Leary Ingrid; Pugh MaureenINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you Madam Chair. I have a number of questions which I'll keep really short to also make the point that the practicalities of this is really difficult. One of the issues that I have is in Part 3 clause 9 when it talks about a gang member;" or "3 or more gang members" and I know when I go to the definition that that includes prospecting gang members.One of the phenomena that we have seen—certainly in communities that I know—in Auckland is young people who are being groomed to be gang members who may not actually realise that they are being groomed. This is a real phenomenon; it is sort of uncles taking them for boxing classes and so on really just ingratiating themselves to the family while perhaps the father is in prison. Those young people would not consider themselves to be prospecting and yet a police officer at an event under section 9 may look at that young person and say they are prospecting. So my question to the Minister on that is whether that young person for the purposes of this Act is a prospector or not.Then when it says about dispersing the activities of other members of the public my second question is: does that include family members of the gang members? So if for example there was a ruckus happening and the people that were being affected were whānau members at say a public gathering—it might be a Christmas party or whatever; it wasn't mainstream—would a constable come in and say that is disturbing some of those other members? Would it apply in that case?My third question is in relation to the really problematic clause 9(3) which talks about the "primary purpose" and the political things that could be happening and the decision that somebody has to make about what the primary purpose of the gathering is. Now my question is: is that a subjective or objective test? Is it a reasonableness test? Or is it a little bit more like the criminal case where say for example if one was to put some bombs on a plane in order to blow up the plane when it's in mid-air to get insurance and yet it is completely reasonably foreseeable that everybody on the plane would die would that be manslaughter or murder? The intention is there for insurance purposes but that would be seen as murder.Now if I apply the same logic for this in whose mind is the primary purpose? Is it the primary purpose of the gang members of the reasonable person on the—what is it omnibus?Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Clapham omnibus.INGRID LEARY: Clapham omnibus? Is it the person who is the constable who is making the determination? And what happens for example at a tangi? Where we've seen some of the dispersal type of rationale used to say a tangi has got out of hand. Now nobody in in my mind would question that the primary purpose that has caused people to come into town and to gather would be a tangi. If that got out of hand then arguably this "primary purpose" section doesn't work. So that is my question to the Minister.The last question I have is around requiring somebody to go to the police station and I'm just wondering whether he has turned his mind to the safety of the officers in that? How is that going to be operationalised? Is a constable going to require somebody to come into a police vehicle? Are they going to require them to walk down? What happens? What is the Crown's liability if somebody is requiring a gang member to come down and due care hasn't been followed? Like what kind of advice has he sought to make sure that this is workable for the police who might not be able to issue that dispersal notice on the spot and has to very delicately and politely ask a gang member to come down to the police station with him?I'd also say in that example it would be really good again to go back to the young prospector who may not consider themselves to be being prospected but the officer may think they are. Would they be required to go down to the police station as well? Has the Minister thought about the age ramifications on that; whether it is safe to bring young people down when there is a question over whether they're prospecting or not?There's a lot of devil in the detail on this and it feels completely unworkable to us. I think the more the Minister can clarify in these scenarios exactly what will happen the more confidence particularly the police will have that this terrible piece of legislation could actually have some validity. Otherwise it really does seem like a terrible piece of lawmaking.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members I'm hearing quite a bit of repetition. I'm just looking for some new material in the coming speeches."