Rt Hon Winston Peters
New Zealand First Leader
6 December 2012

Bungling Prime Minister Opens Up NZ To Dotcom Lawsuits

New Zealand First is demanding Prime Minister John Key explain the series of Government blunders which led to Kim Dotcom being given High Court authority to sue the police and the Government Communications Security Bureau.

Rt Hon Winston Peters says New Zealand First forewarned that a lack of responsibility by the bungling National Government – led by Mr Key who has ministerial responsibility for the GCSB – would open the door for Dotcom to launch legal action.

“This will end up costing taxpayers millions of dollars in legal fees to fight the case, and in compensation to Dotcom.

“The Prime Minister needs to explain to the country how the blunders he oversaw led to this unprecedented situation whereby Dotcom can sue the police and our most powerful spy agency.

“Mr Key’s incompetent handling of the situation has opened up New Zealand to international ridicule by making us look like a clueless third rate nation.

“The Prime Minister should apologise to all New Zealanders for his dereliction of duty which put the country in such a position in the first place.

“Mr Key’s spokesperson saying ‘we don’t comment on court cases’ is nonsense. Commenting on this unfolding blunder does not offend any sub judice rule,” says Mr Peters.

--
nzfirst.org.nz | twitter.com/winstonpeters | facebook.com/winstonpeters

ENDS

© Scoop Media

Arguably Reassuring: Inspector-General Finds GCSB "Arguably" Legal

Of the 88 individuals:

• 15 cases involving 22 individuals did not have any information intercepted by GCSB.

• another four cases involving five individuals were the subjects of a New Zealand Security Intelligence Service warrant and the GCSB assisted in the execution of the warrants. The Inspector-General is of the view that there were arguably no breaches and the law is unclear.

• the Bureau only provided technical assistance which did not involve interception of communications, involving three of the individuals, so no breach occurred.

• the remaining cases involved the collection of metadata, and the Inspector-General formed the view that there had arguably been no breach, noting once again that the law is unclear.
More>>