Will Key read the GCSB report?

Written By: - Date published: 7:06 am, September 26th, 2012 - 75 comments
Categories: law and "order", Spying - Tags:

Key has said we all have to wait and see what is in the Neazor Report on the GCSB spies’ illegal spying on Kim Dotcom.* He won’t even answer basic questions like: ‘what section of the law did the GCSB breach?’ Funny that Key’s so keen for us to wait to read this report. But will he read it? Or will it be like the Banks Police Report, which he won’t read?  And when will anyone get to read Banks’ statement?

But, actually, we don’t need to wait for the report because the full story is out now. A police unit called OFCANZ approached GCSB for help in getting intel before the raid on Dotcom. The GCSB asked if Dotcom (and his colleagues) was a foreign national – OFCANZ said he was. In fact, the correct question was ‘is he a New Zealand citizen or permanent resident?’ – which he was, and which made the GCSB spying on him illegal.

Both OFCANZ and the GSCB are incompetent or purposely neglectful of the law.

Then, in August while Key was busy watching children play baseball in Maine, Bill English signed a ministerial certificate for GSCB that suppressed their involvement in the Dotcom raid from being mentioned in court. Incredibly, neither the GCSB or English realised at this point that the GCSB had been spying on a New Zealand permanent resident. English seems to have just signed whatever was stuck under his nose.

It all came out only later thanks to Dotcom’s lawyers.

And, speaking of Dotcom’s lawyers, this incompetent government that couldn’t be bothered properly monitoring its spies (Key meets with the GCSB more than once per month but never seems to have said ‘were you involved in the Dotcom raid?’ or ‘wait, you spied on Dotcom, a permanent resident?’) has put us in the gun for hundreds of millions of dollars. Megaupload was valued at a billion dollars. The raid and seizure of his property, which has been illegal at every level, destroyed that value. Who is he going to turn to for damages?

*incredibly, Key said in the House yesterday that the GCSB’s actions weren’t necessarily illegal, despite the fact his press release declared them illegal the day before. Cullen was right, the guy’s slippery as an eel. Either that or he’s stoned off his fucken rocker. By his own admission, there’s a lot of green on Planet Key.

75 comments on “Will Key read the GCSB report? ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Tracey 1
    26 September 2012 at 7:28 am

    Why wasn’t this simple thing directed to him as a follow up question in parliament yesterday…

    Will you read THIS report???

    • blue leopard 1.1
      26 September 2012 at 11:25 am

      @ Tracey
      Exactly! Why didn’t they ask this?

      I have noticed the opposition parties to be a bit gentle in this regard; they miss opportunities like this on a regular basis. Why??

      • aerobubble 1.1.1
        26 September 2012 at 1:37 pm

        I got the impression that Key ‘leaked’ the crisis early before the report comes out so he
        could mis-align the debate, distort it. As opposition were hit with Key’s answer that he
        doesn’t know yet. After the report I suspect Key will return to the highly suspect
        non-reading of document argument (aka Banks was within the law despite not being
        except for a time out clause).

        So to answer your question, its because Key is a spin shitster par excellence.

        • mike 1.1.1.1
          26 September 2012 at 1:58 pm

          Yep, I’m picking Key already knows what the report will say, and he’s positioning himself correspondingly. The indications are that they are going to call it a whoopsie-daisy communications break down between OFCANZ and GCSB when they tried to verify whether Dotcom was an NZ resident. Who would have thought it would have been so hard when he had by then been a resident for more than 12 months? It’s just not credible, but Key will waive the report around saying that’s the end of the matter, move on.

          If this is the case then it’s no wonder Key’s body language and Tranzrail eyes look so shifty when he’s talking about this – he knows the story is weak.

          And because he’s already said he never heard of Dotcom until the night before the raid, he would also have us believe that Bill English didn’t think it worth mentioning to the PM, who oversees the GCSB, that the FBI and the GCSB were coordinating an over the top military style take-down on NZ soil.

          Oh and the PM doesn’t need to read a police report that says his minister broke the law and lied to the public and (supposedly) him about it.

          The credibility meter is falling fast.

          • blue leopard 1.1.1.1.1
            26 September 2012 at 2:22 pm

            @ Aerobubble and Mike

            I agree with your impressions

            It still doesn’t answer the question as to why the opposition doesn’t call them more firmly on these tactics.

            “If this is the case then it’s no wonder Key’s body language and Tranzrail eyes look so shifty when he’s talking about this – he knows the story is weak.”

            …which begs the question, why are the polls not reflecting a nation who is losing belief in his increasingly incredulous fictions?

            Are we simply becoming a nation who prefers to believe palatable fictions, rather than deal with reality?

            • mike 1.1.1.1.1.1
              26 September 2012 at 3:36 pm

              “…which begs the question, why are the polls not reflecting a nation who is losing belief in his increasingly incredulous fictions?”

              Polls move slowly, but it’s probably because most people aren’t paying that much attention.

              • BernyD …
                26 September 2012 at 3:48 pm

                True, workin workin

              • gobsmacked …
                26 September 2012 at 3:57 pm

                Re – the opposition questions … Today was a case in point. Peters had Key on toast, and said to the Speaker “I only have a limited number of questions”. That was the cue for Labour (who have many more available, as a larger party) to take up the attack. They didn’t.

                The nub of the problem is – the effective opposition parties have too few questions, the ineffective opposition party has too many.

                Re- the polls … Mike is right, most people aren’t paying much attention. But they will pay attention to visible, prominent stories and people … such as Kim Dotcom. Labour’s problem is that their leader has only done one thing (the schools speech) in the past nine months for people to notice.

                We can’t blame people with busy lives if the politicians don’t know how to reach them – or don’t even try very hard, because (in Labour’s case) they think they will win the next election by default.

                • BernyD …
                  26 September 2012 at 4:31 pm

                  Should send a Fridge Magnet Picture of Himself to every New Zealander ya reckon?

                • blue leopard …
                  26 September 2012 at 5:26 pm

                  “We can’t blame people with busy lives if the politicians don’t know how to reach them – or don’t even try very hard, because (in Labour’s case) they think they will win the next election by default.”

                  I like what you say re “can’t blame people” it’s so true, and I expect the opposition to ensure that the message is getting through and fully consider that their duty.

                  I sincerely hope Labour aren’t simply assuming they will get in next time. I was of the opinion initially, that this government would be thrown out next time around, yet when the spin and shonkey tactics aren’t absolutely outlined, emphasized and driven home…it appears that the effectiveness of these tactics are being underestimated… & yep…it leaves me questioning whether a Left-wing Government is the slam dunker it seemed it would be after the election night results.

  2. Lou 2
    26 September 2012 at 7:34 am

    Neither Keys nor Banks ever had or have integrity in my house.

  3. BLiP 3
    26 September 2012 at 7:58 am

    .

    We actually don’t know if it was OFCANZ which asked the GCSB to bug Dotcom because we only have the word of those protecting John Key. The last minute scampering into the High Court to lodge documents is just a bit too cute.The more likely scenario is that the US government asked its National Ltd­™ mate John Key for a favour in the lead up to the FBI turning the New Zealand police force into its Pacific bumboy. John Key would’ve been reduced to an incoherent wimpering ball of dribbling sychophancy at the prospect of a personal “attaboy” from Obama. There’s that Security Council seat to think of too, eh John?

    And then there’s the Hollywood connection. John Key was more than happy to shaft New Zealand workers and sell legislation to Warner Bros so, morally speaking, what’s to stop him usng the GCSB to gather information against someone who can be used as an international example of what happens to people who threaten the industry’s business model via file sharing?

    With “national interest” being bandied about along with Prime Ministerial “warnings” to journalists, the narrative and the MSM remain suspect. This whole thing, and this whole National Ltd™ government, is so skew whiff I’m betting there’s a lot more to it.

  4. mickysavage 4
    26 September 2012 at 8:11 am

    I can recall John Campbell asking Key a question a while ago about when was the first time that he heard of Kim Dotcom.  Key answered as he has subsequently “the day before the raid”.  

    I thought at the time that someone had some information to show that this was not true.  But it appears that Key may actually be illiterate.  There is no other reason for him to answer the way that he has.

    This is spiraling out of control for National.  The longer Key continues to maintain ignorance the more ineffectual and incompetent he appears to be. 

    The only way out is for him to confirm that he did know what was going on.  And then he is shown to be, how shall I put this, disingenuous. 

    • lanthanide 4.1
      26 September 2012 at 8:30 am

      He was absolutely adamant about it. iPredict has a contract on evidence contradicting key to be published. Currently trading about 25c. I still don’t think it will come out from this latest news, but there were “mysterious officials” that meet with police in December and it’s possible key could be one of them.

      • gobsmacked 4.1.1
        26 September 2012 at 11:42 am

        Key is adamant, probably because he has confidence in his “don’t ask, don’t tell” system.

        I seriously doubt that there is a paper trail showing that Key was told about Kim Dotcom. There might be a paper trail showing that Staffer A told Staffer B not to tell the PM. If that comes out, then Key can just sack the staffer (for doing what Key wanted).

    • insider 4.2
      26 September 2012 at 10:49 am

      kimdotcom wasn’t exactly national news until after the raids. He might have been a name in some AUckland party circles and the gossip pages but not exactly a high profile media figure.

  5. ak 5
    26 September 2012 at 8:13 am

    No surprise that the pie ‘n penthouse keystone cops have been under the tentacle of dear old Unca Sam – that’s been a given for decades.

    The interesting development here is that the Axis of Eelville has stopped even trying to wriggle.

    Just clear, blatant, multiple lies. And simply refusing to front.

    Ah well, at least no one’s signed a painting for charity, sat in the back of a speeding car or threatened advertising revenue, so democracy’s still safe, eh granny?

  6. captain hook 6
    26 September 2012 at 8:25 am

    nah he will just give it to heka or porla to reed.

  7. karol 7
    26 September 2012 at 8:57 am

    I just looked closely again at last night’s Campbell Live video on the issue, to try to ascertain the significance of the document that Bill English signed.

    It seems to me it involves a cover up, that included getting Key out of the country to his son’s baseball game while English dealt with the matter.

    Here is a summary of last nights Campbell Live piece:

    http://www.3news.co.nz/Who-kept-GCSBs-Dotcom-spying-secret-from-Key/tabid/367/articleID/270526/Default.aspx

    Paul Davison for Kim Dotcom, in court questioning witness Detective Inspector Grant Wormald.

    In response, Wormald said at a meeting he attended on 14 Dec 2011 to plan Dotcom raid there were representatives of Crown Law, representatives of OFCANZ, plus another group of people now known to be GCSB. 2 days after that meeting GCSB began intercepting Dotcom’s communications. Wormald incorrectly answered that no one other than police were conducting surveillance on Dotcom.

    Beehive press conference 24 Sept 2012: video clip of Key saying he’s requested an inquiry into the circumstances of unlawful interception of communications of certain individuals by the GCSB

    Clips of the raid on 20 January 2012 for FBI, now declared illegal by courts.

    Bill English document: Ministerial Certificate August 2012

    Addressed to Grant Wormald, Commissioner of Police, and Director of the GCSB.
    English went to the GCSB for advice on their role in the Dotcom case and its implications. Typed document says:

    I [Deputy PM] have sought advice on the implications of this request from the director of GCSB.

    GCSB advised him as in the typed document:

    [Disclosing] The information request would likely prejudice the security of New Zealand.

    Bill English then objected to any information being disclosed as in the typed document:

    I therefore object to the disclosure of any information.
    I direct that neither you nor any other person subject to this direction shall provide any information or answer any question in this proceeding.

    Signed by Bill English 16 August 2012.

    END OF VIDEO SUMMARY

    I recall that Key had left for his son’s baseball game on 9th August 2012.

    So, why did English go to the GCSB in August to ask about their role? Was it because it had come to light in the Dotcom court case?

    And is it coincidental that English was requesting this information at around the same time Key had suddenly decided to leave the country for an inadequate reason?

    Cover up?

    • BLiP 7.1
      26 September 2012 at 9:07 am

      .

      Fer sure.

      Another possibility is that Dotcom was under US-requested GCSB surveillance before he became a New Zealand permanent resident and so, mistakenly, its was presumed that the original authorisation was still in play.

    • gobsmacked 7.2
      26 September 2012 at 11:35 am

      Karol, I think you’re doing the old “take a slam-dunk and miss it”, which is too common on this blog.

      Key is in deep doo-doo on the GCSB/Kim Dotcom/Banks debacle. That has nothing to do with watching his son play baseball. He didn’t suddenly decide to go, it was well signalled in advance, publicly.

      Over-cooking the conspiracy just allows Key’s minions and trolls to rebut the exaggeration, when they can’t rebut the facts. Stick to them.

      • karol 7.2.1
        26 September 2012 at 5:18 pm

        gobsmacked, where am I not sticking to the facts?

        In that above comment I was just trying to make sense of Campbell Live’s item on this last night, and asking some questions about where there are gaps. He presented us with a certain amount of facts, but what he was trying to tell us is not totally clear. I don’t know the answers but there are things that don’t seem to qite make sens.

        I tend to go more for c*ck-up theory than conspiracy. And I would say this CL item points to c*ck-ups as much as conspiracy – or at least, a mixture of that, and Key’s sloppiness as a manager of government – and then attempts to paper over the cracks.

    • Treetop 7.3
      26 September 2012 at 4:07 pm

      Perjury is not new within the police just ask Patrick O ‘Brien.

      What have the last two police commissioners done to remedy an ex undercover cops confession?

  8. freedom 8
    26 September 2012 at 8:57 am

    i may be a bit slow but why did the GCSB not just pick up the phone and ask NZ Immigration on the status of Dotcom? Wouldn’t NZ Police have had to go to them anyway for the information?

    • alwyn 8.1
      26 September 2012 at 10:12 am

      They could also have done what Russel Norman has suggested and looked him up via Google.
      Russel appears to think that anything Google tells you is correct.
      Out of curiosity I looked up Russel and discovered he is a member of the Australian Communist party. Google tells me so it must be correct.
      Why has he not told the New Zealand public this? Do we not deserve to know? What else is he hiding?
      Actually I am beginning to think that Russel, and the Greens generally, appear to be relying on Google for their policies. You can get stupid statements on almost anything from there.

      • Dr Terry 8.1.1
        26 September 2012 at 11:10 am

        alwyn – what on earth has an attack on Norman got to do with the issue at hand? Does Russell threaten you in some way? Are you for or against Google information?

        • alwyn 8.1.1.1
          26 September 2012 at 11:30 am

          It wasn’t meant to be an attack on Norman when I started it.
          I should never have added the bit about Green policies.
          It was however intended to point out that I thought that his idea that you can rely on the internet for any ACCURATE information was silly. He was proposing that Googling Dotcom would tell you reliably that he had resident status. I don’t believe that to be the case at all. I just put in the material that claims that Norman is a Communist party member to show what sort of thing you can expect to get back when using the internet, and that you can’t rely on it to be accurate.

          • Tiger Mountain 8.1.1.1.1
            26 September 2012 at 12:16 pm

            Get it right “alwyn” rather than repeating Whale fat slander and taking an unnecessary swipe at Russell Norman who was just pointing out the bleedingly obvious.

            Norman has an interesting past and was involved with the then trotskyite Socialist Workers Party that became the DSP and issued newspaper ‘Green Left weekly’, the first organisational unity in oz between green and marxist forces, and a far different beast from the “Australian Communist party” you talk of which was actually the CPA “Communist Party of Australia” in two versions, the SPA-Socialist Party of Australia taking over inbetween.

            Anyway nevermind your sidetrack ShonKey remains deep in it with more to play out yet.

            • Robert M 8.1.1.1.1.1
              26 September 2012 at 12:34 pm

              The average Nat MP probably has very different tastes in DVDs and CDs from Russel Norman or the tracks Dot.Com was offering from Megaupload, ie Key or English probably found Dot Com distasteful and of minimal interest until long after the FBI inspired raid.
              Most of the boffins at Wahopai or Tangimoana or whereever the communications spies hang out today probably found little of interest about dot com in the Manawatu Standard or Blenheim rag in the extraordinary event they ever read the news or entertainment section.
              I imagine to the average NZ detective it remains inconcievable that Dot Com could have been given kiwi residency. Hardly an open minded attitude but reality.

            • alwyn 8.1.1.1.1.2
              26 September 2012 at 3:31 pm

              Damn.
              I was quoting what you could find on the Internet to try and illustrate that I thought Russel was being stupid in saying the the GCSB could have found out reliable information on KDs residency status by a Google query.
              It appears that what I found, and what I thought was solely fairy stories, has some truth in it.

    • insider 8.2
      26 September 2012 at 10:42 am

      Because the police told them it was all ok and above board. And they should know.

      Trust tends to be a reasonable and even admirable quality in human relations, including in govt. It’s going to be a strange and paranoid and arse covering world if we have to go and double check everything our colleagues tell us.

      • mike 8.2.1
        26 September 2012 at 3:52 pm

        Although when you’re the GCSB coordinating a military style raid with the FBI on NZ soil, double-checking your facts is probably the way to go I’d say.

        In answer to freedom’s question, (and this is purely speculation), perhaps because the GCSB knew they would get an answer that they didn’t want. Whereas they could rely on OFCANZ to er, make a ‘mistake’.

        • gobsmacked 8.2.1.1
          26 September 2012 at 4:06 pm

          Mike +1

          I don’t expect the bureaucracy to double-check every form letter they send me, with my name spelled wrong.

          I do expect them to double and triple check before an armed assault on my home.

          So, nothing whatsoever to do with checking “everything our colleagues tell us”. Just an incredibly important thing.

        • insider 8.2.1.2
          26 September 2012 at 4:07 pm

          It was the police doing all the management. GCSB apparantly provided info. AFAIK they are eavesdroppers not field operators.

          It’s the Police that are the ones that should face hard questions and their minister.

          • McFlock 8.2.1.2.1
            26 September 2012 at 4:20 pm

            They all should face hard question, preferably in public.
                     
            Do all the requests for GCSB surveillance come from the police? I bet not. So GCSB should have their own protocols for ensuring they aren’t breaking the law and tapping citizens. They should have used those protocols each and every time, no exceptions, as part of the standard operating checklist. 
                       
            It’s like firearm safety – the police told the GCSB that the weapon was safe, but the GCSB fucked up because they should have checked clear and kept it pointed in a safe direction. Now the weapon’s accidentally fired and you reckon it’s the cops’ fault, not the fault of the people actually holding the weapon.
               
            In any democracy, the people who are the first line of defense against abuses of power are the people actually in a position to abuse their power. And our watchdogs have been showing how interested they are in protecting our freedom. Fuck all.

  9. Leopold 9
    26 September 2012 at 9:00 am

    Nothing to read, nothing to see, move along folks…look! I’ve found another tranche of beneficiaries to bash…

  10. ianmac 10
    26 September 2012 at 9:58 am

    What If……..
    What If about 2+ years ago Mr John Key was given a heads up by shadowy people in USA who may have had connections with the Entertainment Industry, that all Hell would be visited on the Dotcom Empire?

    If so, Key had a choice between being on the ball, or set in place an extensive avoidance of all matters relating so that he could claim Ignorance. The latter is a High Risk strategy because should any info leak, or if the population or MSM began to doubt that a Prime Minister was totally unaware of anything relating to Kim Dotcom then the PM’s Credibility would be at least damaged.

    Warner Brothers? The Electorate Office for John Key? Bill English? The Courts?
    What if……

    • Tiger Mountain 10.1
      26 September 2012 at 2:10 pm

      Most people really don’t get how much ShonKey represents the US corporates in New Zealand, rather than this country’s (ie the NZ peoples) interests over there. The Hobbit Enabling Act was a reasonable tip off though. Brown nosing the yanks permeates everything the Nats do. From a skewed Foreign Account Deficit due to repatriation of profits offshore through defence and foreign policy.

  11. tc 11
    26 September 2012 at 12:00 pm

    JK : Hey bill, remember that favour you owe me for douple dippin.
    BE: (nervous tone) yes John.
    JK: someone will bring you something for you to sign and we’re square.
    BE: It’s not my resignation is it John ?
    JK: (laughter) come on bill, you know I value your contribution and I’ve no intention of sacking you, as it stands, all factors being weighed up, today as I call on this encrypted blackberry from ma mansion.
    BE: So that’s an unconditional no, John ?
    JK: Just sign it bill, everything will work out fine (under breath)…for me that is.

  12. Robert M 12
    26 September 2012 at 12:22 pm

    Yes but how much are the GCSB spies, Key’s spies or NZ intelligence officers. Really they are part of an international western chain of communications intercept bases- and the key positions in reality if not officially at Wahopai are probably often US or Australian intelligence officers. Read Nicky Hagars- book on Echelon.
    In reality New Zealand lacks the defence and foreign affairs bureaucracy to really regulate defence forces that have always had an element of top class equipment and officers and the same with intelligence. Even our more capable lawyers and journalists have abilities and skill beyond the ability of this societies instituions and authorities to really supervise and control as far as desirable.

  13. Nunya 13
    26 September 2012 at 2:19 pm

    While I realise this is an easy attack point for the politically incompetent whatshisname to attack Key on, I’m sickened that whatshisname is ‘enjoying the support’ of most humanist MP’s to do so.

    The issue is much bigger than trips overseas (altho I suspect that Key’s leadership method perfected during his time as a mid-level bank exec, depends upon regular absences, to enable plausible deniability loopholes to be retro-fitted into any issue that endangers jonkey-fawning©) because anyone with an enquiring mind who spends time around the despised fuel for aotearoa’s lawnorder mower (the ‘crims’), must know that law enforcement’s disregard of legalities is the norm rather than an exception.

    A real leader would set aside partisan politicking and expose the contempt for law aotearoan law enforcement agencies display every day.
    A politician who revealed he/she had the courage to fight this would immediately earn the support of a swathe of NZ voters. Far more than could ever be generated by a dozen exposes of the ‘other mobs’ true character’.

    I won’t hold my breath on this even tho it is the real instigator of the Dotcom circus. Most kiwis are aware of the bi-partisan agreement between labour and national to never question the integrity of NZ police, & have convinced themselves the sole malignancy created as being that the secretary of the policeman’s federation is the last unionist allowed tv time, rather than the awful reality, that this political & moral cowardice is the root cause of daily injustices committed against a multitude of kiwis.

    • Treetop 13.1
      26 September 2012 at 3:39 pm

      I went to Key in his first term with a serious complaint against the police (that police had misinformed three ministers of police and a few MPs, recent and historical files could not be located) and Key referred me to Powers then minister of justice as I wanted a barrister appointed to look at many cycles of police complaints. Power told me to go to the IPCA. This is not an option as I consider the IPCA to not be independent. It is unfortunate because I have to have an investigation to satisfy an ACC psychiatrist for a sensitive claim.

      I have just looked at As I see it with Commissioner Peter Marshall. A question of responsibility September 20, 2012.

      “On 1 October the new Search and Surveillance Act comes into force. This heralds major change for police and all constabulary staff have been required to undergo training in the new law. Commissioners are no exception!”
      http://www.police.govt.nz/blog/2012/09/20/question-responsibility/32757

      I think Marshall is trying to reassure the public that there will not be another Urewera/Dotcom fiasco and very much on his mind probably would have been the ofcanz blunder which Marshall would have known was about to become public.

  14. captain hook 14
    26 September 2012 at 2:53 pm

    he might reed it if skimdotcom slips a few deAD PRESIDENTS IN THE COVER.
    OOOPS.

    • blue leopard 14.1
      26 September 2012 at 3:06 pm

      @Captain Hook

      …you can’t have considered how much financial advantage (or otherwise) Junkie might enjoy by not reading it prior to you suggesting the possibility of such a dastardly activity ….in lil ol innocent and pure NZ …i mean…as if…..

  15. robertguyton 15
    26 September 2012 at 4:08 pm

    Are we calling him “Johnny Rotten” yet?

  16. Chris 16
    26 September 2012 at 4:42 pm

    Watching question time today I came to the conclusion that it is a pointless exercise asking the little trader ANYTHING as he immediately resorts to mindless crap of kindergarten level(sorry kiddies, I have some wonderful in depth conversations with my nearly five year old grandson) that lockjaw invariably lets him off with. Although once he did admonish the trader, with a wry little smile (tsk tsk) for not answering a question but going off in a rant, and reminded him that he was there to actually answer said question properly etc etc. Like that worked.There is something slightly imbecilic about key and I have always thought so.”If I keep saying the same thing that will make it true, in my view” Also he seems to have read the police report re his man date at the tea party, good ole “I have no idea what my name is” banksy of the last voyage of the cabbage boat.\, as he referred to it when answering a question by Grant R.While I still contend he may possibly be illiterate, he is most certainly intellectually and emotionally illiterate. Apropos of nothing I wonder quite often if the seats in the front row have been reinforced and if so who bore the cost?

    • gobsmacked 16.1
      26 September 2012 at 5:12 pm

      That’s all true enough Chris, but given the imbecilic level at which he operates, it really isn’t that hard to skewer him with smart, sharp questions.

      There are many options, apart from banging head on brick wall. When (for example) do we hear Labour doing the old one-two-three … soft, soft, hard? When do they ever come out of left field? When do they ever ask a question where you immediately wonder “Where are they going with this?”. When do they ever display some wit, or give a soundbite that resonates, or tempt Key into a mistake? Why did “Planet Key” catch on? Because Turei threw him the bait and Key took it. When do Labour ever lure him in like that? Almost never.

      They not only do the same thing every time, they don’t even TRY to do it differently. If we can predict their next question, so can Key. And now he’s off the hook for another month – Parliament goes into recess tomorrow.

      • ianmac 16.1.1
        26 September 2012 at 5:31 pm

        There is always the hope that comments from Key will lead to follow up questions where he is cornered by his contradictions. Maybe on another day. Today Key was asked to explain where he read in the Police Report that Banks had not broken the Law. He had to admit that it was not in the Report but was his own comment. Maybe “Misleading the House”?

      • blue leopard 16.1.2
        26 September 2012 at 5:34 pm

        @ Gobsmacked

        I agree. I believe what you write here is worthy of a letter to Labour.

        Do you think that perhaps there is a belief that “they are better than that” where “that” = belabouring a point in order to drive it home?

        I see improvement this year from last year; yet still there is something weak about their attacks. I mean, doesn’t someone get paid rather a lot of money to convey just such advice you relay here to them?

        They could read The Standard and get better advice for free by the looks of things….

        • gobsmacked 16.1.2.1
          26 September 2012 at 6:12 pm

          Cheers, Leopard.

          And here’s the TV news round-up … TV One and Three featuring Winston Peters, Russel Norman and Grant Robertson. The usual absentee – even though he asked a series of questions to the PM today. No good lines = no coverage.

        • captain hook 16.1.2.2
          26 September 2012 at 7:29 pm

          junkie.
          thats not nice BL.

        • Colonial Viper 16.1.2.3
          26 September 2012 at 7:57 pm

          I mean, doesn’t someone get paid rather a lot of money to convey just such advice you relay here to them?

          Well, there was Pagani. And most of the team who wrote and approved the sponging sickness benny bludger meme still work in that office.

  17. Tim 17
    26 September 2012 at 6:39 pm

    Why don’t Minsta or the Krean resign or stand down these days – ditto senior public ‘servants’.
    IF EVER there was a case for at least some suspensions – this is it!
    I’m wondering why the combined opposition are not petitioning the Gov Gen to have Blinglish’s warrant suspended or cancelled. And of course if that fails – a letter to Liz!
    Oz Proim Minsta’s have been brought down for less than this!

  18. Jokerman 18
    26 September 2012 at 7:16 pm

    on Closeup -to paraphrase “if a bigger dog comes into the room, the NAct govt pisses themslves”. !

  19. Herodotus 19
    26 September 2012 at 7:23 pm

    “Any other GSCB activity in the Megaupload case cannot be made public – because of a ministerial certificate signed by acting prime minister Bill English last month.” Regarding ministerial certificates; how often does this occur and more importantly in respect to the GSCB/ SIS etc how often is such a ministerial certificate signed. As to me if such an event from the GSCB is rare 1-5 times a year and that Bill is not often acting PM (And I imagine has never signed one before (If he has what did he do previously in keeping Key informed)) then such a rare event there would be protocols or precedents as to keeping the real PM informed ?
    Look to the past and compare to this case. Even with secrecy of this ministry I am sure some in Labour are aware of how things operate or if not then a quick call to someone who would, would be in order ?

  20. Huginn 20
    26 September 2012 at 7:48 pm

    Let’s take OFCANZ and the GSCB at their word for the moment and accept that the GSCB asked the wrong question and that OFCANZ didn’t bother to help them out.

    The GSBC must have known that it had acted illegally in spying on Kim Dotcom very soon after the raid when Kim Dotcom’s residency status became widely discussed common knowledge. At that stage the director should have informed the Prime Minister. After all, shit happens.

    But when the Prime Minster tells us that he didn’t know about this until a few days ago, he’s also saying that the director of the GSCB withheld knowledge of its serious illegal activity from our elected representative, the PM.

    Which is worse than finding out that the PM lies to us.

    • gobsmacked 20.1
      26 September 2012 at 8:04 pm

      Very good point, Huginn.

      The timeline gets mixed up in some of the reporting, so the full impact of that hasn’t really come through. For about six months, the PM was not told (assuming he’s being honest now).

      Because the GSCB thought he didn’t need to know? Or didn’t want to know?

      • mike 20.1.1
        26 September 2012 at 8:20 pm

        Key’s had 15 briefings from the GCSB this year. 15.

      • karol 20.1.2
        26 September 2012 at 8:21 pm

        Agreed, on the confusing timeline in the MSM. Something I’ve been trying to make sense of. The clip of Dotcom’s lawyer Davison (as on Campbell Live) clearly says 14 December 2011 for the meeting, which we now know included GCSB, and preceded the beginning of surveillance on DC by a couple of days.

        Yet other reports seem to say that the surveillance started in late 2010-beginning of 2011. Even Paul Buchanan used that late 2010 date in his interview on RNZ a couple of days ago:

        http://36th-parallel.com/2012/09/rnz-interview-paul-buchanan-ived-on-radio-new-zealand-on-an-investigation-into-the-gcsb/

        And this report just totally fudges it.

        http://news.msn.co.nz/nationalnews/8538593/opposition-ready-for-another-attack

        The GCSB was told by the police they were foreign nationals, although Dotcom threw a huge party in Auckland in November 2010 to celebrate gaining residency.

        The spying started on December 16 and ended on January 20, just before Dotcom, van der Kolk and two other associates were arrested for alleged internet piracy.

        But as far as I am aware, DC et al were arrested in January 2012.

        Also, the following became clear in Question Time today:

        Bill English was asked by GCSB about whether to disclose information, after their involvement was sprung by Davison in the court proceedings. On 16 August 2012, Blingish’s response was to sign the document saying they shouldn’t disclose information on the surveillance.

        Key wasn’t told about the GCSB involvement til 17 September.

      • karol 20.1.3
        26 September 2012 at 8:25 pm

        Because English thought the PM knew, and because, until they alerted the PM last week, GCSB thought they had acted legally:

        As reported here:

        http://news.msn.co.nz/nationalnews/8538593/opposition-ready-for-another-attack

      • Huginn 20.1.4
        26 September 2012 at 8:31 pm

        . . . the director of the GSBC unilaterally making decisions about what our elected representative needs or wants to know about a fundamental transgression of the law made while adventuring with a foreign power and an agency of the NZ Police which has shown itself to have a slippery grasp of the most basic principles of good governance?

        This is institutional corruption. It calls for a Commission of Inquiry.

    • Colonial Viper 20.2
      26 September 2012 at 9:02 pm

      The GSBC didn’t know? Ha chances are that they did, and very early on. Because the GCSB would have well established systems independent of the police set up to determine an individual’s residency status: it’s a key parameter of their mandate. The GCSB obviously won’t want to be running off to the police every time they are thinking of surveilling a suspected foreign spy living in NZ. They have their own systems.

      Then the GCSB went ahead and got a cover ass letter from some poor misinformed sap in NZ Police. Some high level political shennanigans in that one. Smart politics from the GCSB, dumb on the police.

      • mike 20.2.1
        27 September 2012 at 1:14 am

        Exactly. That the GCSB would be so clueless is just not credible.

        An awful lot of things seem to have gone wrong here. The police made a booboo, (even though Dotcom had been an NZ resident for more than 12 months), the GCSB didn’t double-check Dotcom’s residency status, the GCSB didn’t mention Dotcom to Key in the 15 briefings they’ve given him this year, English didn’t mention Dotcom to Key because he thought the GCSB already did, the GCSB took until September to realize that Dotcom was a resident and that they had thus broken the law.

        Not one of these are credible. This stinks bad and it’s written all over Key’s face.

  21. Logie97 21
    26 September 2012 at 8:25 pm

    Will Key read it?
    A more appropriate question might be, Can he read it?

    At about 5:30 this evening he came into the House to make a correction to an answer he gave during Question Time. The written statement was all of four sentences, and he minced them all. Perhaps there is someone out there who could do a “Running Record” on the chap to measure his reading behaviours and assess his real reading age.
    As for comprehension of this subject matter, he quoted a “Breakfast Television” interviewee for legal clarification – what a shallow man – doesn’t he have legal advisers around him.

    Key possibly has a head for figures, but as a literary powerhouse – he ain’t one… and learns about authors over a beer at a barby …

  22. Georgecom 22
    26 September 2012 at 9:35 pm

    Funny how simply ‘signing something without bothering to look to closely at it’ seems to have afflicted both English and Banks.

    I wonder if English ‘can’t remember’ and ‘can’t recall’?

    Of course, I fully expect that English has ‘nothing to fear’ and ‘nothing to hide’.

    Until such time anyway as something he might have to fear and might have to hide emerges.

    But then, he can probably rely on the Prime Minister not being interested in reading any report and continuing to ‘take him at his word’.

    That said, maybe English did actually act in full innocence and maybe some naivety. It will then fall on key to determine whether that is acceptable from a Minister.

  23. Karl Sinclari 23
    26 September 2012 at 11:55 pm

    Who really gives a rats…. look at whats going on in the banking sector:

    ANZ National soon to become ANZ….and who owns that, lets have a look (then say do some research on the main share holders …. http://deanhenderson.wordpress.com/2011/08/10/the-worlds-dirtiest-bank-hsbc/) and it just gets better and better…. I love you banks (not you John, your just a side show)

    reference:

    http://www.spankyourbank.com.au/anz-top-twenty-shareholders

    Top 20 ANZ Shareholders

    Name of Shareholder

    Number of Shares

    %
    1

    HSBC CUSTODY NOMINEES (AUSTRALIA) LIMITED

    446,984,331

    17.46

    2

    J P MORGAN NOMINEES AUSTRALIA LIMITED

    371,451,021

    14.51

    3

    NATIONAL NOMINEES LIMITED

    343,611,753

    13.42

    4

    CITICORP NOMINEES PTY LIMITED

    98,249,488

    3.84

    5

    COGENT NOMINEES PTY LIMITED

    42,380,166

    1.66

    6

    JP MORGAN NOMINEES AUSTRALIA LIMITED CASH INCOME A/C

    29,710,001

    1.16

    7

    RBC DEXIA INVESTOR SERVIC ES AUSTRALIA NOMINEES PTY LIMITED

    29,388,568

    1.15

    8

    AMP LIFE LIMITED

    25,265,475

    0.99

    9

    CITICORP NOMINEES PTY LIMITED

    16,013,808

    0.62

    10

    UBS WEALTH MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA NOMINEES PTY LTD

    13,149,540

    0.51

    11

    QUEENSLAND INVESTMENT CORPORATION

    12,642,137

    0.49

    12

    ANZEST PTY LTD

    9,451,047

    0.37

    13

    COGENT NOMINEES PTY LIMITED

    8,626,014

    0.34

    14

    AUSTRALIAN FOUNDATION INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED

    6,865,377

    0.27

    15

    PERPETUAL TRUSTEE COMPANY LIMITED

    6,790,350

    0.26

    16

    AUSTRALIAN REWARD INVESTMENT ALLIANCE

    6,639,870

    0.26

    17

    UBS NOMINEES PTY LTD

    6,638,326

    0.26

    18

    RBC DEXIA INVESTOR SERVICES AUSTRALIA NOMINEES PTY LIMITED

    5,904,807

    0.23

    19

    ANZEST PTY LTD

    5,842,797

    0.23

    20

    CITICORP NOMINEES PTY LIMITED

    5,795,609

    0.23

    Total

    1,491,400,485

    58.26

Links to post