Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumePeters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 17 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13378. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]11.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to thePrime Minister: Why did he say in regard to the raid on the Fiji Democracy and Freedom movement “Istand 100 percent by what I said before: any actions that the SIS or the GCSB take in my opinion are legal …”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Because I believe that to be the case. I do think it is important to repeat the full statement I gave at the time which is that I said: “I stand 100 percent by what I said before: any actions that the SIS or the GCSB take in my opinion are legal with the exception of the case of Mr Dotcom.”Rt Hon Winston Peters: If that is true why did the SIS officer leading the raid on Mr Singh fail to identify herself and fail to produce a search warrant when questioned claiming that it was classified both of which failings are a breach of section 131 of the Search and Surveillance Act?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am not in a position to comment on that. I do not have those details but I will say that I understand that there has been a radio report—at least I have been advised that Mr Singh said that he complained to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. I am advised that the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service has no record of a formal complaint to the inspector-general in relation to what the member is talking about. If Mr Singh feels there is a problem he should follow his legal rights and make a complaint to the inspector-general.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table a letter from the Office of the Ombudsmen setting out Mr Singh’s right to have the matter referred on to the inspector-general by the Office of the Ombudsmen which he requested of them and which they did do.Mr SPEAKER: So it is a letter from the Office of the Ombudsmen that the member is seeking to table. Is there any objection to that being tabled? There appears to be none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Rt Hon Winston Peters: How does he explain ColonelMoseseTikoitoga’stexting Mr Rajesh Singh alerting him to the SIS raid already taking place in Mr Singh’s home if the Fiji military did not receive advice in advance; and as Minister how does he explain that?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not have any of the details that the member is talking about. I stand by the statement I said earlier which is that in my opinion any actions—Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a most serious matter to do with the rights of people who live in this country legally. The Prime Minister was giving all sorts of answers up inMajura in the Marshall Islands on this a week ago and now he comes with no evidence whatsoever.Mr SPEAKER: The member asked a question about how the Prime Minister explained thetexting to Mr Singh etc. The Prime Minister was halfway through that answer—and he may not have the details; that is a legitimate answer—before the member was jumping to his feet claiming that this is a most important matter. That is not a legitimate use of a point of order. If the member is unhappy with the answer and if he has further supplementary questions to use he should so use them.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That would be the case if the Prime Minister could generally say it about that but up in the Marshall Islands just the other day he was making all sorts of statements and slurs about the evidence before this House—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have heard—Rt Hon Winston Peters: That is why—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have heard quite enough from the member. If he wants to stay to complete his question I advise him to start asking supplementary questions. If he is going to raise points of order that are not valid and if he persists with that I willhave no choice but to ask the member to leave the Chamber. Supplementary—does the member want to complete his answer?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes. It would probably be a good idea. I should complete my answer which is that I do not have details. I have never had details about the text messages that the member speaks of. Secondly I stand by the statement that in my opinion in all instances the SIS and the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) have acted legally with the exception of the case of Mr Dotcom. And I repeat what I actually said in the Marshall Islands which was that if the member has some evidence and he believes there has been unlawful activity then he should feel free to take that to the inspector-general or the police or bring it to me.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why would one go to the inspector-general when the inspector-general had this matter referred to him by no less a body than the Office of the Ombudsmen and secondly the Prime Minister has not even responded to the complainant for all these months since then or come to his office and then when he is pushed on it in the House he claims to have no knowledge whatsoever?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly it will not get scarier because the member raises his voice. I am advised that the office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security has no record of a complaint by anyone named Rajesh Singh. If Mr Singh wants to make a complaint he is free to do so. The letter that the member spoke of before—I am guessing but I am pretty sure I will be right—would have been laying out the rights of Mr Singh under the law to make a complaint to the inspector-general if he wants to.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I tabled a document because that document specifically was an offer by the Office of the Ombudsmen to pass on Mr Singh’s information for him if he so desired which he did request in a telephone call. Now we are being treated to more information from the Prime Minister or disinformation when it is simply not relevant to the information that the House needs by way of answer.Mr SPEAKER: Well I am not sure what that point of order is either. Again the member asked a—[Interruption] Order!Rt Hon Winston Peters: I will take it through for you very slowly. The Prime Minister said—Mr SPEAKER: I will give the right honourable member the chance to do so.Rt Hon Winston Peters: The Prime Minister’s inference in two answers today is that the inspector-general’s office was never advised of Mr Singh’s complaint. That tabling of those documents was to prove that the document from Mr Singh by way of complaint went off to the inspector-general. So why is the Prime Minister repeating disinformation and obfuscating in his answers?Mr SPEAKER: That is certainly not a point of order. The member needs to go back and look at the question that he asked. It was a question about why anybody would go to the inspector-general or to the Prime Minister either and he gave you a reason for doing so. The Prime Minister adequately addressed that. If the member has a further supplementary question he is welcome to use it but to continue to relitigate an answer that is given by using a point of order will lead to disorder in this House. I will not warn that member again today.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why should anybody in New Zealand follow the Prime Minister’s advice and trust him as we heard him say time after time in the GCSB debate when there are scores of text messages confirming the Fiji military Government’s clear prior knowledge of the SIS raid and associated actions including the Government of New Zealand working closely with the Government in Fiji as the Prime Minister hinted in aOne News item on 19 July 2012?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not believe it is in the national interest for me to go through all of the details of this particular case but let me state once again that in my opinion any actions taken by the SIS or the Government Communications Security Bureau have always been lawful with the one exception of Mr Dotcom. If anybody believes their actions are not lawful they should follow their legal rights and take them to the police or the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security or they are welcome to bring them to me. The fact that they have not taken those steps probably speaks volumes. But what I can say to the member is this: I know a lot more about this issue than he ever will and he is wrong.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have not called the member yet.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Perhaps Mr Speaker you can explain to me how the last part of that answer was remotely relevant given your decisions in respect of questions I have asked?Mr SPEAKER: Again I invite the member to go back and look at the tone of the question he asked. I thought he was given a very adequate answer.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table a number of documents—first of all a complaint from Rajesh Singh dated 19 July to the Office of the Ombudsmen the Office of the Ombudsmen’s reply dated 20 July a further letter dated 24 July from Rajesh Singh to the Office of the Ombudsmen and a 24 July letter from the Office of the Ombudsmen back to him offering to pass on the information to the inspector-general. In fact one two three—Mr SPEAKER: Order! We do not need that information.Rt Hon Winston Peters: No wait on—it is all here.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Keep going.Rt Hon Winston Peters: It is all here. Plus there are 16 texts that were sent on the cellphone of ColonelTikoitoga the Commander Land Force in Fiji to Mr Rajesh Singh; and a further 41 texts also sent by the commander of the Fiji forces on this matter; and further a receipt document from the SIS as to the computers and technology machinery they took away from Mr Singh at the time of this illegal raid.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table a number of documents. If I can summarise them quickly they are correspondence between a complainant and the Office of the Ombudsmen. Does anybody have any objection to that detailed information being tabled? There is none. It can be so tabled.Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House.