Allan KiritapuHon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Thank you Madam Chair. I appreciate the member Chris Penk's contribution and thoughtfulness as we go through this bill.So with respect to the wide definition of national security information" clause 4 adopts the definition of "national security information" that was recommended by the Law Commission. So that definition there it identifies a specific interest that may be prejudiced by the disclosure of national security information and these interests are: New Zealand security; defence operations; international relationships including information-sharing relationships; and economic interests including interests related to international trade.With respect to the breadth of the interest protected by the definition I think it just illustrates the difficulties of defining the scope of "national security interests" with any specific and particular precision. So the disclosure of national security information in the proceedings could have implications for New Zealand's obligations to its intelligence-sharing partners. A disclosure of substantive information may not in and of itself pose a security risk but it could inadvertently lead to the uncovering of intelligence-gathering tools and techniques—for example the identification of an undercover intelligence officer or agent or informer whose safety would then be put at risk. So part of the difficulty is that there may be degrees of threat to national security and degrees of importance of national security interests.With respect to immigration and the queries raised about why this bill doesn't expressly apply to the Immigration Act the reason is that—well there is a sound rationale to treat immigration decisions differently from other decisions involving national security interests. Each of our Five Eyes partners has a specific scheme for dealing with national security interests and immigration cases. So this is despite Australia Canada and the United Kingdom having a central national security information statute. Immigration decisions are high-volume areas where decisions are made necessarily rather swiftly and in very close collaboration with foreign partners. So controlling our inward flows across our borders represents quite a unique challenge particularly the need to rely on sensitive information sourced from overseas partners. Immigration as well is an area where the executive has the prerogative to exercise significant discretion about who can and who cannot enter into or stay in New Zealand. So our international partners require assurances that information that they share with us would not be disclosed. The current immigration scheme explicitly prevents the court from disclosing national security information which is an appropriate setting in the immigration context. In the immigration sphere protecting our borders from people who present a high risk and quickly providing certainty and finality have been the critical determiners there.Just finally I'll note that it was observed by the Law Commission that the current immigration scheme contains sufficient protections for non-Crown parties including the provision of special advocates.So overall I think I'm satisfied that the right balance has been struck with respect to a separate national security interest scheme for immigration at this time."