Estimates Debate — Vote Security Intelligence

The Greens are very, very concerned that the SIS, effectively, and also, for that matter, the Government Communications Security Bureau both go without decent surveillance themselves. They have got, in combination, fluctuating budgets and we have no idea what that fluctuation represents.

I will start with, for example, 2007 and 2008—there was expenditure of $73 million between those two agencies. The next year it was $80 million, the next year it was $97 million, and from 2010 to 2011 it was $110 million. Last year it was $98.5 million, and in this one we have got $100 million—the highest ever. You have to wonder why that is being spent. Is that being spent to beef up Mr Key’s security or something? They then assume in 2013-14 they can go down to $94 million, and then $72 million respectively. But we have no idea what that is actually being spent on. Anything else that comes through this Committee we can pull apart—there may be some small amounts that we cannot actually get to grips with—but with these two agencies we have, effectively, nothing. So I do wonder what Mr Key and his spy friends, his close friends, his schoolmate friends who are now heading the spy agencies are doing with their extra millions. It would be really good if the Prime Minister could come here and actually explain a little bit of what he is doing with his millions.

How many millions are actually coming from the US or the UK towards their agencies that we spy so much for? I am thinking, in particular, of Waihopai, with the Echelon system that connects in with the spying agencies of New Zealand. How much is the New Zealand taxpayer the sole contributor, instead of the USA and UK communication dredge? How much is spent on domestic surveillance with the SIS? I would think, in case others in the Chamber do not realise, that the Government Communications Security Bureau and the SIS are very closely linked, and so any discussion that verges back from one agency to the other is totally on board.

How much is spent on international surveillance? How much is spent when they are repairing the domes? How much is spent, as I said before, on the Prime Minister’s surveillance, on his bodyguards, or this, that, and the other? There is a lot of crossover of agencies here, but we cannot get down to it. How much is on capital expenditure, and how much is on those people who are actually dedicated to peace and justice in New Zealand? How much is being spent on surveilling them? How much was spent by the SIS working with the police on the Urewera raid material?

💬 Hon Member: This year?

This year? How much in any year—that is the relevant part of this. We cannot drill down in this, because it is woefully inadequate, and it should not be presented in such a woefully inadequate way. I wonder, with the Government Communications Security Bureau bit, how much was covered by insurance when the dome got ruptured by those who were dedicated to peace and justice. How much is spent on staff; how much on capital expenditure?

Regardless of barracking in this Chamber by those who seem to find it quite acceptable that people, including past members of Parliament, have been spied on by our agencies, when do we actually get to find out what spies are carrying in their bags—whether it is a Playboy and a pie, or something of that nature? We are getting nothing that shows what they actually do in substance for our taxpayers.

I have listened to the diatribe from the Green member of Parliament Steffan Browning. I thought it was important that I take a call at this juncture to say to the Minister in charge of the NZ Security Intelligence Service over these matters that I support the activities of the intelligence agencies of this country. I want to put upon record the fact that I am a member of the Cabinet committee on intelligence and security, so we will not be discussing those matters.

What I will say is that the intelligence agencies of this country do a very good job in the interests of this nation’s intelligence security. I want to place that on record today on behalf of the ACT Party, and I want to say to the Minister in charge of the intelligence agencies, both security and intelligence, that the workers and the people inside those agencies work hard in the best interests of the economic security of this country and security for citizens of this country. They work tirelessly in the pursuit of delivering for this nation economic sovereignty, and you cannot have economic sovereignty if you have foreign agencies spying on this country without counter-intelligence agencies like the ones that we are talking about today.

I want you to know that the ACT Party and people on this side of the Chamber believe in strong, robust security agencies in the best interests of this country, and we support them totally and denounce the myopic, backward-looking views of the Green Party around security and intelligence. If matters of security and intelligence were left to the Green Party, then we would be taken advantage of by many, many nations that would use the barriers and infiltrate us in terms of economic security in particular. So I want to say to the security agencies, which work tirelessly on behalf of this country, that we appreciate you, we thank you, we applaud you, and we support you.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Mr Chairperson—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Trevor Mallard, speaking to the point of order.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

Vote Tourism