Ardern Jacinda: Health and Safety Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeArdern Jacinda: Health and Safety Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 25 August 2015. Volume:708;Page:6102. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): Thank you Mr Chair—I am really pleased you have given me the opportunity to speak on Part 4 of the Health and Safety Reform Bill because there is a very specific issue that I would like to raise with the Minister in the chair the Hon Craig Foss. We would really appreciate some feedback on this important issue because it has been raised by the Law Society and as yet I have not heard it debated in this Parliament. As my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway mentioned broadly speaking Part 4 relates to enforcement provisions. Clause 180A of Part 4 “Proceedings involving classified security information” states “Schedule 2A contains provisions that apply in civil and criminal proceedings that involve classified security information.” So that takes us directly to schedule 2A and that is what I would like to speak to in my contribution.Schedule 2A relates to “Provisions relating to classified security information”. I think it is important to point out that this schedule as I understand and as pointed out by the Law Society was not present in the bill—it is contained in Supplementary Order Paper 108 which is obviously substantive—at the time that the bill was introduced to the House. By virtue of that that means as I understand it would not have been subjected to any New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet as a bill upon introduction usually is subjected to. That means we have not had full consideration as to the broad sweeping nature of this schedule and certainly that is the point that the Law Society has made. It has not been the subject of a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet. Officials as I understand have had this issue raised with them directly by the Law Society. The response that Government advisers gave back to the society was that it was their view that these provisions were narrow. I want to test that view with the Committee.It states in schedule 2A “Application of this schedule” that “(1) This schedule applies to any criminal or civil proceedings (including public law and judicial review proceedings) that relate to the administration or enforcement of this Act if—(a) all parties to the proceedings have access to classified security information that is to be produced or referred to in the proceedings; or (b) the defendant in proceedings intends to produce or refer to classified security information.” So what classified security information is and how it is defined is very important for the purposes of this legislation. According to the Law Society its view is that the definition is very wide. The definition is stated in clause 3 of schedule 2 “Meaning of classified security information”. It states: “(1) In this schedule classified security information means information—(aa) that is relevant to proceedings that relate to the administration or enforcement of this Act; and (a) that is held by a specified agency;”—and I believe with specified agencies we are talking security intelligence or law enforcement New Zealand Defence Force the Government Communications Security Bureau New Zealand Police or the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service. It continues: “and (b) that the head of the specified agency certifies in writing [that it] cannot be disclosed except to the extent provided in clause 4 because in the opinion of the head of the specified agency—(i) the information is of a kind specified in subclause (2); and (ii) disclosure of the information would be disclosure of a kind specified in subclause (3).”Then when you go on to those they basically say that—it is very hard to explain schedules—what is considered classified secure information is basically determined by the agencies that hold that information. They basically have the power to write to the court and say: “We don’t believe this information should be disclosed because we determine”—they determine—“that it fits the criteria of this bill. It might lead to identification of a source of information. It might if disclosed give away the functions of security or intelligence. It might prejudice the security or defence of New Zealand or international relations. It might prejudice the entrusting of information to the Government of New Zealand on the basis of confidence. It might prejudice the maintenance of the law.” In writing that all sounds fairly robust but if you are actually allowing those agencies to determine that for themselves then that potentially becomes problematic. As the Law Society has pointed out it has advised the Minister specifically—