Finlayson Christopher: Estimates Debate — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFinlayson Christopher: Estimates Debate — In Committee[Sitting date: 30 July 2013. Volume:692;Page:12044. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General):Well I need to make a contribution after that pedestrian effort from Phil Goff because I think a little bit of legislative history is required. In 2003 Helen Clark’s legislation was introduced—and I can understand why they are going; they do not like the truth. In 2003—Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I know that the Attorney-General is a relatively new member but he should know that you do not draw attention to members leaving the Chamber and you especially should not do it when you are acting for someone who is too gutless to be here.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Well the member was on good ground but it ended up being one-all.Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I do acknowledge that I should not have said that but I have not been here for 35 years like that member. In 2003 the Labour Party was in Government—52 seats—and it introduced the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) legislation. The National Party had 27 members and yet instead of taking a purely oppositionist approach to important national security issues the National Party in Opposition supported the Labour Government’s legislation.What was the position of the Greens? Well the Greens were opposed because Rod Donald and the others were so far left they had left New Zealand. They were not interested in national security; their loyalties resided elsewhere. New Zealand First took a principled approach and was in support of that legislation because of the importanceof national security issues. It recognised that national security is more important than politics. Then there has been the much-heraldedKitteridge report and I am not going to talk about that this afternoon. We will have plenty of time over the next few weeks to look at that legislation in a careful and methodical way.But I come to the GCSB legislation and as expected the Greens oppose it and we know why they oppose it. They oppose anything to do with the defence of New Zealand. I am very disappointed in the New Zealand First Party because 10 years ago it understood the importance of these issues and I am sure its constituency does. But Mr Peters—the right honourable Mr Peters—is more interested in political games than in principled debate so he is going to oppose just for the sake of it. People like the New Zealand First member in the Chamber this afternoon should be very worried about that.But my strongest criticism is reserved for the Labour Party because it knows the importance of these issues and in a sense if you like even though it is in a similar position to the position we were inin 2003 the two big beasts of politics have to be able to agree on important issues of national security. It is very disappointing that the Labour Party is not agreeing this year. Instead it is adopting the extraordinary approach of supporting the people who were at Parliament over the weekend—jumping over fences even though the gates were open which gives you an insight into their brains—and making all sorts of protests such as “Long live the republic of New Zealand” “Long live the united nations of the world” and “Long live HugoChávez.” Well it is about 6 months late for that because he has been in his mausoleum for about that period.What we are trying to do in this legislation far from expanding the powers of the GCSB is clarify what Helen Clark was too lazy to clarify in 2003 and at the same time provide and strengthen safeguards and oversight and provide moreover for regular reviews—[Interruption ]—I say to that fellow from Rimutaka who got all petulant in question time. These are important questions and the loyal Opposition should carefully consider its position get away from the hyperbole get away from all the waffle concentrate on the substance and read the bill.These are important issues. Labour’s attitude in this debate to this important issue of national security may work well in a student union debate which is where Mr Hipkins shone before he became a member of Parliament but in the real world these are big questions. They need careful and mature consideration and that is something that on the face of it Labour is simply incapable of doing.Vote agreed to.