McKee NicoleNICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. I stand in support of the second reading of this the Security Information in Proceedings Legislation Bill on behalf of the ACT Party noting that this bill has come about in response to the royal commission recommendation made back in 2015 where this bill is being made to support our national security interests while at the same time ensuring access to natural justice.I'd like to begin by thanking the officials and colleagues across the Justice Committee for their work on this bill especially as it comes back to the House still with mostly support across the House.This bill will create a new stand-alone Act that will implement a policy on how we are to use security information through court proceedings and in decision-making situations. I note at this stage that security information relates to both national security and classified security information.Finding the balance between protection of security information and a defendant's right to access information being used against them absolutely needed a solid framework around it. ACT expects that this bill can provide that while still protecting our national security interests.The effect of this bill means that where security information is devolved in civil proceedings there will be frameworks around how that is done. This includes being able to use a ministerial certificate option which will guarantee the protection of that information where it is needed. Creating security-approved special advocates trusted to receive security information on behalf of the non-Crown entity has also been established. It will allow the courts to close hearings and civil proceedings so that information can be securely addressed and will allow security-cleared special advocates access to that information when they represent the non-Crown party. To do this we do need to replace some of the court proceeding stages within a civil hearing process throughout other pieces of legislation to ensure consistency in how that information is handled especially in regard to administrative decision-making.The bill will standardise pre-trial court hearings for disclosure of information in all criminal proceedings where national security information will be used and it will allow pre-trial hearings that will determine how security information will be protected at trial within those criminal proceedings. We worked through clause 12 as my colleagues across the House have mentioned of this bill with officials. Again I acknowledge officials' advice and the work that was done on this. Clause 12 is around the obligation to give the court and a special advocate and special advisers access to security information. There was concern that the Crown could make determinations on whether or not advocates or advisers should be given access to information. The concern being that those affected by court proceedings may still not be allowed access to information for which decisions about them are ultimately made. Officials advised us that in their opinion it was unlikely that the clause could be used but it was still there and that meant it could exclude participants from access. Officials gave us an example of where a piece of security information could be irrelevant to the particular case being heard and therefore there would be no need to share that information with a special advocate and that this clause would allow a judge to look at that information first and then make the decision as to whether or not the special advocate should have access to it through discovery based on relevance of course to the case. As a committee though we still had concerns around whether this clause created a broader discretionary power that could limit essential information to non-Crown parties even though it was not the intention of the bill for this to occur. We agreed that the clause should be amended to include a threshold for the use of discretion that could prevent access to security information to either the non-Crown Party or their special advocate or adviser that the threshold would align with existing powers and limitations that are already in the Evidence Act 2006 and that the Evidence Act has a clause about general exclusion where it says that if a judge feels that the value of the evidence is outweighed by the risk that the evidence will either unfairly prejudice a proceeding or needlessly prolong it then they can exclude it and that in determining this they must take into account the right of the defendant to offer an effective defence. There was some clarity needed around clause 29 of the bill as well. The new framework would apply to civil proceedings including those that already have procedures in place for dealing with security information. This bill here is about dealing with court proceedings and some tribunal hearings where they act just like a court where there are reviews held to deal with reviewing convictions and sentences and whether they are or should be referred to the appeal court. We determined that the body that hears those cases the Criminal Cases Review Commission carry out their business in an investigative manner rather than a judicial one. So we consider then that the Criminal Cases Review Commission process would not constitute a proceeding before a tribunal as the bill was hoping. We agreed therefore to adding an extra paragraph to clause 4 to give a definition of a civil proceeding so that it would exclude an investigation under the Criminal Cases Review Commission Act 2019 unless they applied to the District Court for an order excluding them from the definition of civil proceeding in the bill. Maintaining civil liberties so that access to information can be achieved for fair hearings while securing national security information is very important and we are in support of a law that extends those civil liberties to all. ACT supports this bill.