Salesa JennyJENNY SALESA (Labour—Manukau East): I would like to thank the honourable Minister for his leadership on the New Zealand Intelligence and Security Bill. The security and safety of Aotearoa New Zealand and indeed all of our people is crucial and this is a very important bill. In my brief contribution I would like to discuss clause 11 which is about the objectives of intelligence and security agencies as they contribute in this legislation.Clause 11 states: The principal objectives of the intelligence and security agencies are to contribute to—(a) the protection of New Zealand's national security;". In this legislation as I understand it—I was not fortunate enough to be a member of the subcommittee when folks came to present to it—the term "national security" was not previously defined. I know that it is now defined but what I would like to ask the Minister is whether he as Minister is satisfied with the definition that is now given to national security in this particular bill.Also when we go to clause 11(c) it says that one of the principal objectives of this legislation is for the "the economic well-being of New Zealand;". My question to the Minister is this: is "well-being" defined in this legislation? That is the first question. The second question is with regard to paragraph (c): "the economic well-being of New Zealand." Is it clearly defined in this legislation? I am not clear in my reading of this bill whether it is indeed defined.The other question I would like to pose to the Minister—this was covered by the Law Society and it was agreed to by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security—is about the fact that the term "principal" is still included in clause 11. Using the term "principal" before "objectives" creates uncertainty because it implies that the GCSB and the SIS may have other unstated secondary objectives that might not be clearly stated in this legislation. So I would like to ask the Minister why the term "principal" in front of "objectives" is still currently used. Clause 11 is indeed a very important clause because it establishes the boundaries within which the Government the CCSB and the SIS may exercise the functions and powers that are given to them under this bill. So it is indeed crucial to ensure clarity around meanings and around whether or not the word "principal" should indeed still be in front of "objectives".I would like now to move to clauses 13 through to 15. In these clauses it talks about "public authority". Clause 13(2)(a) clause 14(1)(a) and clause 15(1) provide that the functions of the GCSB and the SIS will include the provision of assistance to "any public authority (whether in New Zealand or overseas);". So my question to the Minister—and this is again an issue that both the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and the New Zealand Law Society agree on—is that "public authority" should be defined. It is not clear that there is actually a definition for "public authority" in this legislation. It should be a term defined because we should ensure transparency of the legislation as well as the ability of agencies to be able to assist and advise as under this bill. It should be clarified and defined.I would like now to move to clause 16 and I would like to thank the Minister because he has in his previous contribution already answered some of the questions I was going to ask about clause 16. Thank you very much."