Shearer David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Shearer David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Sitting date: 26 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5647. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
1. 
DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by all his statements in relation to Kim Dotcom and the inquiry into the actions of the Government Communications Security Bureau? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I stand by my full statements in the context in which they were given. 
David Shearer 
: When did the Government Communications Security Bureau begin surveillance of Kim Dotcom and when did it realise it was acting illegally? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I think the memorandum spells out exactly when that work began—if the member gives me a moment. It was 16 December 2011 and it ended on 20 January 2012. The Government Communications Security Bureau recognised the error a few days before it told me—I think it was about 5 to 7 days before it told me. 
David Shearer 
: Who first told him of the Government Communications Security Bureau’s illegal surveillance and approximately what date was that? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: It was Monday 17 September when the Government Communications Security Bureau came over to advise me there had been an error. 
David Shearer 
: Is he aware of any involvement by staff from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet the SIS or the National Assessments Bureau in the Dotcom case; if so what involvement was that? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I am not sure about the latter two the SIS and the National Assessments Bureau. The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet may have been advised. I do not know that—I would have to go and check that—but it is possible it would have known in that period when I was told on Monday the 17th. 
David Shearer 
: Did he receive any advice from those agencies in the past 12 months in relation to the Kim Dotcom case? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Not in relation to this issue. I was informed of that only on 17 September. Whether there was earlier advice on extradition and other matters I am not sure. I do not think so. 
David Shearer 
: Given that the ministerial certificate signed by Bill English said that the Kim Dotcom communication intercepts “would likely prejudice the security of New Zealand” does he feel he should have been told well before by either Bill English or his own department? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No. It is important to understand what the ministerial certificate is. The ministerial certificate is essentially a suppression order that was on the basis of an application by Kim Dotcom’s legal team to release the name of the Government Communications Security Bureau’s activity. It is not normal practice for us to do that. So because the bureau believed it had acted lawfully it asked the Acting Prime Minister to sign the ministerial certificate which avoided it having to make that public statement. 
David Shearer 
: Does he think he was providing proper democratic oversight of his agency when he did not receive advice of the Government Communications Security Bureau involvement in the Dotcom case in the past 12 months? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes. It would be quite inappropriate for me to be involved in a police raid and if this member wants to one day be Prime Minister and direct the police—well that is a pretty interesting way he is going to go. It is— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! That is sufficient.