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: 18 October 2012. Volume:684;Page:5975. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
4. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Attorney-General 
: Who other than himself and the Prime Minister was present at the discussion on the Government Communications Security Bureau’s unlawful surveillance of Mr Dotcom? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 I have actually had a number of discussions with the Prime Minister about the Government Communications Security Bureau matter some in person and some on the phone. I cannot recall who was or was not at each and every discussion I have had with the Prime Minister in person. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Has the Prime Minister asked him which other Ministers were present when they discussed the Government Communications Security Bureau’s unlawful surveillance of Mr Dotcom? To assist the Attorney-General I am referring to the particular meeting that has been the subject of questions to the Prime Minister throughout the week. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: No. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Has he checked with his office staff whether they recall which other Ministers were present when he discussed the bureau’s unlawful surveillance of Mr Dotcom with the Prime Minister? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: As I have said there have been a number of meetings and also a number of telephone calls. There was also a telephone— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question asked the Minister as to who was present at the discussion. Including telephone calls does not allow him to escape in that way. He must answer who was present which was the direct question. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I did attempt to clarify for the Attorney-General in the first supplementary question which conversation I was referring to and that is the conversation that I am asking about. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: When I read the primary question my first reaction to the primary question was “Well which discussion?”. The Attorney-General pointed out in answering the question that he had had more than one discussion some face to face and some on the telephone. Forgive me but despite one member’s interpretation this question does not rule out telephone discussions. It refers to just discussion. I cannot say to a member that actually the questioner meant that meeting or that discussion. The question is on the Order Paper and despite trying to identify which discussion the member has not identified any particular date. [ 
Interruption 
] Just before you—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! The member may not have noticed—I know I am not that tall—but I was still on my feet and I have not recognised the right honourable gentleman yet. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Rt Hon Winston Peters. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: More than one person in this House I am certain understands the words “was present at the discussion” as being a person who was present not on the phone— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Order! 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can I finish off my point of order? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the member cannot. [ 
Interruption 
] The member cannot because it is not a point of order. Points of order must relate to the proceedings of the House—not arguing about what the primary question means. That is not a point of order. That is a matter for the Minister to interpret—what that question means—and I have ruled that it is not that clear what it means. That is the end of the matter. There cannot be argument about that by way of point of order. The member should know that. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Does the Minister remember what was discussed precisely at the initial meeting that he had with the Prime Minister concerning the bureau’s unlawful surveillance of Mr Dotcom? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Did the Minister hear the question? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Yes. Yes. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The answer is yes. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Can he inform the House what those matters were? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Yes. The director of the Government Communications Security Bureau had informed the Prime Minister of the question of illegality and then the Prime Minister contacted me to report the contents of that conversation. 
Charles Chauvel 
: On what date did this first discussion between him and the Prime Minister occur concerning the Government Communications Security Bureau’s unlawful surveillance of Mr Dotcom? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: It was in the week prior to the Prime Minister saying on I believe 24 September that there was this issue of illegality. I cannot recall precisely exactly when it was. I was certainly with the Prime Minister visiting the Chatham Islands in the marginal seat of Rongotai so I do not think— 
Hon Annette King 
: Dream on! 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Well look at the party vote “Your Worship”. The actual conversation could have been on the afternoon of the Friday when we returned from the marginal seat. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Who other than him and the Prime Minister was physically—that means at the same place; not somewhere else on the planet but at the same place—present at the first discussion on the Government Communications Security Bureau’s unlawful surveillance of Mr Dotcom? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The question is vague. When I was present I think the Prime Minister and I would have been present at that particular meeting and I do not think anyone else was present at that meeting.