Webb DuncanHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Madam Chair. After that sweeping speech by Rawiri Waititi I'll want to dig down into the detail of it. I have a number of Amendment Papers and I'm just going to crack into them because I just would like to see as many answered as the Minister of Justice can. The first is around service. My Amendment Paper f" suggests that clause 10 should simply read "A dispersal notice must be served by personal service." because this idea of serving a notice by email is deeply problematic—even just the technical point right? The question is this: is an email notice served when the officer presses send on his device or when it arrives in the inbox? Now that might sound like—isn't that the same thing? And the answer is absolutely not. We've got an Electronic Transactions Act that deals with this very problem and it says that something is delivered only when it enters the information system of the recipient.So my question in respect of service is if we're going to have this email service does the email have to be successfully sent and enter the information system of the recipient? Otherwise it would be like saying a notice was served when it was put in the postbox but never delivered into the homeowner's letterbox. That can't be right.The other thing is this: there are so many things that can go wrong with email service. The officer might type in the wrong email address. You've got to remember the whole idea about this is you've got this gathering which is unruly might have had a few beers might not be entirely happy to be giving their details to a police officer. Now how can we be sure that the person is then going to disperse go back to a home—perhaps have a few more beers let's face it—and actually open their Gmails.So I get it. I get that the officers don't like paper. They don't want to have to go to the car and get out a clipboard and a carbon copy form and write out things. But let's just be clear about this and we looked at this in select committee: there is no other situation where you're given a notice by email and if you don't comply with it you can go to jail. There's nothing—nowhere in the law. The nearest we get is speeding infringements which are an infringement notice which trigger an obligation to pay or to turn up in court and defend it. And if you have to turn up in court you're going to get a summons—a summons delivered to you; served on you. So my Amendment Paper looks to get rid of email service because it's utterly unreliable unrealistic and doesn't meet the kind of seriousness requirement.The other point I have is around clause 11A—and I'm going to keep going on so that the Minister can respond to more than one—and that's the idea of a duty to explain. This was added at select committee. It's a good thing. And obviously if there's an obligation to explain it must have some impact. But clause 11A(3) says "A failure to comply with the section does not affect the validity of the dispersal notice." So you've got an obligation to explain but if you don't do it it doesn't matter. What's that going to do? What incentive does that give to an officer to explain properly what this dispersal notice means? Because they can just utterly ignore it and all of the legal implications fall on it anyway. So my amendment paper "g" says get rid of that because yes we need a duty to explain. If you're going to email someone a notice and it's going to have a very significant impact on their human rights—their right to associate—and very significant consequences if they breach it then absolutely you should have to say "Look chum listen carefully. This is a serious matter. Here's what's going to happen now. You've got to disperse and you've got to not associate with these other two or three people for seven days. Do you understand?" You absolutely need to have that explanation and if you don't give it the dispersal notice should be of no effect because you haven't told them what it's about."