Lyndon HūhanaHŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Tēnā koe Madam Chair. I'm just wanting to address Part 3 and ask the Minister a few questions in relation to the powers to issue dispersal notices.Following on from my colleague in Labour I definitely worry about the impact that this will have on whānau on tamariki and on the ability for that person to feel connected into the wider community particularly when I was looking at clause 9 Power to issue dispersal notices" subclause (1)(b) it is upon the shoulders of the police officer at the time "to believe that the issue of the notice is necessary to avoid disrupting activities of other members of the [public]." Now that can be up for debate in terms of what these occasions are. Gang members might be at a local rugby game for JMB supporting their children and if you have three gang members there and they just happen to maybe have a "heads up" or a "Mangu Kaha" and their children are running around with Rippa Rugby is their mere presence intimidating or are recognising that they are members of a community and their babies are playing JMB? So do the police have to act every time that they see three or more gang members in a public place? I would argue that we need some common sense in the way that police are empowered in this legislation but also to exercise caution.Further in clause 9(2) we see that the dispersal notices don't even have to happen at the time. So they could be after the gathering. Is it an assumption that the police officer will see said gang members doing whatever they're doing—they might be just chilling or walking down the street—and the police officer has to follow those individuals to issue that notice? Or how do you even know that they were the original gang members in the first place? Some of our communities are quite large and then others are quite small. Again as per previous contributions there is worry for the individual police officer who might be the sole officer in that community whether it be Kuhukuhu Kaiaua Ōpōnoni or Whangaruru. So those are some things there in terms of that burden on the police officer and also their judgment.Further in terms of the prohibition orders of five years that's quite taimaha that's quite a heavy burden again for the individual for over a five-year period not to associate with their whanaunga with gang affiliations. So I'm wanting to unpack that really in terms of what considerations has the Minister taken into account for the tamariki the mokopuna the wider whānau and these individuals who might be under a prohibition order to be able to operate and function within their whānau community.Understanding also that there's an acknowledgment that there's been no consultation with Māori on the proposal of this bill. So Māori being the most impacted people by this legislation have not been consulted or engaged with. Instead officials said that they consulted with themselves and other Government agencies to analyse the proposal against the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the Crown's obligations. So if the Minister can also share what he views in terms of how the Crown through this legislation are upholding their obligations to Te Tiriti o Waitangi with this legislation here—CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I remind the member that we are up to Part 3.HŪHANA LYNDON: Yes yes. Te Tiriti is etched right through this legislation. There is compliance right through.We are going to place the burden of making these judgments on police officers in our community. Are the police officers going to be trained in a relevant way that they will know how to engage with these communities? Have we considered the impact on tamariki mokopuna and the wider community? Five years is a long time. How are we going to support these individuals to actually reintegrate at the conclusion of their five-year prohibition orders as well? Kia ora tātou."