Brownlee GerryHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): Madam Speaker thank you. I think it is worth stating again as many others have that when it comes to matters of national security a bipartisan position is the most desirable place for this House to end up. And while this legislation as others have explained is kind of at the junction between those matters that are strictly of national security and natural justice then I think that the work that's been done by the select committee is particularly useful and helpful.The Law Commission's report in 2015 of course is seven years ago so a lot has happened in that time. Seven years ago I don't think the country was quite as aware of the need for there to be strong national security provisions in our law as they would be now. So if we think of the things that have happened there is of course the obvious tragedy that occurred with the violent terrorist activity at the mosque in Christchurch. You would have seen the stabbing that occurred by someone who was on a watch-list in Auckland. These are matters that have come in to the public realm. There are other matters that as yet have not but it would be naive for anyone to think that New Zealand is immune from some of the nefarious activity that does threaten national security. National security is also a matter of making sure that we are in line with other democracies who share the values that we do. So there is a range of things that we need to be on guard for where there could be court activity at a future time not the least of which would be the issues around radicalisation of people to particular awful causes or in fact cyber-attack which New Zealand is certainly not immune to. And if there were to be prosecutions coming from that those prosecutions levelled at individuals then there is that tension between the rights of someone who is coming before the court to have a fair hearing—even though they might be engaged in activities on behalf of people who would have absolutely no regard for that particular concept of justice—and of course the desire to protect national security. So the test becomes quite a simple one and that is can the disclosure of information that may be necessary in a prosecution be provided in a way that ensures that national security is not compromised? And it's a difficult thing to achieve. I think the Minister expressed very well the closed court provisions and processes that would allow someone to have a representative in a closed court situation without being present themselves. The position was I think further elucidated by the two following speeches from Mr Penk and Ms Andersen. I'll just make a reference here if I could to the royal commission on the response to the terrorist attack in Christchurch and the establishment of a group called Kāpuia who are to advise the Government on matters that relate to the some 40-odd recommendations that have come out of that royal commission. Many of those recommendations relate to national security provisions relate to the organisations who are charged by this House and by the country to look after those particular aspects of our life. I think when it comes to the proposals that are there having a group of people who have a representative role across the community to look at it is a good thing but I think that the compromise has to be that there will always be a judgment necessary about what people in peaceful times might decide is reasonable and what people would expect at times of heightened activity or action to be the case. So I don't want to mention the terrorist's name but we have the perpetrator of that Christchurch tragedy currently considering whether or not he should appeal the sentence that has been put in front of him. Quite clearly in that case there would be matters of national security that would come up in a case like this and so having a provision in the law that means that the greater protection for the widest community in the consideration of the appeal is extremely important. So the appeal will probably not be denied even though it seems ridiculous to most of us but the protection of any information that might mitigate against any lightening of sentence through that appeal clearly would go through a process similar to that being outlined here today and provided in these bills. So I don't think it's necessary to say too much more beyond saying that bringing this provision in New Zealand in line with our like-minded partners in other countries is extremely useful in a world that we have seen even in the last few days is extremely volatile where no one is particularly isolated from some of the evil intentions of other countries—then having cooperations and basis for cooperation among those like-minded countries is extremely important. So with those comments I commend the bills to their third readings.