and detained, given the fact that somebody who is under a firearms protection order may be visiting the home of or premises of somebody who has firearms legitimately and the police do have the power to seize and detain any arms found—

💬 Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Is this in scope?

Well, in fact, to the member of the Green Party who’s asking whether this is in scope, I’d just like to refer the member to new section 18AA(1)(f), which says, “A constable, who has reasonable grounds to believe”—not “suspect”; that’s been lined through—“that a person is subject to an FPO made before, on, or after the commencement of this section, may, without a warrant”—for the member’s benefit—“do any or all of the following”—new content added here—“for the purpose of checking whether the person is complying with the conditions of the FPO:”, they may, if they do discover arms, in terms of new section 18AA(1)(f), “seize and detain any arms found.”

What I’m interested in, and it may well be of interest to members of Labour and the Green Party in the Chamber tonight who may be licensed firearms owners, who may possess their own firearms for lawful purposes like hunting—I don’t know about you, Mr Chair, but I have a good friend who used to work for Forest & Bird and when I said, “What is it that Forest & Bird does? What kind of conservation work do you do?”, she told me that conservation is all about killing, and I’m assuming she means, in large parts, by licensed firearms owners using their firearms lawfully with the right permits.

💬 Steve Abel: That’s certainly the Government’s view of conservation, isn’t it?

I don’t know how the member Steve Abel thinks he’s ever going to control pests and enhance and restore New Zealand biodiversity without killing some of the pests.

For the enlightenment of the committee, for those members of the public listening, maybe on 882AM or watching on Parliament TV, I’m wondering, would the Minister be able to explain, for the benefit of all of us, what might happen to firearms that were seized and detained if somebody under a firearms protection order was on a premises and those firearms that were seized and detained were held by a licensed firearms owner, and may well even be stored, we would hope, in a safe manner? I am sure that the licensed firearms owner, whether they knew or didn’t know that the person on their property was under a firearms protection order, would want to know that they can get their firearms back at some point after police have satisfied themselves of the licensed firearms owner’s bona fides and that they were still a fit and proper person, and so on.

Minister, I am sure that many people, particularly licensed firearms owners and those who know that conservation is all about killing—and that’s one of the things firearms are used for—would really love to hear what the Minister might be able to enlighten the committee with. Thank you, Minister.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Thank you. In answer to the ACT member’s question, a licensed firearms owner has certain obligations, and one of the main obligations is to keep their firearms secured. A question that—

💬 Hon Dr Duncan Webb: You can’t filibuster your own bill, Minister.

I actually think it’s quite an important question that he’s asked, which is: if a person with a firearms prohibition order (FPO) attends at a firearms owner’s home and the firearms owner does not know that they have an FPO, could their firearms be seized?

Now, that’s going to become an operational issue for New Zealand Police at the time, but the reality is, if those firearms are not secured at the time that police attend the home where the person with an FPO is, I would suggest it’s more than likely that a firearm would be seized. The onus would also be on police to determine that that individual knew or was aware that an FPO was placed on the individual that was in their home. Now, the same could be said if a person attended a retail shop. How does the retailer know that a person with a FPO has walked into their premises if they don’t know that that person actually has an FPO?

That’s going to come down, again, to the operational manner of New Zealand Police and the investigation as to the knowledge of the other individual—whether they knew that that person had an FPO or not. Now, if it’s determined that they did know, then I think there would be dire consequences for the licensed firearms owner, but we need to make sure that, if a person did not have any knowledge that there was an FPO on the person that’s come into the premises, there should be a way of police being able to determine that knowledge or not. If they did know and they had unsecured firearms in their premises, then I expect that they would feel the full force of the law.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I note that there have been a number of amendments moved—

💬 Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Point of order, Mr Chairperson. Thank you, Mr Chair. I would like to get some clarification from the Chair and just some guidance, because this is my first time doing something like this. Previously, if we were doing something like this, it would be considered to be repetition or out of scope, so I just want to get some clarification from the Chair on how to balance that.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Dr Xu-Nan, I realise that it would appear that the world has tipped itself upside down in the Chamber, as it stands. However, I am prepared that the questions being asked by the member are new-ish—

💬 Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Thank you, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): —but I’ll be looking carefully.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I think it’s important that the committee does have a chance to debate this, and I do invite the member Lawrence from Te Pāti Kākāriki to participate in the debate—

💬 Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Lawrence Xu-Nan.

—thank you, Dr Webb—and maybe offer some constructive criticism on the bill, because we’re here to improve the legislation. Is that not right, members? We’re here to improve the legislation.

I want to get to the next clause, Minister. We’re still on Part 2, “Amendments to other Acts”, but this one to the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 is a proposed change under clause 14, which is inserting new section 18AA, “Warrantless searches associated with firearms prohibition orders”. It says that “(1) A constable, who has reasonable grounds to believe that a person is subject to an FPO”, and, coming down to subclause (2), it says that “A constable may exercise the power in subsection (1) without having reasonable grounds to suspect that any offence has been, … or will be committed by the person.”

Minister, I’m assuming that that means that simply by virtue of the fact that a person subject to a firearms prohibition order who is otherwise going about their lawful business is regarded by the authority that issues the FPO—firearms prohibition order—that person is such a risk that they shouldn’t be allowed near firearms, whether or not they’re committing any other offence at the time, and I’m wondering if some of these people that the FPOs are meant to apply to are perhaps people that we might be afraid to walk down a dark alley at night and meet them. I’m wondering if some of these people may be—to quote Kahurangi Carter from Te Pāti Kākāriki, who would agree. Some of the people that we might need to be afraid of—just to quote the member. I want you to ask yourself: would you rather be walking down—

💬 Laura Trask: It was Hūhana.

Well, actually, I’m just seeking clarification from my colleague here—and maybe the member would like to reply. I want you to ask yourself: would you rather be walking down a dark alley and see a patched member or a police officer? For many people in New Zealand, they’d feel safer alone with a patched member than with the police, and we need to ask ourselves why. Well, we certainly need to ask ourselves why a member of the New Zealand Parliament would think that New Zealanders need to feel unsafe around police officers when compared to the level of unsafety that a patched gang member might present to a member of the public.

Minister, given that some of the people subject to an FPO may well be patched members, is it likely that a patched member subject to an FPO, whether or not they’re committing an offence, will in fact be committing an offence by being in a premises, in a vehicle, or in a place where firearms are present and they might have access to them? If that’s the case, who is more dangerous, Minister: a patched gang member who might be subject to an FPO or a police officer doing their duty; and if that police officer was walking down a dark alley and there was a patched gang member there who was subject to an FPO and there were firearms present in that dark alley, who should the many people in New Zealand be more afraid of: the patched gang member who is subject to an FPO and is in the presence of firearms—

💬 Steve Abel: Is this serious?

—or the police officer? Well, I’m just interrogating, Mr Steve Abel from Te Pāti Kākāriki, this concept, as proposed by Kahurangi Carter of the Green Party, that New Zealanders would feel safer alone with a patched member than with police. If this scenario occurred, where there was a patched member subject to an FPO in a dark alley with firearms available to them—not necessarily in their possession, but available to them—and a police officer went to carry out a warrantless search under the updated, new section 18AA, would that gang member be committing an offence, Minister, if they were in the dark alley with the firearms and were subject to an FPO?

I intend to answer only the question that related to this bill, and it was a question at the beginning, where the member asked about whether or not the police were able to search a person based on whether or not they thought an offence had been committed.

The whole purpose of this particular regime is to give police the tools to be able to monitor the compliance of the firearms prohibition order that’s been placed on an individual. It’s not about looking for other crimes, it’s not about looking for other offences, and it’s not about looking for drug paraphernalia. It’s about looking to ensure that the person with the FPO is complying with the regime that’s been placed upon them, and that is the only reason why police can use these search powers as designed in new section 18AA. It’s to be able to monitor the compliance of the FPO, regardless of whether a person is down an alleyway or not.

I move that debate on this matter be brought to a close.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that debate on this question—[Interruption] Actually, I’m sorry—just to point out, that’s not quite the right words.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to delete clause 14 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 14 inserting new section 18AA(1)(ca) be agreed to.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 14 replacing words in new section 18AA(1) be agreed to.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 14 amending new section 18AA(2) be agreed to.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question is that Scott Willis’ tabled amendment to clause 14 inserting new section 18AA(4) be agreed to.

Amendment not agreed to.

Part 2 agreed to.

💬 Simon Court: The Ayes have it—let’s have a party vote.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): A party vote is called for. Please conduct a party vote.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chair. You can’t be given the vote and call for a party vote. It’s well established to be in breach of the Standing Orders to call for a vote when the Chair has given you the question.

💬 Hon Members: Speaking to the point of order.

I’ll take a little advice on this before I speak to any points. There is a Speakers’ ruling that if you’ve voted for an amendment or for a vote question, then you can’t call for a party vote.

💬 Simon Court: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Well—

💬 Simon Court: I’m not seeking to challenge your ruling.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): What has been explained to me is the fact that, if I’ve called the vote for the Ayes, which the member voted for—you can only ask for a party vote if you disagree with that. But I’ll hear your point.

Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s a point of order. I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.

💬 James Meager: Point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Is it a full moon tonight?

Point of order, Mr Chair. I wondered whether the personal explanation was to do with some of the proxy votes that ACT carried and whether they can call for party votes on behalf of proxies.

Well, I’m sorry, but leave has been sought and leave has been denied, so we’ll carry on.

Clauses 1 and 2