Robertson GrantGRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): While the Minister is pondering that very interesting intervention by Dr Graham that was not the first point I was going to make but I will make it now as the first point so that it carries on.I can recall in the 1990s arriving along to a select committee as a student politician to make exactly the same point that Dr Graham has just made—but in this case about economic well-being—and to try to understand exactly what that meant because that terminology has now been in the Act for some time. I appreciate the comment that the Minister made about the fact that the way it was drafted previously could easily have said that those of us who stood out on the steps of Parliament and said that we did not like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) or aspects thereof could easily have been seen to be within this. And in fact I suspect that in the past this is precisely the justification some intelligence agencies have used for their monitoring and surveillance of people. So I think that certainly was the case and it will be interesting as the Minister says as we go through to pick up the difference there in terms of how the legislation is written now in terms of the warrants later on.I do just want to pick up the point that Kennedy Graham raises which is that I wonder about clause 11(b) because if the clause is to be coherent the well-being of New Zealand and the international relations of New Zealand must have something to do with each other because clause 11(a) is New Zealand's national security which in the broadest sense of the word well-being" means how New Zealand performs. So this is something to do with the way in which New Zealand's international relations work—our relations with other countries. That is the only way that this clause would make any logical sense to me. The Minister is doing some nodding which could be related to virtually anything but it could be related to what I am saying.Hon Christopher Finlayson: Ha ha!GRANT ROBERTSON: Ha ha! So at some point we might have him back on his feet to tell us whether the "well-being" is related. That will only half help Dr Graham because that still does not tell us exactly what it is. Although it might now locate it alongside our international relations what exactly the "well-being of New Zealand" is is fairly amorphous to me so I look forward to the Minister's help on that.The point I wanted to raise is actually a relatively minor one but I was not here for the early part of the debate on Part 2 so apologies if this has been covered. I am looking at clause 23 which is "Director-General of an intelligence and security agency to consult Leader of the Opposition" and although I am absolutely satisfied that this clause will stand and go through I do think it is important to put on the record two things about this. One is the importance of it. The importance of the fact that if we are going to have the kind of cross-party—bipartisan in this particular instance here—approach to security and intelligence matters we do need communication to be clear and important.I do not want to rake over the Warren Tucker - Phil Goff incident again because it got a bit of an airing in the second reading but this is of course the very situation that led to that dispute and I think that although in a piece of legislation we would not go to the level of detail of talking about how those meetings take place it is important to put on the record that they do need to be ones that safeguard the integrity of both the director-general and the Leader of the Opposition. We in the Opposition certainly took to having two people present for those meetings in order to ensure that there was a witness. I was one of those people when I was the deputy leader for a period of time and again I would not necessarily say that that has to be in the legislation but I think it is an important thing to put on record. Similarly the director of an agency may well choose to do that also.The second point I wanted to make about this is that I do think that in the future this is what a proper oversight body would actually also be able to have some access to—these briefings. I know it gets harder the more people who become involved but I do think that if we are going to increase the confidence of New Zealanders in these agencies a slightly broader mandate for the director-general to be talking to the oversight body about the kinds of things that they are involved in without all of the detail is important because having been in those briefings it is up to the director-general what they tell the Leader of the Opposition. It has been designed I think to give a flavour of the work as opposed to actually going through specific incidents or specific cases. I think that over time this could be clarified more in practice and as I say it does not necessarily need to be in the legislation.So to summarise my point on this this is an important clause. It should be here but in practice it has a number of fishhooks that need to be worked on and in my view could actually be expanded in the future to the wider oversight body. I look forward to hearing about Mr Finlayson's well-being."