Lees-Galloway IainIAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): Although there has been some mirth around the images of spies in trench coats and dark hats and the escapades of some of our colleagues with assumed identities obviously the use of assumed identities by our intelligence and security agencies is necessary. But if you look at some of the submissions made at the select committee it is also the aspect of their work that does create probably the most nervousness—not the most nervousness but a great degree of nervousness—particularly amongst civil society organisations.I note that the Council of Trade Unions expressed its concern about the expansion of the powers of the intelligence and security agencies in respect of the creation of false identities. I suppose that comes from a bit of history of people using false identities to infiltrate legitimate political organisations such as the Council of Trade Unions. I see another submitter the Environment and Conservation Organisations of New Zealand—actually on this side of the Chamber those of us who were not on the committee are trying to figure it out. We are assuming that it is an environmental or conservation group although it may be another organisation using an assumed identity—it is hard to tell!Those environmental organisations political organisations—I think back to the anti-apartheid movement where security intelligence officers using assumed identities did infiltrate those organisations. It is understandable that there is a hangover from those days of concern about the way in which those assumed identities are used. That is why it is pleasing to see that the recommendation that was made to establish a register which the Minister is able to have access to is one check on the use of people with assumed identities.I do have one question for the Minister or for members who were on the committee who might be able to clarify this for me. It is in relation to the definition of employee. I note that the definition of employee in Part 3 Subpart 1 is different from the definition of employee in other parts of this legislation. In particular I note that an employee means any person who is or will be an employee of an intelligence and security agency. I assume that means that a person who is not currently an employee of an intelligence and security agency can be approved to have an assumed identity.I am not quite sure why it is necessary for someone who is not currently employed as a security and intelligence operative to be able to have an assumed identity. There may be some operational purpose to this but I would have thought that in the event that an operation was being planned the normal protocol would be to employ someone and then go through the process of approving them to have an assumed identity. Again as I said the last time I made a contribution I am approaching this as a layperson—somebody who does not have any particular expertise in this area and who was not on the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee—but it would be helpful if the Minister in the chair Chris Finlayson was able to explain to the Committee why that pre-emptive ability to create an assumed identity and to approve someone to use an assumed identity when they are not yet an employee is allowed for in the legislation.