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: 20 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8700. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
8. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by all his statements on the actions and involvement of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Government Communications and Security Bureau in Operation Debut? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
Grant Robertson 
: Does he stand by his statement that he was not briefed by the Government Communications Security Bureau about its role in Operation Debut either in his meeting on 22 December 2011 or in any subsequent meetings before September 2012? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes with the exception of the day that I went over on the 27th when the pin-size piece of iconic thing was put up on the thing but I was not told at that time. 
Grant Robertson 
: Can he confirm that Roy Ferguson from his own Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet was present at the debriefing on Operation Debut that was held on 16 February 2012? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I cannot absolutely confirm that. It is most probably correct. I can confirm that the advice I have had from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet is that it neither advised nor discussed with me the Government Communications Security Bureau’s involvement in the Kim Dotcom case prior to 17 September 2012. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How does the Prime Minister expect anybody to believe that the subject of Dotcom was not raised referred to or covered with him as Prime Minister and Minister responsible for the GCSB at a meeting he had with the Government Communications Security Bureau on 24 February a meeting that took place 48 hours after the agency realised its mistake? Why would we believe that now? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Because it happens to be true and to quote the member “I deal in the facts and only the facts.” 
Grant Robertson 
: Can he confirm that Ian Fletcher the director of the Government Communications Security Bureau was present at the debriefing on Operation Debut that was held on 16 February 2012? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I do not have advice on that matter. It may or may not be correct. You could put that down to his office and they will tell you. 
Grant Robertson 
: I seek leave of the House to table an email from the Government Communications Security Bureau to the Organised and Financial Crime Agency of New Zealand dated 15 February 2012 which lists the attendees from the bureau at the debrief beginning with the director Ian Fletcher. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that email. Is there—[ 
Interruption 
] Members are asking the source of that email. 
Grant Robertson 
: It is a court document. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is before the court. I think that is very dangerous to table it. 
Hon Member 
: No it has been released. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It has been released? Then I will put the leave. It is for the House to determine. There is objection. [ 
Interruption 
] Any member has the right to object. 
Grant Robertson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to clarify that the document I was trying to table was released to me by the court last week so it is not— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think that was understood when I put leave and on that basis it was still denied by members. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think it is a little unreasonable to leave the House or those who are watching the House under the impression that this document just had leave for its release declined on any old basis. The reality is it is a court document and it is not appropriate— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Any member has a right—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! I do not need assistance on this. Leave was put by me. Any member has a right to object. They do not have to give a reason. Objection was taken; it will not be tabled. [ 
Interruption 
] That sort of remark is not helpful to the order of the House. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! 
Grant Robertson 
: Is he aware of this slide from the PowerPoint presentation given at the debriefing on 16 February 2012 which shows that the issue of the residency status of Mr Dotcom was discussed at that meeting? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No I have not seen that particular document but it is really important to understand that there is nothing new in what is going through here. There is absolutely nothing new here. When this matter was discussed last year I made it quite clear that there was a meeting that was held in the middle part of February where the issue of residency status for Kim Dotcom was discussed. It went off to the legal adviser at the Government Communications Security Bureau who confirmed things were right. In fact as I have publicly said the advice from the legal team at the bureau was wrong. That is all in the public domain and has been now for well over 6 months. 
Grant Robertson 
: I seek leave of the House to table this slide freely released to me by the court from a PowerPoint presentation given at the debrief on Operation Debut which indicates that the residency issue for Mr Dotcom was discussed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I put that does anybody want further information? Leave is sought for that. That is an objection. It will not be tabled. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In seeking leave to table documents members have been asked to explain the source of the documents—in other words who generated the document the date of the document and a brief description of the document. Members have never been asked in the House before to identify how they came to get the document which is what the new precedent that seems to be happening— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I sought whether any further information was required. It was clearly going to be denied—it was denied. That is the privilege of any member of the House. 
Grant Robertson 
: Is he aware of the affidavit of Detective Inspector Grant Wormald that he spoke immediately after the 16 February meeting to a Government Communications Security Bureau staff member who raised the issue that the interception of Kim Dotcom “may not have been lawful because of their residency status.”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes and it is the same answer as the answer that I gave to the question before this which was that on that date there was a discussion about the residency status of Kim Dotcom. What happened was that the Government Communications Security Bureau went off to its senior legal adviser Hugh Wolfensohn and asked for advice about whether the operation was legal. The advice that was given—the best of the legal advice presented by Hugh Wolfensohn—was that it was legal. That was the position that everyone believed to be the case until early September 2012. As we now know the bureau and Mr Wolfensohn were wrong. 
Grant Robertson 
: In light of that answer how does the Prime Minister explain the affidavit that was put to the court on 17 September 2012 that indicates that the Government Communications Security Bureau was aware on 22 February that the surveillance was unlawful? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: An affidavit is what somebody believes. I am not sure which particular affidavit the member is talking about but— 
Grant Robertson 
: If you let me table it. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Well they are court documents and this is a matter before the courts but I go back to the same point. No one at any time in the last 6 months to the best of my knowledge has argued that point—that in the middle of February there was a discussion between I think the Organised and Financial Crime Agency of New Zealand and the Government Communications Security Bureau about the legality of the work that was undertaken by the bureau. It went—well the member shakes his head but it is a statement of fact—it went off to the legal adviser at the bureau who provided advice to it that it was legal. It later on proved to be wrong. That is what we have been saying now for 6 months—the Government Communications Security Bureau got it wrong. 
Grant Robertson 
: I seek leave of the House to table an affidavit from a Government Communications Security Bureau staff member given on 17 September 2012 that indicates that this person learnt on 22 February that Mr Dotcom and his family were persons holding residence-class visas and that this meant— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that affidavit. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Grant Robertson 
: How does he explain that he was not briefed about the role of the Government Communications Security Bureau in the Dotcom raids when the director of the bureau two deputy directors an assistant director a unit manager from the bureau a member of his own department and senior members of the police were all present at a discussion about the fact that the surveillance of Mr Dotcom may well have been unlawful? How come he was not briefed? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Quite simply. I am not advised on any of the operational matters that the Government Communications Security Bureau is undertaking. In fact that is not the standard practice and it was never the standard practice for the previous Prime Minister either. If the member—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I want to hear the answer. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: If the member wanted to make the case that I was going to be briefed as the Minister—which is actually the Minister responsible for the direction and the priorities of the agencies—that I was actually being briefed on every operation that was being undertaken then the member is wanting New Zealanders to believe that I direct those operations in the same way that they would want the Minister of Police to believe that they were directing those operations. By the way as all the facts will show in the history of time there is absolutely nothing different in my approach to the same approach that was taken by Helen Clark. 
Grant Robertson 
: Why should New Zealanders not believe that this was in fact a cover-up when the Director of the Government Communications Security Bureau two deputy directors an assistant director a unit manager from the bureau and someone from his own department did not report to him that there was unlawful surveillance that had taken place which they knew on 22 February? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Well one good starting point would be the Inspector-General who actually— 
Grant Robertson 
: He became involved in September. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Well but he reviewed the file and came back and said: “This is how the error was undertaken.” I mean the member can spin it any way he likes but the reality of the situation is that a raid was undertaken the Government Communications Security Bureau was involved it believed it to be legally correct later on it was questioned whether it was it went— 
Grant Robertson 
: They never even checked the residency status. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Well the point there is that the bureau ultimately went and checked with its legal adviser in February. The legal adviser went back and said— 
Grant Robertson 
: After it was over—great! 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Well look the member can go on and on and on because he does not want to hear the facts. But if you want to hear the facts we will run through it. It undertook a raid. Basically it questioned whether it was right. It went and got legal advice. Its legal advice said: “You are totally entitled to do what you are doing.” and it was wrong.