Allan KiritapuSECURITY INFORMATION IN PROCEEDINGS BILLSECURITY INFORMATION IN PROCEEDINGS (REPEALS AND AMENDMENTS) BILLThird ReadingsHon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): I present a legislative statement on the Security Information in Proceedings Bill and the Security Information in Proceedings (Repeals and Amendments) Bill.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I move That the Security Information in Proceedings Bill and the Security Information in Proceedings (Repeals and Amendments) Bill be now read a third time. I will refer to both bills as one throughout.I am pleased to speak to the third reading of this bill which will create a more workable and coherent approach to the use of national security information in court proceedings and administrative decisions. The issues covered by this bill touch on important constitutional matters such as the fundamental rights of people to open justice and a fair trial the respective roles of the judiciary and the executive protecting national security and principles of open government and democratic accountability. The bill implements the majority of the recommendations made by the Law Commission in 2015 regarding how national security information is treated in the courts and in administrative decision-making. The question at the heart of the Law Commission's review was what should happen when information is relevant to legal proceedings but disclosing it may prejudice national security. The Law Commission found a number of inconsistencies and gaps in the current law; the current law does not provide enough assurance that national security information can be adequately protected if it needs to be used in court proceedings. This creates domestic and international risks for New Zealand in terms of safety security and international relations. The lack of a clear process for protecting security information in court could lead to the Crown deciding not to bring proceedings or to settle a claim against it. The current law can also disadvantage affected people who may not know the reason for a decision against them. The lack of full disclosure puts the affected individual at a considerable disadvantage if they want to challenge the executive's actions or decisions. The Law Commission recommended legislation to clear up inconsistency in the law and give all parties a clear process that protects national security information while maintaining fairness and natural justice. I note that the bill is consistent with existing legislation in comparable jurisdictions overseas including Australia Canada and the United Kingdom. I'd like to briefly highlight some of the key aspects of the bill. Firstly the bill will enable the court to order a closed court preliminary hearing when dealing with national security information in civil cases. It will be for the courts to decide how to manage national security information and importantly whether the risks of disclosing the information are sufficiently serious to justify withholding it. The bill will enable closed court substantive hearings but only where the risks of disclosing the national security information justify this departure from ordinary open processes. A closed preliminary hearing would take place in a secure court facility and with only security-cleared personnel and the judge present—the court would be closed to the public and of course to the media. The non-Crown Party will not be present but safeguards in the bill will mitigate this disadvantage. One of the safeguards is that the non-Crown party's interest will be represented in the closed court by a special advocate. Special advocates are highly experienced security-cleared lawyers who will act in the interests of the person who is not allowed to see the national security information that is alleged to be relevant in their case. Other safeguards are that the special advocate and the judge would have access to the national security information. The judge would also be able to direct that a summary of the information is prepared for the affected person so that they can instruct the special advocate. I should stress though that the closed court processes will not be available in a substantive criminal trial. The bill retains the fundamental position that a defendant would always be present during a criminal trial; however the bill does enable a new pre-trial process to enable national security information to be used and protected at the criminal trial. The bill will also introduce consistent procedural requirements into a number of Acts that currently allow classified security information to be taken into account by decision makers. These Acts include the Passports Act the Overseas Investment Act the Terrorism Suppression Act and the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Act 2013. The bill provides that if an individual would usually be entitled to receive information taken into account in a decision that affects their rights but is not provided with the information due to security concerns the individual should be entitled to receive instead a summary of the information. The summary serves the purpose of providing the affected person with straightforward and prompt access to the information about why the decision was made. The bill also better integrates the existing oversight powers of the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security into the framework for administrative decision-making.This bill will help to maintain the public's confidence in the operation and integrity of the justice system by providing a clear approach to protecting national security information while maintaining principles of fairness and natural justice. I would like to acknowledge Ginny Andersen—the chair of the Justice Committee—and the Justice Committee members for their consideration of the bill. I also want to acknowledge the officials that provided diligent advice to both the Justice Committee and indeed to myself. I acknowledge and thank all parties across this House for their constructive participation in the consideration of the bill.I am confident that this bill strikes the right balance between the need to protect security information and the need to ensure that the fundamental principles of justice are not unjustifiably limited. I commend this bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the motion be agreed to.