Finlayson Christopher: Urgent Debates — Government Communications Security Bureau—Review of ComplianceText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFinlayson Christopher: Urgent Debates — Government Communications Security Bureau—Review of Compliance[Sitting date: 10 April 2013. Volume:689;Page:9224. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): These are serious issues and they deserve better than the drivel we have just listened to from Andrew Williams.These are important issues and as Alan Martin would say it is the putting right that counts. The great thing about what has happened here is that a secretive spy agency has been exposed to sunlight has been exposed to a cold hard review and that is what I want to focus on this afternoon. I certainly do not want to focus on the unprofessional comments of Sir Bruce Ferguson who was seen deep in conversation with Geoffrey Palmer on Lambton Quay this afternoon. I certainly do not intend this afternoon to comment on the role of “H3” as he then was when he served Helen Clark and Heather Simpson on level nine. What did Mr Robertson know and when did he know it? He is the one who had quite a number of interactions with the Government Communications Security Bureau when he was “H3” and it is going to be very interesting to explore that issue in the months to come.What I want to focus on—and focusing on principles not personalities—are two issues. The first is the 2003 legislation the Government Communications Security Bureau Act. Mr Goff was one of those nodding automatons in the Cabinet committee who approved the bill for introduction. The fact of the matter is that this legislation was drafted when Helen Clark was Prime Minister. It went through Parliament very quickly. It was a classic case of legislative negligence quite frankly. It was drafted by the Government Communications Security Bureau. It was not tested independently.Grant Robertson: Who voted for it?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The Government Communications Security Bureau assumptions and advice were relied on and it was a totally unsatisfactory way of making law for which I say to Mr Robertson that all parties in this House bear some responsibility although I do observe—I do observe—that the Labour Party at that time was riding triumphant. It had 52 seats although over the detested foreshore and seabed legislation it was shortly to lose a few members. We had 27 but we stand up and say that in so far as we voted for it there are questions that looking forward we do need to address because the legislation is poorly drafted. Section 14 which the Green co-leader Russel Norman relied on is clear enough on its terms but then you go to the definition of what is a “foreign person” or a “foreign organisation” and there are difficult questions.Grant Robertson: Very clear-cut.Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: They are matters that were identified—well I suggest and I am quite happy to talk off-line to Mr Robertson about the definition of “foreign organisation” because it is not clear. Go to the passage and look at it and the member will find that his superficial third-rate analysis is inadequate.The other thing that needs to be addressed is that the legislation needs to be redrafted but we also need to look at issues of compliance—issues that go back for years. Frankly when I read the Kitteridge report I was not at all happy because the Act is one thing but there was no reference in the legal section of the Government Communications Security Bureau to any other legislation. There was no reference to clear international law texts. There was no reference to jurisprudence—for example the Supreme Court judgment recently on the issue of spying in the Ureweras theHamedcase was not referred to. And it is important—and I say this in answer to some of the questions that were being raised this afternoon by the Green Party co-leader about the Crown Law Office involvement because he is right: the Crown Law Office is there to provide authoritative legal advice for the Crown and it is very important for every public sector organisation to keep close to that organisation. But as the report says on page 25 it did not. Twelve opinions were provided by Crown Law to the Government Communications Security Bureau between 1988 and September 2012—24 years—and only three dealt with operational matters but in the last 6 months 10 opinions have been provided.So quite frankly there is a lot to be learnt from this exercise but the legal compliance the fundamental primer 1 compliance that Sir Bruce Ferguson and others should have been looking at over the years did not happen and it is totally unsatisfactory. For all the cries and the screams and as I said the adolescent piffle that we heard from Andrew Williams let us get down to what the issues are and what the issues are not. It is important to get this right going forward. It is very good that this secretive organisation has been exposed to sunlight and as I said it is the putting right that counts.