Statutes Amendment Bill

Members, we come to Part 36, the debate on clauses 151 and 152, “Amendment to Search and Surveillance Act 2012”. The question is that Part 36 stand part.

I did have a read of the Search and Surveillance Act, and this just looks like a clear drafting error; because there’s not going to be many situations where someone who has had their house searched and a weapon seized is then asked, “Can we destroy your weapon?”, and they consent and say, “Go for it.” I get that.

My question is this: have we been destroying weapons that have been seized without the consent of a person from whom they were seized, in breach of the section to date; or have we been, kind of, recognising parliamentary intent rather than parliamentary words and destroying weapons, in breach of the section?

I think that question is for the Minister that handles the Search and Surveillance Act. I’m here to talk about the Statutes Amendment Bill, and replacing “does not within 30 days consent” with “does not within 30 days object” is merely what we’re doing here. The process of whether or not firearms or weapons are destroyed actually belongs to the Minister of Police, to answer that question.

Part 36 agreed to.

Part 37 Amendments to Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Act 2004