Davis KelvinKELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau): I would like to start with new clause 19A General duties applying when intelligence and security agency performing functions" in its entirety. It says: "When performing its functions an intelligence and security agency must act—(a) in accordance with New Zealand law and all human rights obligations recognised by New Zealand law; and (b) in the performance of its operational functions independently and impartially; and (c) with integrity and professionalism; and (d) in a manner that facilitates effective democratic oversight."If I look at those clauses and then flick back to clause 15(3) I am just a little confused in that it says "An activity described in subsection (1)(a) may be carried out by the Government Communications Security Bureau—(a) without an authorisation if that activity is—(i) a lawful activity;" or (ii) the activity would otherwise be an unlawful activity but is a lawful activity because it is carried out with the lawful consent of public authority person or class of persons. When we go back to clause 19A when it says that when performing its functions it must be in accordance with New Zealand law and all human rights obligations recognised by New Zealand law the question is: how can something be conducted without an authorisation if the activity would otherwise be an unlawful activity?I am not sure what that is saying and then it is saying "but is a lawful activity because it is carried out with the lawful consent". So is it saying an unlawful activity can be made lawful if it is carried out with the lawful consent of a person or authority? Then the next question is this: does that mean something can be given retrospective lawful consent and if that was the case would it actually be lawful consent if an activity was carried out but it retrospectively had to be given lawful consent?Clause 15(3)(b) states that an activity described may be carried out by the GCSB "with an authorisation if that activity is—(i) not otherwise a lawful activity; and (ii) not undertaken with the consent of the public authority person or class of persons." I could be reading this wrong but it sounds like something can be done by the GCSB that is not a lawful activity and not carried out with the consent of the public authority and yet clause 19A(a) says that "When performing its functions an intelligence and security agency must act—(a) in accordance with New Zealand law;" It just seems to me to be contradictory and I am confused by that in the first instance.The second question I would like to ask is around clause 16(4)(c). The director-general of an intelligence and security agency and an employee of an intelligence and security agency are immune from criminal liability for any act done under this section in good faith in providing advice and assistance to the New Zealand Police or the New Zealand Defence Force if—and I go down to paragraph (c)—"the act could have been lawfully carried out by the New Zealand Police or the New Zealand Defence Force as the case may be." The question is: if it could have been carried out by the New Zealand Police or Defence Force what would be some reasons why it was not carried out by them? Why would they risk criminal liability if it could have been carried out by the New Zealand Police or the New Zealand Defence Force in the first place?So those are just two questions that I have. Like other colleagues of mine I have not been involved in the process of determining this at all but those are just a couple of questions that have sort of leapt out at me. I am sure they could well be cleared up quite easily but for now I find them quite confusing."