Xu-Nan LawrenceDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. I have a question of clarification from the Minister regarding the definition. There are a number of questions I have around the interpretation clause 4 of Part 1. So the first one I would like to ask from the Minister is with regard to the definition of immediate family. Now in subclause (a) and (b) in terms of immediate family (b) lists a whole list of what could be considered immediate family; however I would like to draw the Minister's attention on (a) which is around culturally recognised".So when we're looking at the term "immediate family" one of the few instances that then comes up later in the legislation which I'm sure we will get to at some point is around clause 15(a) which is around "A dispersal notice may not prevent any … persons". So going back to the definition of immediate family I wanted to know from the Minister how would one define "culturally recognised" and more importantly who would be the kind of person that determines what is considered to be culturally recognised when it comes to dispersion? So the reason I ask this is because for me for example as Chinese we consider immediate family to be much broader than just spouse child immediate siblings. My first cousins are intimately part of my immediate family but are not one of the listed possibilities. So in this case whether cousins would be considered as culturally recognised. And the reason I ask this is because of the key word that links between subclause (a) and subclause (b) which is "and". So I wanted to know whether both could exist at the same time as an and/and situation. In which case would subclause (b) be non-exhaustive as a list which it is not clearly indicated. So if we're able to first of all have that clarification from the Minister that'll be very much appreciated.In addition to that in terms of the definition of immediate family I alluded to the fact that when we are looking at that and what is considered culturally recognised let's paint a scenario of a family having a family gathering in a public place. And a constable gets there and then says that the dispersal notice needed to be issued but then realised later that this actually falls under the criteria of immediate family would then the constable in that situation need to actually approach the family and ask each of the members what their relationship is with each other whether that would fulfil under the requirement of immediate family in which case a dispersal notice would not be issued? So if that is the case when they go around to ask the relationship with immediate members you're going to get situations where yes there is going to be people who are going to be spouses there are going to be children there are going to be siblings and there may potentially be what would be considered under some cultures broader family connections like first cousins like second cousins but within the context of that particular whānau within the context of that particular grouping they're considered to be immediate family members.So in this case when we're looking at asking that question and the constable having a chance to speak to the group and asking those kind of questions whether the constable will then be satisfied at the response from the family at face value or there is going to be more in terms of documentation that needs to be produced as a part of that. So the two questions that I would like to clarify from the Minister is number one how would one determine culturally recognised in the context of the definition of immediate family and two when the event happens who will then determine whether they have achieved the definition of immediate family?"