Norman Russel: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Norman Russel: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 25 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5557. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
1. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister responsible for the GCSB 
: Does he consider that he should have been informed about the unlawful bugging of Kim Dotcom earlier than Monday 17 September 2012; if not why not? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Minister responsible for the GCSB) 
: 
 No. I was informed by the director of the Government Communications Security Bureau on 17 September which was the first day I was in Wellington following travel to Russia and Japan and the first opportunity I had to meet with the director in a secure environment once he had confirmed that it was likely an unlawful activity had taken place. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is it his understanding that the bugging was unlawful because Mr Kim Dotcom is a resident of New Zealand? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I am not in a position to go through what the particular issues are. I can say that the law is quite clear in one regard about what sort of individual can have action taken against them and in the fullness of time—hopefully by the end of this week—Justice Neazor’s report will be available for people to be able to read. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Am I to understand that the Minister is using a public interest defence for not answering the question? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the Prime Minister answered the question. He said he is not in a position to answer it and I think that one has to take a Minister at their word. That is a pretty honest response to a question if he is not today in a position to answer it. I think the Prime Minister indicated that by the end of the week information should be to hand that will enable some of these answers to be available. But the House does have to take the Minister at his word. If he says he is not in a position to answer it then he is not in a position to answer it. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister has already gone public saying that it was unlawful. What he is being asked today is to further detail the nature of the unlawfulness not being discovered—namely that he was a resident. But he has already been publicly out there in numerous media outlets having said that the action was unlawful. That is why he sought the inquiry. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a— 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Mr Speaker speaking to the point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will hear from the Prime Minister but that was not actually a point of order for the House. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I have to check; I am not entirely sure. I have actually said it is likely to be unlawful and as I said we will be in a better position to understand the reasons— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! This is the trouble we get into when I allow a point to be heard that is not a point of order. We are now getting into debate over the Prime Minister’s answer and it always leads to difficulty. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Given the widespread media coverage that suggests the reason it was unlawful was that Mr Dotcom is a New Zealand resident is he seriously trying to tell the House that the Government Communications Security Bureau was unaware that Mr Kim Dotcom was a New Zealand resident when it has been in every media outlet in the country and Mr Dotcom organised a $500000 fireworks display to celebrate getting his residency? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The fireworks are an irrelevance but the memorandum has been released by the court today. That may help the member get some understanding of the issue but as I said to him earlier in the earlier answer to the question I would be cautious about jumping to conclusions until the member has a chance to read Justice Neazor’s report which I myself have not read. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Referring to the memo released from the court which says that the Government Communications Security Bureau sought an assurance from the Organised and Financial Crime Agency of New Zealand as to the fact that Mr Kim Dotcom was not a resident of New Zealand or a citizen is he seriously trying to tell New Zealand that the Government Communications Security Bureau the organisation whose job it is to acquire information could not find out that Mr Kim Dotcom was a New Zealand resident given that it was in every newspaper in the country and Mr Kim Dotcom had a fireworks display to celebrate his residency? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The issue at heart is about the legality or otherwise of the position and as the memorandum says assurances were given about that legality. But Justice Neazor’s report I am sure will give us the rationale behind why that assurance was given. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister has just referred to the memo and he has now allowed us to— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! What is the issue of order the member—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! I will let the member explain his issue of order. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: The issue of order is around the Prime Minister’s refusal to answer the first supplementary question. He has now referred explicitly to the issue of concern that he refused to answer the question about. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member should think of the question he asked. The question he asked from my recollection was whether the Prime Minister was trying to say to New Zealand that the Government Communications Security Bureau did not know certain information. The Prime Minister in answer has explained that the bureau did have certain information the detail of which is not fully available yet and when it is available from my understanding of the Prime Minister’s answer it will be made public. But the member’s question was one where there was no particular answer. When his question asked “Is he trying to tell New Zealand …” what the Prime Minister has answered is what he is trying to tell New Zealand—that in fact there are legal issues and they are a little more complex than that. That is a perfectly proper answer. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does the Prime Minister accept that the court documents to which he referred in his earlier answers state very clearly that the Government Communications Security Bureau sought assurances from police that Kim Dotcom and his co-accused were foreign nationals and hence it was lawful for the bureau to spy on them and hence the issue at concern was whether Mr Kim Dotcom was a New Zealand citizen or resident? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I accept that that is what the memorandum says yes. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does the Prime Minister hence come to the conclusion that either the Government Communications Security Bureau was incompetent in not checking whether Mr Kim Dotcom was a New Zealand citizen or resident or the bureau misled the responsible Minister because it did not tell him much earlier that it had acted unlawfully? Is it incompetence or did it mislead him? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I believe neither of those assertions to be correct. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: How can the Prime Minister argue that neither of those assertions is correct when either the Government Communications Security Bureau the agency responsible for collecting information did not realise that Kim Dotcom was a New Zealand resident in spite of all the information—that is one option; it is incompetent—or it did not tell the responsible Minister that it had acted unlawfully? What is the third option? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The third option is the Neazor report. The member is jumping to conclusions without all of the information. He is joining dots that actually cannot be joined.