Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Madam Chair. There's a certain familiarity to how proceedings are taking place and I appeal across the Chamber to anyone who feels like helping me out. No doubt the Minister herself the Hon Kiritapu Allan will give good contributions as well so I don't want it to be too one-sided an affair that's all. I know that there are valiant members of the Justice Committee and another one is about to take her seat Dr Emily Henderson who will be very interested in having a discussion and debate about this bill. We made it clear at the time of the first reading that we agreed with its intent. We did of course want to know that the detail was going to work. We had the opportunity in the select committee process to interrogate the detail and to work through that. At the second reading we made it clear that we supported the changes that were made. We had some good discussions with Labour colleagues who I'm trying to bait into taking calls to join in. There's nothing wrong with others doing that as well so I'd look in the direction of my friends from other parties who are also on the Justice Committee; I'm not regularly a member of that but I was able to join that committee for the purpose of looking at this bill. So I've been made aware of a certain amount in that process and I'd be quite curious to know the Minister's thinking just to get it on the record as much as anything in the committee of the whole House kind of a way. So National security interests—the idea that the security interests of New Zealand and actually further afield which we'll get into are important. This is a concept that's central to the idea that we need security information and proceedings legislation in the first place. We're acknowledging a situation where the usual rules don't quite apply. Which is to say that whereas justice should always be as open as possible and the flow of information should be as free as possible nevertheless there are situations in which it's necessary for purposes of national security interests—to use that phrase as defined in Part 1—to consider how the information flow needs to be managed and the openness of the justice has to be you know constrained to some extent. That's a challenging thing to say aloud but nevertheless the intent I think is an entirely reasonable one. We think the detail's about right. But having said that these are very serious human rights that are involved when we talk about the right to a fair trial and related matters as set out in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act for example. So we don't take lightly the fact that we are limiting people's rights; we try to do that in a reasonable way indeed a justifiable limitation" if we want to use rights-balancing kind of language. Anyway that all brings me to national security interests which are at the heart of the need to do something at all in this space and so I see the "security or defence of New Zealand;" is listed as one of the meanings or sub-meanings of national security interests. We've got "international relations of the Government of New Zealand;" we've got "security or defence" of "the self-governing State of the Cook Islands;" "the self-governing State of Niue;" or "Tokelau;" or "the Ross Dependency;" and so on. So actually it's pretty broad. But the one that intrigued me a little bit was "the entrusting of information to the Government of New Zealand on a basis of confidence" by the Government of any country an agency of a Government of any country or any international organisation. And that's defined within the Official Information Act fondly referred to of course as the OIA.So I'm wondering if there's any situation that the Minister can think about where perhaps there might be security issues involved but that she would envisage would be outside the ambit of the legislation. It seems pretty broad this kind of definition and probably rightly so but if there's any scenario that she would say "Well actually this kind of thing isn't included" that would be helpful. And particularly I suppose it's worth referring to clause 7 within the bill which says the "Act does not apply to proceedings under [the] Immigration Act 2009". I've just read the heading but the clause is basically the same. What's the rationale for having proceedings under the Immigration Act set aside from the ambit of this legislation?"