Chauvel Charles: Urgent Debates — Dotcom Case—Inquiry into Government Communications Security Bureau Actions 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Chauvel Charles: Urgent Debates — Dotcom Case—Inquiry into Government Communications Security Bureau Actions 
[Sitting date: 27 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5767. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 This is a debate about accountability and we have a Government that seeks constantly to avoid that accountability to the taxpayer. If we want an example in respect of the present matter we need only to look at the timing that elapsed between the delivery of the Neazor report to the Beehive and its making public. That report was delivered to the Beehive at 10 a.m. today by the Hon Paul Neazor himself. It took until 1.42 p.m. for the report to be publicly released. It is quite obvious why that happened. There were two motivations. First of all the Government wanted to put its spin on the report. It wanted to make sure that it had the agencies lined up as to the response and to make sure that it had its tame bloggers lined up so that they knew what to say they knew how to manipulate the media or at least try to so that the Government’s side of the story would be the one that led the news. 
But there was another motivation and that was an attempt to avoid a debate in this place to avoid a parliamentary debate on what was clearly an important current matter of ministerial responsibility and that ought to be debated in this House and now thank goodness is being debated. The only reason it is being debated is that the deputy leader of the Labour Party was quick off his feet. He got a letter to the Speaker as soon as the report was released. But the timing of the release of the report 18 minutes before the beginning of question time is simply cynical. It just shows not only how this Government tries to spin its own lines all the time but how it tries to avoid accountability particularly to this place. So it was willing to let the media have its side of the story to start the spin machines going but to do everything it could to stop a debate happening in this Parliament where it ought to be happening where there ought to be the sort of accountability that we see so rarely. 
There is another issue about accountability and that is the accountability of our security services to the Prime Minister and then the Prime Minister’s accountability in turn to this House and to the people for taking that job seriously. We have just heard from Winston Peters a very apt description in my view of how cavalier the Prime Minister is about these matters. The Neazor report shows some disturbing things about the understanding by the Government Communications Security Bureau of its mandate. The Government Communications Security Bureau can lawfully conduct surveillance only in respect of foreign persons. An opening of the Act a scan of the interpretation provisions which are in section 4 of the Act shows the reader who may and who may not be surveilled by the Government Communications Security Bureau. Only a foreign person can be surveilled. The definition of a foreign person is clear. It is a person who amongst other things does not hold permanent residence. Since the Immigration Act 2009 came into force in November 2010 that has included the holder of the sort of visa category that Mr Dotcom holds. So this has been the law for years and years yet our own security intelligence apparatus appears unable to construe and apply that law appropriately. 
We have a Prime Minister clearly just conducting nominal oversight never asking and never seeking to assure himself as he should given that he is the only effective oversight of these services whether or not they are acting within their mandate. That relaxed confident approach which seemed to be so appealing initially just does not cut it when it comes to the hard work of Government and protecting the interests of the citizen and of the residents of New Zealand. 
Finally we have an issue of accountability generally over this Dotcom saga. It is a sorry saga. It has been characterised in the media as a Keystone Cops saga and I think unfortunately those of us who followed the litigation— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: “Key-stoned” Cops. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: Ha! Those of us who followed the litigation in court would agree with that characterisation. Christopher Finlayson tried to draw a distinction between allowing agencies to conduct themselves with operational independence and some sort of overbearing Muldoonist way of holding them to account. Well that is a false distinction. All that the taxpayers of New Zealand are asking for is proper ministerial oversight of this matter before the taxpayer is left holding the baby. And given the events that are revealed by the Neazor report and by the judgments of the court we are in real danger of that.