Robertson GrantGRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): And I thank the Minister in the chair Christopher Finlayson for his explanation of that. Just to follow through so that on this side of the Chamber we get absolutely clear about what is being protected here I have done the same search that the Minister and his officials have done to find out where private premises" actually occurs in the bill and as the Minister says it occurs under the definition of "visual surveillance". If you follow that through—and it might have been helpful had that clause said what the next clause says which is that a "visual surveillance device has the meaning given to it by section 3(1) of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012." If it had actually said that about the definition of "visual surveillance" that might have been a little helpful.But if you follow that through—and I have not exhaustively searched this bit—when you get into the powers of the SIS acting under an intelligence warrant—clause 65 which is also in Part 4 of the bill—we then run through effectively all of the things that the security agency can do. It can enter places and vehicles; it can install use or maintain various devices; it can access things; it can take photographs; it can open vehicles—this is the bit incidentally that slightly makes my blood run cold when it comes to the activities of the agencies because this is where the rubber hits the road about the intrusive nature of the powers that we are granting here. We have talked previously in earlier parts about the need for balance because we do need powers like this but this is where it really is laid out in clause 65. One of those things if we just take the example of 65(1)(b) is to "install use maintain or remove—(i) a visual surveillance device …". So that would apply in private premises such as a marae. Although I can see the point the Minister is making it is an enabling provision as well. It specifies a type of private premises where a type of surveillance will take place and then in turn how that surveillance would be undertaken. So I think I understand what the Minister was saying but I also think it works the other way which is what causes the problem here—not so much that it is possible that a marae would be a place in which visual surveillance would be undertaken but that it is singled out as being so.So I think that it is a slightly different issue than the one that the Minister is raising. I get what he is saying but when you go back to "private premise" under the definition here I really do not understand why it cannot just say: "Private premise means a private residence or any other premise to which members of the public do not frequently have access." Just say that. That way there would not actually be the uncomfortable concern that I can completely understand that Kris Faafoi and Kelvin Davis have both raised—that particularly in the shadow of the Urewera raids this would be specifically mentioned.I am never a great fan actually as it happens of phrases like "any other premises to which members of the public do not frequently have access". I mean that is the Eastern Suburbs Cricket Club and various other places such as that. A marae may sit as being both a public and a private place but I would be extremely surprised if it is necessary to mention it. I do not think anyone on this side of the Chamber is accusing the Government of a particularly ill intent here; I just think that in the spirit of trying to build public confidence in these institutions putting a word like "marae" into the middle of that sentence just starts to rekindle some of the very things that this legislation has sought—and mostly very successfully sought—to resolve in the New Zealand public's mind.As I say I could be misinterpreting it but I think when I read through it it is in fact an enabling clause as well as potentially trying to make it consistent with the Search and Surveillance Act and I do wonder whether officials might consider in the time that we have available on Part 4 of this bill whether or not just the deletion of the words "a marae" would actually have any effect whatsoever. I suspect it would not. I suspect other than it now being slightly inconsistent with the Search and Surveillance Act actually it would not prescribe the powers of the security and intelligence service and may actually help build some trust and faith in the institutions."