Andersen Ginny; Goldsmith PaulHon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you Mr Chair. I've got a number of questions about Part 1 of this bill but really I'm quite interested to understand—and Dr Webb has touched on it—the part where you're providing notification. So in terms of the purpose of the Act listed in clause 3 is (b) providing for the issue of dispersal notices to stop gang members from gathering in public places:" This is the part that the committee really struggled with to try and understand how the practicalities of this bill were going to play out.Let's say it's Timaru and there are 10 gang members in the main street and they're intimidating some local people and a police officer has gone up to them and required them to remove their patches and disperse. Correct me if I'm wrong—but I think this is right. So when the officer is issuing a dispersal notice to that group of gang members to issue the notice he will ask them first for a service address which would be an email. And if they're unable to provide that email then the officer will offer for them to accompany him or her to the station to print off the notice in order for it to be served.The issue here was that the penalty for breaching that dispersal notice would be five years in prison. The committee really struggled to find another example even in similar jurisdictions where something that's potentially not been even served—if those two things don't work and it's just verbal—is then followed by a penalty of a five-year period of imprisonment. How is that going to work?The other point that I'd really like the Minister's view on is in and around the police ability to know that the same person has breached it. I assume they're probably going to take a photo or a video. But what if there's a situation where those eight members down the main street of Timaru have been told to remove their patches and disperse and have been issued with a dispersal notice whether it's via their Yahoo email address or coming to the station but then the next day a couple of them are back again? So they've breached it.So my question is: how do we know—and I'm sure this will be tested in the courts in time—that in fact that same person is the person who is back and who has breached it? And what's the evidence or how will the police demonstrate that it is in fact a breach when they return to that point?I understand that they're not only not allowed to come back to that point for seven days—I think that's the way the dispersal notice works—but that they're also not allowed to associate with each other. So what happens if they go to someone's flat for dinner? Is it out too? I'm just wondering how that's going to be practically worked through to make sure that it's a breach of the dispersal order when they're front of the court for a five-year prison term. How is the prosecution able to demonstrate that it was in fact that particular person who breached it? And similarly if they do go round to each other's house for a cup of tea or to play PlayStation how will police be policing the practicalities of those gang members or associates or prospects—I understand it applies to them as well—who may go around to each other's houses in that seven-day period?I think it's important that the public know these answers because with this legislation what's actually being created is an expectation within New Zealanders that if anyone sees someone walking around with a gang patch on then a police officer will make them take it off. And so there will be an expectation that any gang member walking around people will be calling the police saying " I just saw a gang member. Come and get him. Or her." Also if there is one police officer and a group of gang members members of the public will be looking towards that police officer to intervene and remove the gang patches from them.So I'm also interested to know if the Minister has any kind of public awareness campaign in mind to inform the people of New Zealand as to how this particular law will be enforced when they can expect police officers to be enforcing it and in order to manage their expectations about the type of law enforcement that is practically able to be exercised particularly given some parts of New Zealand have more police officers than others.Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): The member has gone into a great deal of detail in relation to the detail of how the dispersal notice regime will work which is absolutely appropriate for discussion during the debate on Part 3 which will be coming up. In terms of the preamble and the preliminary considerations in Part 1 the purpose of all this is to reduce the ability of gangs to operate and to cause fear intimidation and disruption to the public by providing the issue of dispersal notices. The purpose of these notices as outlined at the start is to provide the police with an extra tool to be able to issue these dispersal notices—maybe by email; more likely in person with a piece of paper and issuing that notice. That's the purpose of it. The purpose is to stop situations such as we saw or to provide the police with tools to use at their discretion in different circumstances to deal with situations such as when gangs take over an entire township in a huge bike cavalcade and remove the ability of law-abiding citizens to go around their normal business without fear and intimidation."