Robertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 27 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5743. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
2. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: When was his Chief of Staff first informed about the role of the GCSB in the Kim Dotcom case and when were officials from the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet including the Intelligence Co-ordination Group the National Assessments Bureau and the Security Intelligence Service first aware of the Kim Dotcom case? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development)  
on behalf of the Prime Minister: The Prime Minister’s chief of staff was first informed of the role that the Government Communications Security Bureau played on Monday 17 September. He had been alerted the previous Thursday that there was a potential issue of illegality relating to an operation that the Government Communications Security Bureau had conducted in relation to Kim Dotcom but at that time was given no details of the role the Government Communications Security Bureau had played. His office advised the Government Communications Security Bureau that the director needed to directly brief the Prime Minister as quickly as possible face to face. That meeting was arranged prior to the end of the week and took place on Monday 17 September following Cabinet. I am advised that there was no involvement by any Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet agency prior to the arrest of Kim Dotcom. With regard to the Security Intelligence Service I am advised that its involvement was limited to routine checks which were made when Dotcom applied for New Zealand residency in 2010. 
Grant Robertson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I appreciate that that was a detailed question and I also appreciate the Minister’s answer. In respect of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet all he told us there was that it had no knowledge prior to the arrest. That does not really answer the question of when it was first aware. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the Minister has gone to some trouble to answer the question with some particularity. When I read the question I made notes of the first part of the question—that the Minister should give a precise answer to that because it is something that there should be a clear answer to. The second part of the question asking when those various agencies were aware is a matter that is far more vague. I think it would be difficult for me to try to pin the Minister down on that when there are further supplementary questions available. I think the Minister has made a pretty reasonable fist of answering that question. 
Grant Robertson 
: Can he confirm in light of that answer that his chief of staff did in fact find out about the Government Communications Security Bureau’s role on the Thursday before 17 September not on 17 September as he told the House yesterday? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I can only repeat what I said in the first answer which was that the chief of staff had been alerted the previous Thursday that there was a potential issue of illegality relating to an operation that the Government Communications Security Bureau had conducted in relation to Kim Dotcom. But at that time he was given no details of the role that the Government Communications Security Bureau had played. 
Grant Robertson 
: When—on what date—did the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet become aware of the Kim Dotcom case? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I am advised there was no involvement by any Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet agency prior to the arrest of Kim Dotcom. I presume they read the newspapers at some point. 
Grant Robertson 
: Does he think that ignorance of the law by the Government Communications Security Bureau and the police is an acceptable reason for what has occurred? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The Prime Minister has released a press release this afternoon that indicates his concern and disappointment at the actions of the Government Communications Security Bureau and at the errors that have been made and that is clearly laid out. There is also an associated statement from the director of the Government Communications Security Bureau in terms of the actions it will be taking. 
Grant Robertson 
: Does he think that Justice Neazor is conflicted in reviewing the actions of the Government Communications Security Bureau in this case given that his normal role involves monitoring and working with the Government Communications Security Bureau and is he in effect investigating his own actions here? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I think the role of Justice Neazor—who I would point out is a former Solicitor-General and a former judge of the High Court—is exactly the role that he has undertaken in doing this inquiry for the Prime Minister. 
Grant Robertson 
: Does he think that New Zealanders have a right to expect more of him as the Minister responsible for our security agencies than the casual disinterested approach he has taken to this case? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I completely reject that assertion. The Prime Minister was advised and had the meeting on 17 September and promptly called an inquiry which has now been released today. It is pathetic to suggest that he was disinterested. 
Grant Robertson 
: What was discussed in the 15 meetings that the Prime Minister had with the Government Communications Security Bureau this year if it was not about cases that involve the United States Government the FBI and a range of New Zealand agencies? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: In so far as the Minister is able to answer I call the Hon Steven Joyce.  
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Firstly obviously those are matters of national security. But secondly the member seems to be suggesting that the Prime Minister would involve himself in the operational control on a day-to-day basis of security services. That is a particularly disturbing— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no. Order! The member asked a question that perhaps there was no way the Minister could answer but that does not mean that the Minister goes on to that sort of material. 
Grant Robertson 
: Does he accept that as Minister responsible for the Government Communications Security Bureau he acts as the main democratic check for New Zealanders on our security agencies and should he not be taking his role more seriously than to have 15 meetings where apparently he was not briefed about one of these operations? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I appreciate Mr Robertson is trying to obfuscate in this matter but the reality is the Prime Minister was made aware on 17 September and then called an inquiry. 
Grant Robertson 
: Does he take responsibility for the actions of the Government Communications Security Bureau an agency for which he has ministerial responsibility? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The Prime Minister of course is the Minister responsible for the Government Communications Security Bureau and as soon as the matters were raised with him he called an inquiry. That inquiry has been announced today. It is exactly the right thing to do and the member is being disingenuous by suggesting anything else. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Well if that is the Prime Minister’s answer is he aware that the inspector-general is charged with also reviewing the manner in which the SIS interception warrants are sought that he approved the inspector-general to lead the inquiry before he even ascertained whether the SIS was involved in the Dotcom case and is that not new evidence justifying a full-scale inquiry into the matter covering all departments and agencies involved in the case in order to ascertain what has gone wrong and restore the public’s faith in these institutions? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: That was a many-legged question. All I can say is that the report of the inspector-general is on the table today. It lays out clearly the mistakes made by the Government Communications Security Bureau and the actions to be taken by it. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is the Minister aware that in the  
Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Annual Report 2011 
 the inspector-general states specifically that “In particular the [inspector-general] assists the Minister to ensure that the activities of [the agencies] comply with the law” and hence the inspector-general himself is implicated in the failure of the Government Communications Security Bureau to follow the law so having the inspector-general do the investigation is a conflict of interest? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I reject the member’s supposition and I would point out that the inspector-general has done exactly what is required of him which is to have an inquiry into the matters that have been raised in regard to the Government Communications Security Bureau. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I seek leave to table this document. It is not available online. It is very difficult to get hold of actually. It is the  
Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Annual Report 2011 
 from which that quote came. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 









Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Grant Robertson 
: Does the Prime Minister accept that the precedent for a Minister who is responsible but not aware of an issue comes from Denis Marshall in the Cave Creek situation where the Minister resigned? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I appreciate what the member is trying to do. It is the job of a Minister to respond as in this case as soon as he was made aware of the situation to call an inquiry which has reported today and actions are now being taken to correct the matters that have been identified. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is the Minister aware that under the Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003 there is a much higher level of ministerial control required than of most Government agencies and that section 8(3) says “The performance of the Bureau’s functions is subject to the control of the Minister.”—that is the Minister has specific responsibilities around controlling the actions of the agency; he cannot just take a hands-off approach? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I am sure the member would understand that there is a fine line between actually taking control of the day-to-day operations—and I think it would be in fact a pretty disturbing suggestion that the Prime Minister would be required to do that. The reality is that all Ministers are responsible for the actions of their departments and when a department makes an error to investigate that error and take remedial action. That is what has happened in this case. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is the Minister aware that under the Government Communications Security Bureau Act the Minister in charge of the Government Communications Security Bureau actually has to sign off personally the interception warrants which means that the Minister knows the names and identities of the people who are having their communications intercepted? There is a much higher level of ministerial intervention into the operational and day-to-day activities of the Government Communications Security Bureau than for any other Government agency the reason being that there is no other democratic oversight of the Government Communications Security Bureau. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I would point out to the member again that in this instance the Government Communications Security Bureau has made as the Prime Minister has identified two errors. They have now been investigated and they were investigated promptly once the Prime Minister was made aware of those two errors. Despite what the member suggests I think it is difficult for any Minister to be aware of an error before it has been brought to their attention.