Belich CamillaCAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you Madam Chair for the opportunity to keep debating Part 3. I have to say I have noted that Part 3 is quite a significant part of this bill and goes up to clause 26 and I feel there's a number of them that haven't been touched on yet. So the motions that we move on or that the debate end I think are very premature. I also note the Minister hasn't answered my questions in relation to clause 9(1)(b). But I don't want to talk about that any more. I want to move on to another part of the bill which I feel also needs to be addressed.The Minister accused my colleague Dr Duncan Webb of lacking an imagination. It's not a way I would describe Dr Webb and I wanted to perhaps draw the Minister's attention and utilise his imagination. In clause 9(3) which I believe hasn't been discussed yet which is looking at whether this is in fact workable—and I know that this has been brought up as a potential criticism of this bill—but I would like the Minister to engage in whether it is in fact workable. Because from my reading all that people would be able to do to avoid a dispersal notice under the overall area of clause 9 given subclause (3) is to invite members to attend something which is for a point of view cause or campaign in a public place. Inviting people to a protest for Toitū Te Tiriti could be a cause that if any gang member or group of gang members decided to put that sign up and say that was the reason we're gathering then surely no dispersal notice could ever be granted. And that's not to say that people would necessarily do that when that wasn't the cause but it would be almost impossible to ascertain if that was indeed true. It could be used for many other different causes. I think that in this respect it does appear to be very unworkable from a practical perspective.Additionally moving on to clause 10 the service of the dispersal notice has limb after limb of different expectations that constables have that they must fulfil in order to proceed on to the next section. And I haven't worked a lot in criminal law but I have had some experience when I was a very young lawyer and it appears to me that there are fishhooks everywhere here in terms of the actual workability of this legislation. I mean just to take one example in clause 10(2) there is an expectation that the constable requests that the person give them their email address or other method of serving electronically which I imagine is an electronic address but presumably in the future could include some other forms of address which are not specified in this piece of legislation. But if that does not occur then that person may accompany the constable to the police station.Then moving on to clause 11. If that person again refuses we then end up in a situation where there are ever increasing penalties for noncompliance. And if you think about someone who's wrongly caught up in this legislation—which I think is what we're afraid of. We're not afraid of making sure that gangs are less intimidating. We're not afraid of challenging situations where gangs seek to intimidate. What we're afraid of is people going about their legitimate normal activities and being caught by this piece of legislation and ending up with a significant fine; which in my experience people who are already vulnerable to being involved in the justice system often may not pay. And then what goes on from that is we end up with the very unjust situation for people who are wrongly connected with this.So I would like actually the Minister to answer my first question. I would like him to talk about how clause 9(3) is in fact workable from a practical sense because it doesn't appear to be workable to me to achieve this bill's aims. And I would also like him to expand on how he thinks someone who is—[Time expired]