John Key trashes the Constitution

55 comments on “John Key trashes the Constitution ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Colonial Viper 1

   2 August 2013 at 8:22 am

   Similar to what I said in Anthony’s excellent post, I believe that we are already in the midst of a constitutional crisis. Key is repeating the exact same lines that we have heard out of the US for many years now, and which have been used as justification for the massive US surveillance systems directed against their own citizens. The question has to be asked – is he still acting in the best security interests of the nation, has he been directing the activities of our intelligence services in a legal and appropriate manner. Until that question is fully answered, Key must step down as head of our nation’s intelligence services.
   • James N 1.1

     2 August 2013 at 8:35 am

     Peter Dunne also made the astonishing to claim to Campbell that the objections to the GCSB Bill by the Law Society Human Rights Commission, InterntNZ et al were all to the “original bill” before his “amendments” and that the amendments he had won have met all their objections. (!) I am waiting with bated breath for these groups and others to thank him publicly, simper with gratitude, and withdraw their objections to the bill. So far there has been a deathly silence. Thanks, Peter.
   • James N 1.2

     2 August 2013 at 8:35 am

     [Edit duplicate comment]
2. Sable 2

   2 August 2013 at 8:34 am

   Sounds like Dung is is applying a heavy layer of white wash to everything. I wonder if it will be enough….
3. Dv 3

   2 August 2013 at 8:36 am

   Re the Dune amendments.
   They have not been seen as yet(?) nd only have Dunnes comment they will address all the problems.

   This law is difficult to write and it not getting any serious analysis (Except by parliament)

   It has all the hall marks of Very very bad law.
   • Sable 3.1

     2 August 2013 at 8:45 am

     Sorry to sound cynical but I have a hard time remembering when a government in this country passed a sound law. All we have seen over the last thirty or so years is laws passed mostly with little or no consultation that have proved mostly detrimental to the population at large.

     If anything is needed here its a proper constitution and an independent watchdog body that politicians are accountable to to limit the worst of their excesses.
   • North 3.2

     2 August 2013 at 6:29 pm

     Very very………very bad law DV.

     You can just see it coming.

     I hope there’s occasion for the Supreme Court to hand down a judgment. About the bad law.

     Which pointedly emphasises the importance of the people over the importance of the executive.

     Can I whisper “OLIGARCHY!” ?
4. Colonial Viper 4

   2 August 2013 at 8:48 am

   A tin foil hat wearing a 911 conspirator would say that the GCSB collected the data.

   Uhhhhh, except that we know that XKEYSTROKE is a real system, and according to information released by Snowden in the last 24 hours, there is an XKEYSTROKE hub operating out of New Zealand.

   Frankly, let’s stop dissing the “tin foil hat wearers”, they’ve been proven stunningly right so far this year.
   • One Anonymous Knucklehead 4.1

     2 August 2013 at 9:11 am

     Even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day.
   • RJL 4.2

     2 August 2013 at 11:57 am

     GCSB is a red herring in this instance.

     True, GCSB probably has the technical capability to provide the information that was gathered on Vance and Dunne (and potentially others) in this instance.

     However, Parliamentary Services seemingly has the capability too. It’s still illegal, and still Key’s responsibility, regardless of who did it.

     As an aside, the GCSB (in this case) would only be able to access data that other people had already gathered. Largely data “gathered” as an incidental consequence of how things like the cellphone network operates). Unless you are claiming that the GCSB (or others) were prior to the leak inquiry and therefore as a matter of routine, deliberately, and specifically monitoring (but perhaps not analysing) communications between journalists and ministers.
     • Colonial Viper 4.2.1

       2 August 2013 at 2:18 pm

       How on earth would Parliamentary services get metadata on Vance’s Fairfax provided work mobile phone? Looks like the job of the GCSB to me.
       • RJL 4.2.1.1

         2 August 2013 at 2:57 pm

         I presume by asking somebody who holds that data i.e. mobile phone contract provider etc. I am positive that the police can successfully request such information (under proper warrents, etc) when it exists and is required in a criminal investigation. You are absolutely right that it could have been the GCSB who got it. It doesn’t make much difference either way. The fact that Parliamentary Services got it at all, is a problem in and of itself, no matter who they got it from.

         Another option is that Parliamentary Services itself has a routine ability to access the logs of at least the cell stations in/near Parliament. Which is always technically possible (and it is perhaps possible to dream up a Terrorism!-prevention “need” for such capability), but I would have imagined it was legally unlikely. On the other hand, if there is anything we should have learnt from Dotcom/Vance/Key etc, it is that “legally unlikely” is no barrier to action.
   • travellerev 4.3

     2 August 2013 at 5:06 pm

     Also an incredibly confusing sentence. A tinfoil hat wearing a 911 conspirator? Is that even English? Is the tinfoil hat wearing the conspirator? Is the conspirator part of the 911 conspiracy. I mean WTF?
5. Matthew 5

   2 August 2013 at 8:50 am

   I believe Peter Dunne needs to be reminded of the maxim that ‘you cant polish a turd’.
   This GCSB/TCIS bill is the biggest turd in the septic tank that is the last 5 years of NZ politics.
6. Mary 6

   2 August 2013 at 9:00 am

   That’s what you get when you’ve got a merchant banker for a PM. No understanding of public service ethics whatsoever. You see this time and time again when government departments bring in “change managers” from the private sector. They just have no fucking clue and think they can do anything they like.
7. Watching 7

   2 August 2013 at 9:04 am

   MICKYSAVAGE – John Key trashes the Constitution

   Could you define what you mean by the Constitution – I don’t see how you can call a Treaty, laws & regulations passed by central and local government and Court rulings a Constitution.

   This is not challenging your article but how you define a Constitution that have never been accepted/voted on by the people.
   • Colonial Viper 7.1

     2 August 2013 at 9:11 am

     Check out the information the Govt has already put out on the constitutional reform process.
   • mickysavage 7.2

     2 August 2013 at 9:17 am

     It is true that we have no US style constitution. But we have a series of Acts that each set out basic principles and liberties. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is an important one. Just as important are the constitutional norms that have been built up over the centuries. These are basically modes of behavior that have been agreed to.

     A merchant banker would have no appreciation of these subtleties and would think that they are irrelevant.
   • One Anonymous Knucklehead 7.3

     2 August 2013 at 9:17 am

     You see the part where you point out that laws have been passed by “central and local government”? Can you also see the part where you claim “the people” have not voted?

     How did the central and local government get there if not by people voting?
     • Watching 7.3.1

       2 August 2013 at 9:56 am

       Confirmed – laws passed by “central and local government”? is not a Constitution. That Shearer and the next Nats government can pass laws within days of taking office but changes to a Constitution need to go back to the people.

       CV – the reform is draft ideas only. I have concerns that a Constitution that spans successive parliaments can be decided by a 61-59 vote. A Constitution needs to be accepted by both sides of the political divide otherwise it won’t survive.

       MS – agree with you. So we do not have a Constitution as acts of parliament can and will be changed by each new government.
       • One Anonymous Knucklehead 7.3.1.1

         2 August 2013 at 10:05 am

         “Modes of behaviour that have been agreed to”, “constitutional norms” and so on may sound ephemeral, but my understanding is that they inform court decisions, thereby setting a raft of precedents.

         Key may find that these unwritten rules are his undoing. If they are not, the rules need strengthening.

         This public servant would be king. He’s doing it wrong.
         • Draco T Bastard 7.3.1.1.1

           2 August 2013 at 8:07 pm

           Key may find that these unwritten rules are his undoing. If they are not, the rules need strengthening.

           What Key and National are doing ATM are, IMO, proof that we need a written constitution.

           A Constitution needs to be accepted by both sides of the political divide otherwise it won’t survive.

           Nope, a constitution needs to be set by referendum. Leaving it to the politicians means that we’d end up with BS like the US Constitution and unable to change it.
       • UglyTruth 7.3.1.2

         5 August 2013 at 11:32 pm

         1a body of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is acknowledged to be governed:
         http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/constitution

         The application of these principles are sometimes referred to as the rule of law. This is a problem for atheists because the principles are those of the common law and they are fundamentally theistic in nature. The state simply deems that the common law excludes those principles, leaving only the judge made case law.
   • Short Plank 7.4

     2 August 2013 at 2:02 pm

     Well, Watching, I presume you’d argue that the UK doesn’t have a Constitution, either.
   • Draco T Bastard 7.5

     2 August 2013 at 8:00 pm

     Could you define what you mean by the Constitution – I don’t see how you can call a Treaty, laws & regulations passed by central and local government and Court rulings a Constitution.

     Constitution

     A constitution is a set of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is governed.[1] These rules together make up, i.e. constitute, what the entity is.

     Comprende?
8. Private baldric 8

   2 August 2013 at 9:18 am

   I remember that nice newsreader Mr Brockman saying that there were riots at the opening of the magic flute by Mozart so it was reasonable that we banned all music.

   So it makes sense that if we have someone in NZ that has been with Mr Osama’s group that we should all be spied on.

   Captain Adder disagrees and says I’m a bit of a thickeee.

   [Snip – How about you address the post? MS]
   • tc 8.1

     2 August 2013 at 9:35 am

     Earth to private baldric…..hello up there. have another espresso/red bull/pipe whatever it is that gets you to that state or you are more likely a paid up troll so no stimulants required.
9. richard 9

   2 August 2013 at 9:46 am

   Dunne’s about face on this bill really puzzles me. With more and more revelations of dirty tricks coming out every day, I’m now wondering if Dunne had a Prince Charles moment and has since been told of a very embarrassing recording. Perhaps this is just idle speculation.
   • yeshe 9.1

     2 August 2013 at 12:21 pm

     likely a ‘workable truth’ rather than ‘idle speculation’.
10. karol 10

    2 August 2013 at 10:48 am

    This is what I keep coming back to:

    From Micky’s post:

    Dunne was surprised at the intensity of the enquiry and he is right. All that occurred as a consequence was that a report was released early. It did result in Key having to release the report from China a week early but this should not be a hanging offence.

    Dunne said on CL last night, what should have been a “low level” inquiry, was pursued as a “high level” inquiry”.

    So one theory is that it was an attempt to smear Dunne, and possibly have some kind of hold over him – like to do with why he is now supporting a Bill, using dodgy logic, that he previously did not support.

    However, it could as easily have been an attempt to smear Andre Vance.

    Or, things in the version of the report leaked to Vance were ones Key had intended to withhold from public scrutiny.

    Or ……?

    And who leaked to Winston Peters? – Key attempting to trash Dunne, and thence switch to NZ First as a desirable ally?

    Further question: did the GCSB have any role in the attempt to gather evidence on the Kitteridge leak? And, if so, why?
    • Veutoviper 10.1

      2 August 2013 at 11:58 am

      “Further question: did the GCSB have any role in the attempt to gather evidence on the Kitteridge leak? And, if so, why?”

      The Terms of Reference for the Henry Inquiry included this:

      “DPMC and GCSB will each make available a senior official to support David Henry in carrying out this inquiry.”

      Source: Appendix Two to the Henry Report

      http://img.scoop.co.nz/media/pdfs/1306/Henry_Report.pdf

      Para 2 of the Overview in Appendix Three then states that Issac Hollis* from DPMC was seconded to assist Henry for six weeks and that

      “Substantial assistance, particularly in the gathering of records, was also provided by staff at GCSB, the Parliamentary Service, Ministerial Services, and DPMC.” My bold.

      *Henry also thanked Hollis in the final para 89 of the main report. There is no mention in the report of a GCSB official similarly being seconded.

      As well as Dunne, two officials were investigated but cleared – a GCSB official and a PMO Official. (Note PMO, not DPMC. ) See paras 62 – 70 of the main report.

      So, GCSB had involvement in the Henry inquiry – which is logical as the Kitteridge Report which was leaked was about the GCSB. (Also, the TORs provided for Henry to report the findings and recommendations to Andrew Kibblewhite and Ian Fletcher by the end of May 2013. See last para in Appendix Two.)

      I recall that in Question Time on Tuesday or Wednesday, Key was very evasive about the extent of GCSB’s involvement when asked. I don’t have time to find that link at present, but will try to do so over the weekend.
      • RJL 10.1.1

        2 August 2013 at 12:13 pm

        So, GCSB had involvement in the Henry inquiry…

        Hmmm…so it did.

        Given that it was an inquiry about the leak of a report about the GCSB and that copies/drafts of the leaked report were possibly in circulation at the GCSB, that may just mean that the GCSB staff provided assistance in confirming that the versions of the report held by the GCSB were not leaked. Which would be unremarkable.

        If it means that the GCSB spied on Vance and / or Dunne, that would astounding. I suppose Vance counts as foreign, as she is Irish? If so, perhaps spying on Vance would be strictly legal, but it would be totally against the stated purpose of the GCSB, i.e. it is not for spying on journalists who are bothersome to the government of the day. On the other hand, Vance may well be a NZ permanent resident, like Dotcom.
        • Veutoviper 10.1.1.1

          2 August 2013 at 12:31 pm

          I have to rush out very soon, but it is worth reading the report in full as it covers who did the proofing etc of the report, and is very detailed as to who received copies and when.

          There are a couple of little points re this which I had previously missed – and the fact that Vance seemed to have knowledge that legislation was going to be introduced soon after the release of the report which was not in the report and very few people knew. Will look at these points later when I have time and do a comment on these.
        • Colonial Viper 10.1.1.2

          2 August 2013 at 12:51 pm

          I suppose Vance counts as foreign, as she is Irish?

          She doesn’t have her NZ residency?
          • RJL 10.1.1.2.1

            2 August 2013 at 2:22 pm

            No idea.

            Presumably, the GCSB knows that she hasn’t — if they have been spying on her.
11. travellerev 11

    2 August 2013 at 10:50 am

    This is happening in every Western Nation at the same time. Can you spell New World Order?

    And here is why the NSA wants us to legalize illegal spying on everyone.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8liYZjt5oQU

    But I’m sure there is no conspiracy going on around here. No Sir, no “modern” government would dare to trash our “democracy” like that and discuss it in advance secretly! Nope, not since solid buildings can collapse into freefall speed into the path of most resistance!
    • Te Reo Putake 11.1

      2 August 2013 at 10:58 am

      🙄
      • Colonial Viper 11.1.1

        2 August 2013 at 12:27 pm

        Intelligence legislation, policies and tactics are co-ordinated and distributed on a global basis, TRP. That much can’t be denied.
        • McFlock 11.1.1.1

          2 August 2013 at 3:41 pm

          Three vague nouns are the subjects of exceptionally nebulous verbs, therefore New World Order.
12. burt 12

    2 August 2013 at 11:05 am

    Key needs to learn about our constitution. The constitutional system that governs us states that even the Prime Minister is subject to the will of Parliament.

    Yes, he is already starting to follow the previous PM into believing that Parliament is subject to the will of the PM.

    Killing off court cases against himself is the next step I guess !!!!!!!!!!
13. jim 13

    2 August 2013 at 11:32 am

    We have had now for quite some time a Government who!s corporate agenda is supercilious to the rules of Parliament and our rights to the democratic process afforded our citizens,some might say that we have been witnessing a creeping towards Totalitarian rule.
14. Treetop 14

    2 August 2013 at 12:38 pm

    I thought that Dunne appeared to be a bit bewildered on Campbell Live last night when it comes to the accessing of his cell phone records and his emails. Dunne did not jump up and down because at the back of his mind he knew that he had created a situation of his own making (emails and cell phone records will reveal what he wants concealed).

    When it came to Dunne’s reasons for voting for the GCSB bill I could only think that he was doing this to save his own arse and to avoid any backlash from the PM.

    Sir Geoffery Palmer needs to make Dunne a pot of tea and open a packet of Tim Tams and sit down with him and tell Dunne that Key is now involved in seven events and all these events are questionable and they need to be explained and scrutinised. The seven events were explained on morning report at 07:16 this morning by Palmer (see the above link).
15. Poission 15

    2 August 2013 at 1:46 pm

    One of the understated risks at present is the John Banks criminal trial.

    What are the implications for constitutional law if he is convicted?

    Is the legislation that he participated in still valid?

    will this be a constitutional nightmare on Molesworth street?
    • Colonial Viper 15.1

      2 August 2013 at 2:06 pm

      Is the possible sentence on conviction 5 years or higher?
    • Treetop 15.2

      2 August 2013 at 2:13 pm

      It is my understanding that to pass legislation 61 votes are required. I have just asked on open mike if Dunne can abstain?

      Even though 61 votes are required there may be some legislation which can cover a bill being passed 60 – 59 if a person abstains.

      Correct me if I am wrong?
16. Penny Bright 16

    2 August 2013 at 1:50 pm

    Press Release: Auckland Mayoral candidate Penny Bright:

    “Why have NZ Prime Minister John Key and his ‘Chief of Staff’ Wayne Eagleson, arguably not followed ‘lawful due process’/’

    “Mr Eagleson emailed the offices of the Ministers who had received the report to inform them that on my wishes they should comply with the inquiry, and, secondly, on 9 May he emailed Geoff Thorn at Parliamentary Service to confirm that I wished him to make available the inquiry records in relation to Ministers and their staff’ – upon what lawful basis” asks Auckland Mayoral candidate, Penny Bright.

    http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/pb/business/qoa/50HansQ_20130731_00000003/3-prime-minister%E2%80%94chief-of-staff

    “The role of the Office of the Prime Minister, is quite separate from that of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, as outlined below:

    http://www.dpmc.govt.nz/dpmc

    “Administrative support to the Prime Minister

    This includes preparation of replies to Parliamentary questions, and dealing with Official Information Act requests and other correspondence. A totally separate body, the Office of the Prime Minister, also advises the Prime Minister: it is the primary point of responsibility for managing political issues and relationships with other political parties and for providing administrative and media support.”

    “STRUCTURE

    DPMC formally came into existence on 1 January 1990, as a result of a report which recommended establishing structures to provide two separate streams of advice to the Prime Minister; one, a new government department to supply impartial, high quality advice and support to the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC), and another, a Prime Minister’s Private Office (which is not part of DPMC), to provide personal support and media services, and advice of a party political nature.”

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/8993280/Key-backs-top-adviser-over-phone-records-scandal

    “The Prime Minister is standing by his chief of staff despite Opposition calls for his resignation over the Parliamentary phone records scandal.

    Parliamentary Service general manager Geoff Thorn yesterday fell on his sword after Speaker David Carter was misled about Fairfax journalist Andrea Vance’s phone records, including calls to her cellphone, being handed over to the so-called Henry inquiry.

    He accepted Thorn’s resignation because confidence in Parliamentary Service had been undermined by events in recent weeks, Carter said.

    Opposition MPs are now calling for the head of Wayne Eagleson, and claim pressure from the prime minister’s office led to the records being handed over.

    John Key said this morning that Wayne Eagleson acted “absolutely professionally and quite correctly” by intervening in the so-called Henry inquiry into the leak of a report on the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB).

    He said the chief of staff’s job was safe, and that he didn’t accept claims that the phone records were only released because of emails from Eagleson.

    “He has acted totally professionally and has my 100 per cent support. I think I have a very good understanding of what he’s done and he’s done what everyone would have expected him to do,” Key said.

    Key said Eagleson had helped set up the inquiry, including writing the terms of reference on his behalf. Those conditions had then been put in the public domain, making it clear the inquiry was aimed at ministers and their staff.

    “No information about a journalist was accessed that was sent to the reviewers. Actually they rejected that. With the one exception where the reviewers did ask for the swipe card information and I’ve already said publicly I don’t agree with that decision that they made.”

    Key said he was not expecting further resignations over the phone records issue. He felt he and Eagleson had been accountable and they stood behind the review. …”

    ______________________________________________________________________________

    “Are neither the NZ Prime Minister, nor his Chief of Staff, Wayne Eagleson, aware of proper role of the Office of the Prime Minister?

    In my considered opinion, it is simply NOT good enough, and the Prime Minister’s ‘Chief of Staff, Wayne Eagleson, should ‘fall on his sword’ and resign forthwith.”

    “Next, in my considered opinion, the role of the NZ Prime Minister John Key, in this matter, must be investigated, at the highest levels,” concluded Ms Bright.

    Penny Bright

    ‘Anti-corruption / anti=privatisation’ campaigner

    2013 Auckland mayoral candidate
17. unclemuzza 17

    2 August 2013 at 3:00 pm

    Great pic, angry John Key, worried John Key, time time to dye roots John Key.
    • Tiger Mountain 17.1

      2 August 2013 at 4:37 pm

      Do rugs really need roots doing? It is the shadow where a hairline should be that says–toupee.
      At least he nowhere near matches Donald Trumps truly spectacular comb over.
      • Treetop 17.1.1

        2 August 2013 at 6:53 pm

        A few years back Sir Bob Jones said that Winston wears a rug. I have looked and looked and I just cannot spot it.

        It is obvious that Jones does not wear a rug.
    • North 17.2

      2 August 2013 at 6:35 pm

      Unclemuzza……….belly laugh !
18. Penny Bright 18

    2 August 2013 at 4:21 pm

    Why is the Chief of Staff (Wayne Eagleson) from the Office of the Prime Minister, playing a role, which, in my considered opinion, is one that should be played by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet?

    http://www.dpmc.govt.nz/dpmc

    THE ROLE OF DPMC

    The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet occupies a unique position at the centre of New Zealand’s system of democratic government. It exists to support the effective conduct of executive government by the Prime Minister, the Governor-General and members of the Cabinet. The department’s principal role is provision of advice, on a daily basis, to the Prime Minister and Cabinet on the wide range of complex issues that confront the Government – particularly its policy priorities. Issues that governments are required to deal with are often complex or pressing, and require well-founded advice and judgement. DPMC also provides impartial advice, through the Clerk of the Executive Council and Government House, to the Governor-General. In addition it plays a role in coordinating and leading the work of government departments and agencies, and other entities as appropriate, to ensure that decision making takes account of all relevant viewpoints and that advice is as coherent and complete as possible.

    Supporting the Prime Minister and Cabinet

    The Prime Minister is the political leader of the government and the country – and its main public “face”. The Prime Minister is also the chair of the Cabinet, and is responsible for the effective operation of executive government. These roles combine political and executive responsibilities.

    DPMC provides assistance to the Prime Minister in three broad categories.

    Issues that are the direct responsibility of the Prime Minister

    This entails the provision of free and frank advice and support on constitutional issues relating to the conduct of executive government – including during elections and transitions between administrations – and issues associated with the operation of the Cabinet system.

    Issues that arise across the full range of government business

    DPMC provides a continuous flow of advice to the Prime Minister on major and daily issues, along with oversight of wider government activity and access to information and assessments. DPMC also works directly with Ministers on specific issues. The Deputy Prime Minister plays a lead role on behalf of the Prime Minister over a number of the government’s policy programmes and DPMC supports him on some of these matters from time to time.

    DPMC works with central agencies to draw together departments in support of the Government’s priorities, to focus agencies on providing options for action, to ensure implementation of agreed programmes and policies, to drive for enhanced agency performance, and to deal effectively with issues which affect the nation. DPMC also provides the secretariat support for decision making by the Cabinet and its committees.

    Administrative support to the Prime Minister

    This includes preparation of replies to Parliamentary questions, and dealing with Official Information Act requests and other correspondence.

    A totally separate body, the Office of the Prime Minister, also advises the Prime Minister: it is the primary point of responsibility for managing political issues and relationships with other political parties and for providing administrative and media support.

    ______________________________________________________________________________

    How is it that apparently neither Prime Minister John Key, nor his Chief of Staff Wayne Eagleson, appear to know the lawful functions and different roles of the Office of the Prime Minister, and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet?

    Whose role is it to make sure that those at the highest levels of the NZ Government – know what they are doing, and HOW they should do (in a proper way), what they are doing?

    Penny Bright
    ‘Anti-corruption /anti-privatisation’ campaigner

    2013 Auckland Mayoral candidate
19. Murray Olsen 19

    2 August 2013 at 8:16 pm

    “A tin foil hat wearing a 911 conspirator would say that the GCSB collected the data. It does collect, amongst other things, metadata on emails and cellphone calls. But the more likely explanation is that Parliamentary Services provided the information.”

    I don’t wear hats, tin foil or otherwise, but how would Parliamentary Services have access to the phone records of a private person?
    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 19.1

      3 August 2013 at 12:19 pm

      That’s probably where the “contractor” fits in.
      • Murray Olsen 19.1.1

        3 August 2013 at 8:39 pm

        My understanding, which may be wrong, is that her private records were provided, not just records of any phone provided to her by Parliamentary Services. Anyway, what the whole mess says, among other things, is that our privacy laws mean nothing when the Prymunstah wants to know something about one of us. Whatever the actual mechanics, something stinks.

Links to post

1. GPJA #471: Remembering Hiroshima; What’s On; News from Aotearoa & the world (6/8/13) | GPJA's Blog: posted on 6 August 2013 at 6:59 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS