O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I'm delighted to inform the House that this speech which I don't even know what I'm going to say is unclassified. I can also confirm—I can also confirm—that I was on the Justice Committee but not for much of the time but I'm happy to put that on public record. But jokes aside can I follow up with what Barbara Edmonds was acknowledging just all those who've served in the police on this Police Remembrance Day—I think it's wonderful that St Michael the archangel was acknowledged that is the patron day—so for all those who have served including my father but all those who've paid the ultimate price in service of this realm.That actually does fit somewhat into this bill around security information proceedings. It's an attempt by this Parliament—and I think a correct attempt—to balance competing rights. One is the transparency and accessibility to justice but on the other side to ensure that the principles of justice are maintained against threat actors be they State or non-State across the world.I think we've got the balance right. I want to stress though because actually—and this is by the way not a reflection on the Government of the day—I think this is actually a really good bill. I think the select committee and again to acknowledge Ginny Andersen as the chair of that committee has done an excellent job. But I think this is one that we as a Parliament will want to keep an eye on because we are tinkering in two very delicate spaces: access transparency and justice; and national security on the other side.I cannot claim to have sat officially on intelligence committees but I will happily admit to the House that I've spent more time in sensitive compartmented information facilities (SCIFs) than I would care to have thought in this time—and not always in this country. But I have remained loyal to this country I want to make that really clear too—I'm just not jumping into SCIFs in you know random countries.But why I say this is actually issues of intelligence are exceptionally important. I think in the context—I know this is a justice bill but I do see the Hon Andrew Little here who looks after our intelligence committees—our intelligence officers both domestic and international do an exceptionally incredible job. Why I think that and why I support this bill is that information in itself needs to be protected or treated carefully. Really importantly the people who collect it who analyse it need to be protected.I apologise if it's already been raised in the House today but sometimes the information that is to be shared is not secret simply because of the nature of it it's how we got it how we obtained it that is so vitally important. I would encourage my Green Party colleagues to understand that—I think thoughtful contributions I don't want to take away from that but it's really important at times that intelligence is not just simply the writing on the paper the piece of knowledge; it's how was this obtained. Good New Zealanders and good people around the globe often in very difficult circumstances put their lives on the line. Again just to acknowledge the work that our New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Government Security Communications Bureau and signals intelligence and others undertake.The other is obviously how we treat this information carefully particularly with the respect of our allies—I know others have spoken about it. I think again the bill has this balanced correctly. I'm pleased to see there's a provision to still allow some information not to be shared. It probably won't surprise the House or those listening at home that New Zealand doesn't gather all its own intelligence—we share intelligence we talk to our friends and allies. We have to take a little bit of responsibility for how we use that information. Put really simply or crudely if we just start—even in this new court process—sharing information that our allies would prefer we did not that's going to have consequences for us and not just in the judicial process but for our national security. But I do actually have confidence—even on this side of the House—that those Government Ministers responsible in this space understand that and will have engaged deeply and rightly with our colleagues overseas so that they understand—they understand—what we are doing.The bill as it proceeds particularly around the appointment of special advocates—again it's emphasising lawyers being the key role; they've already got to get their security clearances. I'll be interested to see how this manifests practically. Again this is not a challenge to the law. Obviously we will need to have some lawyers. I think someone erroneously mentioned QCs—they're now KCs; outrageous—are likely to be the ones called. But long and short what is going to be the designated agency how will these people be identified and—I would suggest—be security cleared in advance? Again I possibly have missed the section—I know this is third reading—but to make sure that those advocates I would think keep their identity and roles secret too.So I'm just going to leave it there. I think that will indulge the House as a gift to finish up if the Speaker gives me a nod otherwise I'll keep going. Excellent. We'd love to commend this bill to the House.