Tuiono TeanauTEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Greens. I don't sit on the Justice Committee and I am speaking on behalf of our justice spokesperson Golriz Ghahraman who is unable to be with us at this particular time. I have been dipping in and out of this one. I realise I think when this was first read in the House was during one of the lockdown periods so I was one of the MPs that was trying to follow it at that particular time while our Auckland-based MPs were in Auckland.I do want to acknowledge the contributions around the House. We are in really difficult times really new times really turbulent times particularly within the global sphere as well. And I was just reflecting on when this report came out in 2015—the Law Commission report—and I don't think I actually really understood what misinformation and disinformation were as well. And the way that the world is operating in terms of attacks moving towards cyber-attacks and so forth this is indeed becoming a particular field where it is very very difficult to figure out where the balance lies—where the balance lies in terms of the protection of national security and what that means for the individual particularly when those individuals are being influenced by nefarious outside sources and in some cases being pushed because of amplification from algorithms and so on and so forth. I do want to support what other colleagues have said around the House around centring our Muslim whānau down in Christchurch. It's important to keep those families who've been deeply impacted by terrorist attacks at the forefront of what we do as well but also being mindful in the history in the lead up to that that a lot of what happened in terms of security surveillance that was done on those actual communities. So agree totally with what the previous speaker Vanushi Walters said around making sure that we get the balance right. It's not easy and it's a very difficult thing to do.The background of this legislation is that it regulates how national security information is used as evidence in court and these rules will come into effect when the Government needs to prosecute someone for alleged criminal wrongdoing based on highly secure national security information or NSI that the Government cannot share within the public sphere. For example the Government may receive information through the Five Eyes alliance which they are sworn to protect. And members around the House have talked about that and what that means. And I again would like to support what's been said about the Justice Committee about getting into the detail and the discussions that happened at the committee of the whole House.When this came back to caucus we did have some concerns. However while most of the submissions raised concerns about the bill they were supportive of the general need for legislative reform in this area—that's true that needs to happen. We're living in turbulent volatile times so making sure that we move with those times is incredibly incredibly important.The Law Society and the office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security both made substantive recommendations that the bill be pulled back in several areas citing concerns that the bill did not offer enough protections for the non-Crown party to ensure a fair and just trial even with special advocates and closed courts. In particular that the definition of NSI was too wide leaving those safeguards against the common problem of over-classification of information that is not actually sensitive; that there is no restriction protocol or test on when the executive can use an NSI certificate; that special advocates acting for the non-Crown party in closed courts are not mandatory; that the Crown has a general exemption providing access to NSI for the court or the special advocate even though these persons will have full security clearance; the special advocate is only needed in closed court proceedings and there is no requirement for the advocate to attend open proceedings though going between both is standard practice in comparable jurisdictions; that the Crown is to be notified of general communications between the special advocate and the non-Crown party and their lawyer. The Law Commission characterised this type of restriction as a tactical disadvantage for special advocates who are unable to communicate with the party they represent without disclosing the communication to the Crown party. And there was some conversation around the costs as well. Costs of this special advocate may fall on the non-Crown party though this person is necessitated by the Crown's decision to issue an NSI certificate. So for the Greens there is still more to go on this journey. The devil is in the details and the details have not landed adequately for us at this time. Thank you Madam Speaker.