Andersen GinnyHon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I just wanted to get a bit of further detail about how someone can challenge a dispersal notice. I think this is really important because these are not administered or laid by a court; so you don't have a right of appeal or any way to challenge that. If a person has received one of these dispersal notices and they believe that they're not a gang matter or furthermore it wasn't a fair issuing of that notice what is the process for having that revoked? It does really reflect the fact that it is a police officer and that they're a short duration of time and a review would need to be completed pretty quickly.It's important there is a review mechanism to enable citizens to have an opportunity to remove that dispersal notice in a timely manner if they quite clearly believe that those grounds weren't met. There is obviously a degree of operational discretion in place there when they're making those determinations but I would really like some reassurance from the Minister that while revocations must be determined by the commissioner within 72 hours—we know that but there's not really any further detail about how that might operate. Once the alleged gang member who is illegally dwelling somewhere has been issued with one of these what happens if they're not a gang member and they were in fact just chilling or they were with two people not three? What are those situations? And what are the natural justice grounds for someone who's been issued with one of these who honestly believes that it was not a fair situation?I think it's important that there is clear understanding of how this is going to be implemented. And I note that in the regulatory impact statement it does state that there is a risk that it could be quite a significant resource burden on Police if you were implementing some kind of appeal mechanism. These are being made as easy as possible to lay on somebody but it doesn't seem quite so clear what the process is for retracting one if it was not done in the right way.The second point I'll make in this call is that in this analysis here there are three options and the preferred option to progress from officials who did all of this work is to stick with the status quo. And I think it's important that we mention that; the recommended advice from officials is to stick with what we're doing now because it's working. And the current approach with the transnational organised crime strategy and also resilience to organised crime in our communities—that long-term way of reducing organised crime—will have a long-term effect on reducing gang membership in a far more effective way than dispersing people and driving them underground and effectively just doing this cosmetic stuff.They list out the changes that have occurred in the past few years that actually enable Police to have more tools in their kit to do these things. There have been changes in terms of the criminal activity intervention legislation that provide those increased search powers over a 14-day period when there are inter-gang tensions and even violence. The fact that there has been a whole range of programmes—and I just want to read out one part because I think this is really important: making the above distinction may be more effective at improving public confidence in the long term … Targeting gangs as groups—including where their conduct is not harmful—is likely to have minimal impact. This is because the majority of the public have little or no contact with gang members and policing non-harmful conduct will not address those high-visibility instances of serious crime that cause people to feel unsafe." I'd like the Minister to respond to that because I think those are wise words."