Mallard Trevor: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mallard Trevor: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 01 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4176. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 That was John Banks talking on security and intelligence. I am tempted to take the Maggie Barry approach to this one and say: “What right does that member have to speak about intelligence?”. I want to say to that member as he scuttles around the Chamber—scuttles like a cockroach towards the door scuttles like a chicken across the Chamber—that John Banks is the person who wanted to keep the tea tapes secret. He thought that was a matter of national security. He called in the police against the poor cameraman and complaining whinging and crying he went to the police—crying he went to the police—and he said: “Please please get the SIS involved to protect me from what I said to the Prime Minister. Please get the SIS involved to protect me.” 
Hon John Banks 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I have been here a long time and I clearly understand the Standing Orders as you do Mr Chairperson. This is very very wide and it is stretching the parameters of Vote Security Intelligence and the debate in the Committee stage. I ask the member to start focusing on the issues that we are discussing which have got nothing to do with tea tapes. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. The member had just started to talk about this being involved with the SIS. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It is pretty easy to talk about. What I want to talk about is Kim Dotcom. We know that the SIS was involved. The SIS was involved with the FBI but what I want to know is whether it also got the record of all the money that John Banks was given by Kim Dotcom. Was the SIS involved in that? Did it look inside the secret envelopes? Did the SIS look inside the secret envelopes? Is it the intention of the SIS to give evidence in the case of Kim Dotcom as to the money that John Banks got inside the paper bag and then pretended that he did not get? 
Chris Hipkins 
: Would it have been on the hard drives? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well it might have been on the hard drives that were exported to the United States. I want to know in this current year whether the SIS is going to give any evidence to any court in the country about the money that went to John Banks from Kim Dotcom. We know that Kim Dotcom has been quite open about it but John Banks has said something else. Outside the House John Banks said something else and I— 
Hon John Banks 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I seek leave to get some guidance from you. This is far too wide. This is an appropriation debate and it has got nothing to do with the SIS listening to someone called Mr Kim Dotcom. I ask the member to get back to the debate under the Standing Orders because he has been here long enough to know that it is a little bit like discussing fighting in this Parliament— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! I am on my feet. What I can advise the member is that the debate should be limited to the operating and investing activities of the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service. The member links to the Security Intelligence Service. He is being very inventive but he has not strayed too far yet. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I take great offence at your suggestion that I have been inventive. It is a matter of record that Kim Dotcom is before the New Zealand courts. It is a matter of record that the SIS has been involved as well as the FBI. It is a matter of fact that this case is ongoing. It is absolutely within these estimates and there is nothing inventive about that whatsoever. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: What the member is saying is factual. That is correct. But what I want to tell the Committee is that this debate has to be about the total annual and permanent appropriations. So that is where we have to position this debate. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I just want to remind you having had my colleague Trevor Mallard interrupted twice now that the sole judge of relevance in this debate is you as the Chairperson. Just because a debate cuts a little bit too close to the bone for a particular member that does not give them the right to interrupt another member to question their relevance. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for his contribution. Members of course are free to raise different issues within the House as they so choose. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Let us now just go straight to the facts. Is money to be spent this year by the New Zealand Government on evidence on behalf of the FBI that goes to how much money John Banks took from Dotcom and how much he forgot? Outside the House John Banks said he got none and Kim Dotcom indicated that it was quite a lot. One of them is telling the truth and one of them is a liar. I do not think that Kim Dotcom is a liar and I want to know whether the evidence from the SIS— 
Dr Cam Calder 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is not appropriate to suggest by innuendo that a member of this House is a liar. That is one point. The other point is that this is an appropriations debate and I have heard nothing to suggest that that is what it is. It sounded more like a general debate. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I have two points. One is that I listened very carefully to Mr Mallard and he did not breach the Standing Orders in his use of language on the first issue that the member raised. The second point was raised with you I think by Mr Hipkins that the constant and deliberate points of order interrupting a member’s speech have been ruled on as inappropriate. You are the person who sets the rules. If Mr Mallard had breached the Standing Orders I am sure knowing you and your eye for detail you would have hauled him in. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. Can I just advise members. I have had a look at a couple of Speakers’ rulings here. Under Speaker’s ruling 42/2 it says that the use of the word “lie” is out of order: “Many other expressions can be used …”. Under Speaker’s ruling 42/4 it goes on to say that “calling another member a liar … is an offence against the dignity of the House and the assumption that its members behave truthfully and honourably.” The member has come close. I am listening very carefully to the debate and I am also taking into account the content of what is being said. I just ask the member to be responsible. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: And I will. As I make the point about the spending of New Zealand taxpayers’ funds on the SIS I make it clear that I have not accused John Banks of lying to this House. I have not; I did not do that and I will not do that. But I will not back up his comments—the comments that he made outside the House. I will not make comments on those but I do say I prefer the version of Mr Kim Dotcom because I think he has been shown to tell the truth and I think that the evidence from the SIS that has been collected—those computer records that are going to be in court in I think August or February depending on when the appeal is sorted out—will make it absolutely clear who is telling the truth. 
Hon John Banks 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The Standing Orders are very very clear about members of this Parliament making comments about matters before the courts—very clear. The member should give away the shadow-boxing and start getting back to the debate. But making comments about matters before the courts is not appropriate under the Standing Orders of this Parliament. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Mr Chairperson— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Trevor Mallard speaking to the point of order. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No no. I am just going to keep on speaking because that is nonsense. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Based on your coaching I am very careful not to reflect on your management of the Committee but I am struggling during points of order to hear the points because of the constant interjections. It is my understanding that points of order should be heard in silence and I am having difficulty hearing what the points of order are. So I just wanted to point that out to you. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I just want to say that in no way does this impinge on your judgment but I simply reiterate the point I made. You are the sole judge of what goes or not in this place. I have lost count of the number of points of order from that member over there. He tried it on last night as well to try to break members’ speeches and it is not on. I do not have the Speaker’s ruling nor the Standing Order—forgive me—in front of me but I am pretty sure from other learned members that there is a Standing Order and a Speaker’s ruling about deliberate attempts to break up a member’s speech with spurious points of order. It may be that certain people should leave this place if they are going to continue to challenge your ruling and continue to try to prevent a member who is making a speech that falls inside the Standing Orders from exercising their freedom of speech. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I thank the honourable members. I have actually pointed out the different Speakers’ rulings that are here. The member is correct. I am the sole judge and the constant interruptions could lead to disorder. I invite the member to continue his call. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Thank you Mr Chairperson. The point that I want to ask the Minister in the chair the Minister of Internal Affairs is how much is going to be spent on the salaries of agents who go to court or who play voice recordings of John Banks talking to Dotcom because Mr Dotcom has said one thing and Mr Banks has said another. Let us sort out who is telling the truth. How much is going to be spent by the SIS in the current year on establishing the truth in the Dotcom case? I tend to say that most of that case in my opinion is rubbish. It has been done at the behest of people offshore but there is an interesting facet in this case because there is the conflict of evidence between Mr Kim Dotcom and the Hon John Banks. I want to know how much is going to be spent on that matter— 
Hon John Banks 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. OK I now want you to refer to Standing Order 112(1). This is a serious matter I raise. I know the Standing Orders. I have been here a long long time. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! The member will be seated. When a point of order is on the floor it is to be heard in silence. The point of order is to be terse and to the point and not a debating issue. 
Hon John Banks 
: Terse and to the point. Standing Order 112(1) states: “Matters awaiting or under adjudication in or suppressed by an order of any New Zealand court may not be referred to in any motion debate or question … subject always to the … Speaker and to the right of the House to legislate on any matter or to consider delegated legislation.” Matters before the courts should not be debated here and this matter is before the courts subject to extradition. I tell the member for wherever he comes from Mr Mallard that he should not pursue these matters that are subject to a court decision under Standing Order 112(1). 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Speaking to the point of order Mr Chairman. If that member gives us an assurance that the matter to do with his discussions with Dotcom is currently a matter up for adjudication in the court in New Zealand I will accept his word and stop referring to it. But I want him to be absolutely specific that that is a matter before the court. If he does that I will stop referring to it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I can only look to Standing Order 112(1) which states: “Matters awaiting or under adjudication in or suppressed by an order of any New Zealand court may not be referred to in any motion debate or question including a supplementary question subject always to the discretion of the Speaker and to the right of the House to legislate on any matter or to consider delegated legislation.” I am mindful also of course of a number of Speakers’ rulings that relate to issues that can actually lead to disorder—in particular referring to people as not saying things in the way in which they should do. I want to take the member’s word that the matter is subject to a court order. I ask the member to return to the debate. I have to take the member’s word that it is subject to a court order and if that in fact is the case then I ask the member to return to the debate. 
Hon John Banks 
: Which member are you referring to? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is that a point of order? 
Hon John Banks 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The matter I am referring to is the matter that the member has continually referred to: a man called Dotcom—nothing to do with me whatsoever. The matter is in relation to Dotcom’s extradition to the States which is a matter before the courts and under Standing Order 112 the member for Hutt South cannot raise it in this House. It is nothing to do with me whatsoever; it is to do with Standing Order 112(1). Dotcom’s extradition is subject to court proceedings and cannot be raised in this House. You should tell the member for Hutt South to desist. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: All I can say to the member is that if it is before the courts then it cannot be debated. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. That is the germane point in the Standing Order that the member quoted: “Matters awaiting or under adjudication …”. You indicated that he had confirmed that the matters were under adjudication. I do not— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I understand that that is what the member has said to the Committee. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I do not know whether that is the case. You may want to seek some clarity on that because I do not know whether he did say that. The question is if those matters referred to by Mr Mallard do not as I understand it form part of any extradition proceeding or court matter—they are separate pertaining to the member in question—then as far as I understand they are in no way related to a court case unless that member can confirm that they are. I would invite you to check that with him because I do not think he did confirm it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am advised that anything pertaining to Kim Dotcom’s extradition cannot be debated here because that is subject to a court order. That is where we are: anything to do with the extradition of Kim Dotcom cannot be debated. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Thank you Mr Chairperson. I want to go right back to the core here and that is the spending of SIS funds. I want an assurance from the Minister that not one cent of SIS funds is going to be spent in the current year on any court case whatsoever dealing with Banks and Dotcom. I want to know that the voice tapes that the SIS has of Banks and Dotcom are not going to be used in an extradition case. I want an assurance— 
Hon John Banks 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Get him on a short chain— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! [ 
Interruption 
] Order! The member will be seated. What I was signifying to the member is that he has to use a member’s full name or his title. That is what I was saying. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: We know the habit of this Government of spending an enormous amount of taxpayers’ funds—the amount the Prime Minister wasted on the teapot tapes and all that police time. I want to know that the Prime Minister is not wasting SIS funds on covering up John Banks’ relationship with Kim Dotcom. We know that the SIS is holding the tapes of the conversation that Banks had with Dotcom. Banks said one thing; Dotcom said something else. I prefer the Dotcom version of what occurred but I want to know that not one further cent of taxpayers’ funds is going to be spent on protecting John Banks—the way it was with police funds right through the teapot saga. 
New Zealanders are sick of the apparatus of the State being used to protect the ACT Party and those people who are not prepared to be full and frank with the truth and not prepared to be full and frank with the people of New Zealand to always tell the truth and to always make proper declarations. The SIS should not be used to protect those people. They should be allowed to stand or fall on their own word rather than a cover-up occurring where Dotcom’s tapes which show what Banks said have been stolen and sent to the States—stolen and sent to the States. That is an extreme way of protecting a Minister. It is an extreme way of protecting John Banks to have the apparatus of the New Zealand courts system the police and the SIS used to take the evidence right out of the computers of Kim Dotcom and send it offshore. That is a waste of New Zealand taxpayers’ funds. It is a waste of the SIS and we want an assurance from the Minister in the chair—and frankly I am very surprised that we have such a junior Minister in the chair representing the SIS. I am surprised. The SIS would normally be present during the estimates. Clearly— 
Hon Annette King 
: In raincoats. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well no not normally in raincoats; they normally leave them outside. The SIS which would normally be present for this debate has chosen not to come and back up John Banks. It is embarrassed by John Banks as most New Zealanders are embarrassed by John Banks because he is— 
Vote agreed to.