Lees-Galloway IainIAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): I would like to look at some of the definitions in the interpretation clause in Part 4 which actually attracted quite a lot of comment from submitters. I would like to start with the definition of private communication" because this did attract some discussion from submitters.The definition of "private communication—(a) means a communication … made under circumstances that may reasonably be taken to indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties to the communication;"—a private conversation that is made between two or more people and there is no expectation that that comment is public. An example would be a couple of staff in an MP's electorate office who are having a private conversation maybe about matters in their workplace and should the member of Parliament covertly record those staff members that would certainly be the recording of a private communication which unless you were an employee of the Security Intelligence Service and had a warrant to do so would be illegal.That is a private communication as opposed to what is defined under paragraph (b) which states: "does not include a communication of that kind occurring in circumstances in which any party to the communication ought reasonably to expect that the communication may be intercepted by some other person" such as if you are at a public meeting with journalists and members of the public. For instance when I decided to record the Deputy Prime Minister now the Prime Minister when he said that a lot of young New Zealanders were pretty damn hopeless and they were all on drugs that was not a private communication as defined in the interpretation clause of this legislation. Therefore I did not need a warrant to record that because it was quite clear that the then Deputy Prime Minister was in a forum in which those comments—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am going to ask the member to come back to the bill. There is quite a lot in the bill and I think it would be quite good if the member talked about what was in the bill rather than other things that are not.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I use those two examples just to point out the difference between a private communication and a non-private communication and the circumstances where a warrant is required and where a warrant is not required.There was a lot of comment made about the definition of "private communication". In fact some submitters said it was flawed. Some submitters even said that we need not have a definition of "private communication" because in the view of some submitters all communication should require a warrant in order to be recorded. It just would not work to require all forms of communication to require a warrant. I think it is quite legitimate to expect a person who is making statements or is communicating in a public forum to expect that to be recorded.Some submitters suggested that the Canadian definition would be clearer. However I believe that the committee came to the view that the definition of "private communication" included in Part 4 of the New Zealand Intelligence and Security Bill was actually the same definition of "private communication" that is used in other legislation and it is helpful to the public and to all of us to have consistency in the definition of "private communication" when it comes to the question of who is able to record private communications and what warrants or other authorisation one might need in order to be able to record private communications.There were other comments made about other matters defined in the legislation. InternetNZ asked that there be an explicit reference to metadata and that metadata be separated from other forms of communication. Again I think the committee came to the conclusion quite rightly that a lot can be gleaned from metadata. We can actually discover a lot about a person's activities."