Macindoe TimHon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): I think that assertion by the Hon Clare Curran in her speech which I think was about 35 seconds on a security measure highlighted the totally arrogant and unacceptable nature of the Government's approach to this bill because to suggest that the Labour Party has been taking the matter seriously and has acted where the National Party has failed to do so ignores history and flies in the face of the situation that we are dealing with in this particular measure.There is a long history in this country of bipartisan work on security matters. [Interruption] And here they go; the chorus from the other side has started again. Here they go again. Nobody in the National Party is in the least bit inclined to leave New Zealanders exposed. The whole point of our opposition to this bill is that there is such a great hole in it—that is precisely what the Government is doing. I think it is deeply disappointing that the current Government has decided not to negotiate in good faith with the Opposition because our security legislation should be enduring. Our security legislation should reflect the overwhelming will of the Parliament representing the concerns of the vast majority of New Zealanders.I want to acknowledge that there are many fine people who have been through this House in years gone by who have worked diligently and respectfully with their opposite numbers in order to achieve that. While I can accept the fact that the Minister of Justice has in this case tried to respond to a specific threat—and that's as he should do—he has however in the end compromised to the point where he has undermined his own bill and that's the real problem.When I spoke in the House last night in the committee stage I confessed that I was pretty angry and it was partly because I followed immediately a very angry contribution from the Minister who at that stage was in the chair. He made comments that I thought were both outrageous—Hon Nathan Guy: That's normal—that's normal.Hon TIM MACINDOE: It is fairly normal Mr Guy—you're quite right—but this is a serious matter. I felt that he had made comments that were both outrageous and fatuous and I wanted to correct the record because my colleagues have made clear that it's not possible for me to come up with a whole lot of fresh material as the last Opposition speaker in the third reading of a debate. If members of the Parliament and the public who are listening aren't aware of the reasons for National's opposition by now then I would be very surprised.But the point that I was making and I hope that I can make again today in a more concerned tone rather than an angry one is that National was keen to put forward some recommendations that we didn't think were controversial. We certainly didn't think that traditional Labour-National cooperation on this matter would have found those suggestions—Tim van de Molen: Prudent suggestions.Hon TIM MACINDOE: —difficult to accommodate. As Mr van de Molen is saying they were prudent and we did hope that the Government would sit down with us and say OK let's look at the things because Parliament is often required to compromise and in particular on challenging issues we work well where we can sit down try to understand each other's point of view and work from there. That's what the Minister didn't do—that is what the Minister didn't do.Hon Andrew Little: They've stuffed it up.Hon TIM MACINDOE: And here he is making an offensive remark instead of acknowledging that his responsibility as the Minister in charge of this bill was to negotiate in good faith. Yes he might well have said that there are certain things that the—Hon Andrew Little: Takes two to tango—takes two to tango.Hon TIM MACINDOE: —Opposition—he's shouting over the top of me. He's had his speech. He's had his speech but he shouts over the top of me. He should have been prepared to say there are certain things that we probably will not be able to reach agreement on but there are other things where we'll accommodate the Opposition. He didn't accommodate any of them. That's the key thing here. There is nothing significant that the National Party put forward that he was willing to accommodate and I am very disturbed by the Minister's approach. I'm very disturbed that his colleagues have supported him because as I say it is important that this legislation should be enduring and in particular it is important that this legislation should be fit for purpose.We know that there are New Zealanders based overseas who have been radicalised who have been in very disturbing situations. Several of my colleagues have mentioned a number of different instances and there will be others in the future. We don't know what they are now. We can't imagine who they are or where they are. We simply know that it is in the nature of modern security threats that there are people from like-minded countries with which we have close relationships and other countries with which we don't have such a strong relationship where they have people who mean to do ill to other people. Every terrorist regardless of the motivation behind their terrorism is a threat to humanity and is a group that we should be looking to do everything we can to contain. In particular if they threaten New Zealanders on our shores we have a responsibility not just as the Government of the day but as parliamentarians to do everything we can to protect our citizens.That's what the National Party has always stood for. That's why I said last night that the National Party has the proudest record of any party in this Parliament in this area.Hon Andrew Little: Rubbish.Hon TIM MACINDOE: It is not rubbish Mr Little. Mr Little knows that this is true. I was sitting behind the Prime Minister where the senior Government whip is now when I was in that seat as I listened to a debate on this very type of issue and to suggest that our Government did nothing flies in the face of that particular debate which that member should remember better than any other—he should remember it better than any other.The defence of the Realm is the core responsibility of the New Zealand Government and by extension the Parliament. In the current regime the sort of security threats that we've seen in recent times terrorism has often been the core focus of our military—and I want to say it's good to see the Minister of Defence in the House. How proud I am of New Zealand's military.We are extraordinarily well served both at home and abroad by all the brave men and women who serve in the New Zealand military force and they face very real challenges and they deserve our absolute backing our gratitude and the resources to do the job. This bill doesn't give them all the resources they need to do the job. This bill puts at risk some of those very people who they are so dedicated to try to defend and protect.Our proposed changes that we put forward would have improved this bill and that's what we went to negotiate with the Government over. We tried again during the committee stage to put forward further proposals; the Government said as they have done in recent times We know best. We're not interested in dealing with the Opposition." Well that's not the good faith that I would expect of any party in this Parliament on an issue of such importance. They ultimately said "OK we'll go to the Greens." and the Greens then were able to negotiate all sorts of things that weakened this bill and that I think is deeply disturbing. I understand the Greens' point of view but I fundamentally disagree with it and I think that Parliament should have disagreed with it as well.So I close by echoing the words of my colleagues who have spoken before. This bill isn't fit for purpose. This bill will not achieve its objective. It is deeply disappointing that we can't support the measure but we can't support it because of those fundamental failings. We will at some stage in the future as a Parliament have to fix it. It won't be this Parliament obviously but a future Parliament will be charged with having to fix it and that is disappointing and I can only pray that as a nation we will not pay a very heavy price in the meantime before we're able to rectify it."