Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 24 October 2012. Volume:685;Page:6124. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
10. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: When will he be informed of the Inspector-General’s findings concerning the three cases where the Government Communications Security Bureau has been unable to assure him that its actions have been lawful and how will he communicate those findings to the House? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I expect to be informed of the inspector-general’s findings when his review of the case is complete. Any decisions regarding the communication of those findings will be made then. However I would note that my own public statement on 3 October said that the Government Communications Security Bureau would issue a further public statement when legal work has been concluded. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Will he ensure that the New Zealanders who were the subject of the surveillance will be informed if it is found that the surveillance of them was unlawful; if not why not? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I cannot guarantee that. I would have to take advice on whether that is a sensible course of action to follow. 
Charles Chauvel 
: When he told the Leader of the Opposition last Tuesday that he had seen the paperwork on which the bureau relied to support its belief that it had “acted legally” in conducting surveillance on Mr Dotcom and his associates and that this material had formed the basis of the bureau’s request to the Acting Prime Minister for a ministerial certificate what was the nature of that paperwork? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Possibly the way I should have phrased that is “some of the paperwork”. I am sure there is more paperwork that the Government Communications Security Bureau has. But amongst other things I have seen email correspondence from the legal team at the bureau that supports the view that Mr Dotcom was not protected. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Is he now satisfied that the correspondence to which he has just referred was incorrect in substance? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I think by nature we admitted that was the case because that was the view formed by the Government Communications Security Bureau’s legal team after it did the review in the middle of February of this year. But of course later on after the affidavit was signed it was presented to the court by Paul Davison QC on behalf of Kim Dotcom on 7 September 2012. A further review was undertaken and it was at that point some time after that that the bureau formed the view that it had in fact applied the wrong legal interpretation at that point. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Is it normal practice for him not be informed promptly by the Government Communications Security Bureau or by his deputy that in his absence the bureau has sought and his deputy has granted a ministerial certificate to prevent a court from considering the bureau’s activities in a particular court case? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I could not possibly ask for information on something that I was not aware was taking place. I think I have said in this House a number of weeks ago that in fact the failing I think was on the Government Communications Security Bureau not to have informed me that it had asked the Minister to sign a ministerial certificate. I might add though that had I seen all of the information that the Acting Prime Minister saw without doubt and without hesitation I would have signed the same documentation.