Chinese spy in New Zealand Government?

You’ve really got to wonder how much influence the Chinese government is exerting on the National party these days?

Last month it was revealed that the Minister of Housing, Nick Smith, had demolished state houses then sold the public land they were on to a private Chinese owned company. The New Zealand government then helped pay to build privately owned houses to accommodate Chinese government workers from China Southern Airlines.

Then on Tuesday a documentary by Bryan Bruce called Who owns New Zealand now showed that our housing crisis has partly been driven by Chinese government backed speculation in our property market. Bruce also revealed how the National led government was hiding statistics on the exact number of properties being sold to foreign speculators.

But if that wasn’t bad enough, now we learn that a government MP, Jian Yang, was a card-carrying member of the Chinese Communist Party and taught spies at a Chinese military intelligence academy before moving to New Zealand to join the National party.

Yesterday, Newsroom reported:

National MP trained by Chinese spies

A National Party MP who studied at an elite Chinese spy school before moving to New Zealand has attracted the interest of our Security Intelligence Service.

The list MP Jian Yang did not mention in his work or political CVs a decade he spent in the People's Liberation Army-Air Force Engineering College or the Luoyang language institute run by China's equivalent of the United States National Security Agency.

That agency, the Third Department, conducts spying activities for China.

Clearly there’s a huge conflict of interest here, with the former teacher of Chinese spies having access to some of New Zealand’s most top-secret and highly sensitive information.

Perhaps this is why National is against taxing bottled water? After all, most of the consents for one of our most precious resources are in order to ship it off to China.

Newsroom has been told that to have taught at the Air Force Engineering College, Yang would have almost certainly been an officer in Chinese military intelligence and a member of the Communist Party, as other students and staff have been.

Surely that would preclude him from being an MP in New Zealand then?

Yang studied and then taught there before moving to Australia where he attended the Australian National University in Canberra. He migrated to this country to teach international relations in the politics department at the University of Auckland.

He was hand-picked by National Party president Peter Goodfellow to become an MP on its list in 2011, wooed directly by the former Prime Minister John Key and has been a key fundraiser for National among the Chinese community in Auckland.

So the National party actually headhunted Yang, a person who worked at a foreign spying academy, to be one of their MPs. Could you imagine the media frenzy if the Labour party had done something as unbelievably stupid as that?

As an MP he variously served on Parliament's Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade (from 2014 until last year), Commerce, Transport and Industrial Relations and Health and Science select committees and is prominent in New Zealand's interactions with the Chinese community and diplomatic and consular missions in Wellington and Auckland. He remains a Parliamentary Private Secretary for ethnic affairs.

It’s becoming pretty evident that the National party is in the pocket of the Chinese government. Even if you're a Chinese national, you'll likely realise that such things are entirely unconstitutional.

Bill English should do the right thing and stand Jian Yang down while an investigation is undertaken. The Prime Minister must somehow confirm to voters that National policy hasn't been influenced by another sovereign state. If the National party doesn't do that before the election, then it's time to change the government.

Key should pay for illegal spying

The illegal spying and legal then illegal raids on Kim Dotcom and associates by the GCSB always looked highly questionable. That was especially the case when then Prime Minister John Key claimed the GCSB had authority to surveil NZ residents.

It looked even more questionable when the National led government moved to change our laws to make unrestricted spying on all New Zealanders legal. However we now learn that all the government’s legal maneuverings have amounted to nothing.

Today, Radio NZ reported:

Spy agency's Dotcom surveillance illegal, court rules

The High Court has ruled a government spy agency's entire surveillance operation against the internet businessman Kim Dotcom and his associates was illegal.

The court decision from December last year has been released today.

The High Court found the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) operation in 2011 fell outside the scope of its legislation at that time.

Kim Dotcom, Bram van der Kolk, Matthias Ortmann and Finn Batato are appealing against extradition to the United States to face charges of money laundering and copyright breaches.

The ruling said: "The circumstances of the interceptions of communications are Top Secret, and it has not proved possible to plead to the allegations the plaintiffs have made without revealing information which would jeopardise the national security of New Zealand.

Clearly any evidence gained through the GCSB’s illegal surveillance and raids cannot be used in the extradition case against Dotcom or his associates. The case for extradition should therefore be thrown out before any further taxpayer money is wasted.

"As a result the GCSB is deemed to have admitted the allegations in the statement of claim which relate to the manner in which the interceptions were effected."

Grant Illingworth, the lawyer representing Mr Ortmann and Mr van der Kolk, said the court ruling brought the whole operation into doubt.

It showed the extent of the GCSB's abuse of power, he said.

Exactly! Not only does this ruling again show that the GCSB was practicing well outside of its parameters, their illegal spying means the remaining proceedings against Dotcom and his associates cannot proceed further.

But what I would really like to know is can we hold those who’ve instructed the GCSB to undertake illegal spying to account? It was their decision to intentionally breach the law that has caused the case to soak up court time and large amounts of taxpayer dollars.

The National party and in particular John Key should be held to account for this waste of money at the taxpayers expense. If justice was really being served, the National party would be made to pay financially and at the polls this coming election for their continued unlawful arrogance.

Key uses tragedy for propaganda

As Australians and Kiwis are learning about the tragic events that have resulted in the deaths of three people, the Prime Minister of New Zealand has taken it upon himself to use the situation to promote a complete untruth.

Today, Radio NZ reported:

John Key said it was clear from what unfolded across the Tasman that ISIS was running an outreach campaign which was trying to tap into the disenfranchised.

The Prime Minister said the holding up of an Islamic flag in the Lindt cafe in Sydney made it feel like ISIS was the driving force behind what happened.

The problem for Key is that he's entirely wrong! Today, Radio NZ also reported:

Deadly end to Sydney siege

Earlier, police confirmed to Radio New Zealand the man behind the siege was Man Haron Monis, who had been on bail for a charge of accessory to murder.

The Iranian man, also known as Sheikh Haron, was convicted last year over offensive letters he sent to family members of Australian soldiers killed in Afghanistan between 2007 and 2009.

Man Haron Monis was an Iranian and Iran has been fighting ISIL for a long time now. The failure of John Key, who just so happens to be the Minister in charge of "Intelligence" Services, to provide any evidence to support his claims is profound.

So desperate is the Prime Minister of New Zealand for an excuse to send more troops off to war and justify the implementation of further domestic spying legislation that he's willing to blatantly lie about Man Haron Monis' affiliation with ISIL.

In my opinion this shows complete disrespect for the people caught up in the tragedy…especially the hostages who lost their lives and their grieving families.

It also shows that our leaders and the mainstream media are willing to use such tragedies in order to promote a war that the good people of Australia and New Zealand clearly don't support.

When will the PM take responsibility?

It often bemuses me as to why people would vote for a dishonest political party that has spent the last two terms in government undermining our once great democracy. Why on earth would voters support a scoundrel like John Key, a man who has been shown on numerous occasions to be a complete fraudster?

The list of Key’s lies is extensive and is being added to on a daily basis. Albeit in a biased manner, his dishonesty is being reported on. So why aren’t the media en masse and the public they influence demanding a change in government or in the very least the Prime Minister’s resignation? Are we to believe that there's simply no accountability in New Zealand's political system anymore?

Surely the use of a state-spying agency to undermine a political opponent is a serious enough incident to require a new leader. Key is after all the Minister in charge of the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service and therefore cannot simply pass the buck. Only a naive fool would believe that the NZSIS simply made mistakes and that there was no political motive in releasing inaccurate information that was used to damage an opposition leader’s credibility.

The head of the SIS wouldn’t under normal circumstances give preferential treatment to a National party attack blogger, Cameron Slater, unless he was instructed to do so. Even when the misinformation they published was highlighted, the SIS did nothing to restore political neutrality. In fact they went out of their way to continue to perpetuate the dishonesty. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to understand whom this benefited and therefore why it was done.

In my opinion there should be no differentiation between the PM and his office or the portfolios he administers. Only a leader that’s entirely inept would be unaware of the numerous underhanded dealings going on right under his nose. If Key is truly that incompetent then he should resign! However, Key knew full well about the smear campaigning, and for that he should also resign!

If the Prime Minister isn’t willing to take responsibility for the irrefutable misconduct that has been documented throughout Nicky Hager's excellent book, Dirty Politics, then he’s bringing the entire political system into disrepute. John Key is in effect making a mockery of his position as the Prime Minister of New Zealand…He’s making a mockery of parliament and all it stands for as well.

When Idiot/Savant goes wrong

There are a number of very good bloggers in New Zealand that try their best to keep the buggers honest. One such blogger who writes over at No Right Turn and goes by the name of Idiot/Savant is perhaps one of the best in the business.

Most of the time I completely agree with what Idiot/Savant writes. However, once in a while he or she tends to go completely off the deep end, especially when they rely on incorrect advice from those who appear to be nothing more than right wing disinformation trolls.

Today, Idiot/Savant claimed that Phil Goff had acted unlawfully:

Not acceptable 

Phil Goff was interviewed by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security today, and in the process admitted on oath to unlawfully delaying an OIA request.

Actually, Phil Goff hasn't "admitted on oath to unlawfully delaying an OIA request" at all. Idiot/Savant appears to be trying to put words in the MPs mouth.

So, just to be clear, Goff didn't like the identity of the requester, so he demanded a delay. And Tucker gave it to him. That is unlawful. The OIA is clear: a response must be made "as soon as reasonably practicable". The information clearly could have been released immediately, so it should have been. Goff (and Tucker) has behaved unlawfully by having it delayed.

Idiot/Savant is assuming to know exactly what was discussed between Warren Tucker and Phil Goff. In doing so he or she is simply making shit up. Also, the only change of decision was that the information wasn't going to be expedited. Most OIA requests aren't expedited and as it stands there's certainly nothing illegal about that under the Act.

Still, Goff's frankness is illuminating: he believes, contrary to law, that not liking the identity of the requester is a reason for delaying a response. Which shows perfectly why he is unfit to hold office and should never be allowed to control an OIA process ever again.

After reading this article, you will note that Phil Goff didn't actually request a delay; he simply asked if Warren Tucker knew who Cameron Slater was. It was Warren Tucker's decision to insignificantly delay the release of information. Clearly the release was still made within the prescribed 20 day time frame.

In fact after reviewing the sequence of events it appears as if the information was processed before Slater's request for it was even made. Clearly Judith Collins or somebody in her office tipped Slater off about what he should request. In effect she used National's attack blogger to undermine Phil Goff. Perhaps that is what we should instead be focusing on?

Furthermore, it's not contrary to the law that the person fulfilling an OIA request, in this case Warren Tucker, consults with those who may be affected by the release of information. At that stage of an OIA request being processed there's no set decision about if or how the information might be released.

Here's the specific part of the Official Information Act (PDF) which means after consultation Warren Tucker can make any decision he believes is appropriate in accordance with the Act:

15 Decisions on requests

Nothing in subsection (4) prevents the chief executive of a department or any officer or employee of a department from consulting a Minister of the Crown or any other person in relation to the decision that the chief executive or officer or employee proposes to make on any request made to the department in accordance with section 12 of this Act or transferred to the department in accordance with section 14 of this Act or section 12 of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.

If the person fulfilling an OIA request wasn't able to make a decision based on consultation with those directly affected, that particular part of the act simply wouldn't exist. Unfortunately for Idiot/Savant's argument it does, which renders Idiot/Savants tirade about Phil Goff being unlawful for pointing out who Slater is completely wrong!

I tried to point that out to Idiot/Savant yesterday in this tweet:

@norightturnnz Clearly @philgoffmp can query (consult) as to why sensitive info was being released in that manner. Read s15(5) of OIA.
— Jackal (@Jackalblog) September 8, 2014

In fact by incorrectly claiming Phil Goff has acted unlawfully it looks like Idiot/Savant has some sort of personal grudge against him, which doesn't just make for bad reading, it makes Idiot/Savant's other arguments somewhat less effective as well.

John Key was briefed

New information showing that the Prime Minister was in fact briefed about the SIS releasing information to right wing blogger Cameron Slater has come to light.

It shows that the Director of Security at the time, Warren Tucker, had written directly to John Key to specifically inform him in accordance with the no surprises rule.

The issue of the information being fast-tracked in order to cause collateral damage to Labour aside, it appears that Warren Tucker did the right thing in accordance with the rules by briefing John Key, the Minister responsible for the SIS.

Here's what Key was saying last Monday in a Radio NZ interview with Guyon Espiner:

Espiner: Did that [SIS OIA] request come across your desk?

Key: No.

Espiner: So, you’re the Minister responsible for the SIS, yet you did not sign off on that request?

Key: No.

Espiner: You had no knowledge that a request had been made?

Key: I knew there were requests, cos, you know, yeah I would have known because generally they say “there’s a series of requests in to the SIS or the GCSB. But they often – well they always sign off on things on their own timetable.

It's well worth listening to the entire interview:



Here's what Key was saying just yesterday:

"The Inspector General absolutely needs to prove that they're independent and ah so on that basis ah that it's an issue worth looking at they should go and do that."

"Ah I mean at the end of the day, ah we're very confident that position the SIS has been running themselves that process quit independently and they've been commenting that everything is above board."

"But the really good thing here is that the Inspector General is going to have a look and absolutely clarify that for everyone."

"All I know is that I wasn't told but ah what happens is that my office was told that an OIA was going out but more often than not they don't tell me."

Today, the NZ Herald reported:

Letter contradicts Key on SIS document release

A letter from a former SIS chief appears to contradict Prime Minister John Key's claim that he was not briefed about a controversial decision to release intelligence documents to Whale Oil blogger Cameron Slater.

The 2011 letter from former SIS chief Warren Tucker was posted to Twitter by Newstalk ZB political editors Felix Marwick and Barry Soper this morning.

Here's the letter which confirms John Key lied, tweeted by Felix Marwick and Barry Soper:

What the PM said about his knowledge of Slater's SIS OIA http://t.co/u8AmXeX7jy What the SIS told me in 2011 pic.twitter.com/tPNvehTzJ0
— Felix Marwick (@felixmarwick) August 20, 2014

This categorically shows that the Prime Minister was informed about the SIS releasing sensitive information to Cameron Slater that he used to discredit Phil Goff. In my opinion the Prime Minister misleading the public on such an important issue is entirely unacceptable! He should resign!

It's exactly like Norton AntiVirus!

H/T @nintendoug

Key's implausible deniability

Isn’t it nice that John Key is on holiday at the moment with his family in Hawaii? It does seem a bit strange though to have Key absent when the National party should be busily getting ready for their election campaign.

The timing couldn't have been better for the Prime Minister, with the release of further damaging information concerning the Kim Dotcom case clearly not being coincidental to him taking a vacation.

Today, the NZ Herald reported:

Prime Minister John Key must explain the "political pressure" government officials were under to process Kim Dotcom's residency application, Labour says.

Documents declassified and released through the Official Information Act show the Security Intelligence Service tried to block Kim Dotcom's residency application but dropped their objection 90 minutes after being told there was "political pressure" to let the tycoon into New Zealand.

You're probably aware that a Minister must sign off on all Official Information Act requests before the information is released. I should also mention the No Surprises Legislation to help ensure that Ministers are kept informed about any issues that may be discussed in the public arena.

The government would have realised they had to release the information requested at around the same time it was decided the PM should take off overseas. In my opinion, John Key leaving the country to avoid questioning is a cowardly act not befitting a Prime Minister of New Zealand.

So why exactly did he ensure he wasn't available to answer questions?

Documents declassified and released through the Official Information Act show the Security Intelligence Service describing Dotcom as a "bad but wealthy man" who was under criminal investigation by the FBI.

It also has agents passing on information about the FBI investigation for then Minister of Immigration Jonathan Coleman, described as an "interested party" wanting to get "high rollers" into New Zealand.

How interested were the FBI in keeping Dotcom in New Zealand so that the extradition laws would apply? If that's the case, it's a clear indication that the National government has manipulated the normal legal process of a residency application at the behest of a foreign country, in this case the United States of America. That's clearly a corruption of due process and subsequently something that should be treated very seriously indeed.

But that's not the worst part of today's news for John Key and his inept neoliberal government. The release of information has also shed some light on when exactly John Key knew about Kim Dotcom.

Previously the Prime Minister has used plausible deniability to say that he wasn't aware or involved in any of the decision-making surrounding the Dotcom case. However his continued claims that he knew nothing are becoming even more implausible with every new piece of evidence uncovered.

The "political pressure" claim was made in October 2010 after the SIS blocked Dotcom's residency application when it learned of the FBI's criminal investigation into his Megaupload empire.

On October 22 that year, one SIS agent wrote to another saying: "INZ [Immigration NZ] has phoned me to advise that the INZ CEO [Nigel Bickle] is questioning why this case is on hold. Apparently there is some 'political pressure' to process this case."

This isn't the first time National MP’s have manipulated the system either. Earlier this year Maurice Williamson had to resign because he interfered in a Police investigation concerning a domestic violence complaint against Donghua Liu, a Chinese businessman who had given the National Party $22,000. But this time the government interference appears to be for very different reasons.

The agent noted the need for the "CEO" to be briefed on the Dotcom case. The SIS director at the time was Dr Warren Tucker, who reports directly to Prime Minister John Key.

One hour and 27 minutes later, another SIS agent said the agency's block would be lifted, writing: "Since Dotcom is not of security concern, there is no reason for this application to be on hold with us. Please can you inform your INZ contacts of this, also noting Dotcom is the subject of a criminal investigation and that they need to discuss the case with NZ Police before they proceed with granting him PR [permanent residency]."

On October 27, 2010, the SIS again urged Immigration NZ to discuss Dotcom with the police, saying "just from looking at his records INZ do have enough on his criminal history to not give him [residency]".

The next day, an SIS agent was instructed to brief INZ's intelligence chief, Theo Kuper, ahead of a meeting scheduled with Dr Coleman to brief him on "the background regarding FBI/NZ Police".

In an email later that day, the SIS agent asked: "How did the meeting go with the minister?"

Mr Kuper responded: "My responsibility is to merely provide information and advice which hopefully will lead to the right decision being made. What I do know is that the Minister of Immigration is an interested party as the Investor Plus Residence category (for high rollers with more [than] $10 million to spend in NZ) is a government priority because of the economic benefits to NZ."

The Prime Minister is the head of the SIS and it would be a serious breach of protocol for him not to be briefed about a situation the FBI was interested in as it unfolded. It's therefore entirely incomprehensible that he wasn't aware of the Security Intelligence Service’s involvement in this case before the raid occurred.

The public is being expected to believe that from October 2010 when the National government put "political pressure" on the SIS and INZ to unblock Dotcom's residency application and January 2012 when the illegal raid on Kim Dotcoms' home was conducted, not one of the three Ministers who knew about the case bothered to inform the Prime Minister? Yeah right!

Couple that whopping inconsistency with the SIS supposedly failing to mention the Kim Dotcom case to John Key in over a years worth of weekly briefings and it's getting harder and harder to accept that the Prime Minister has told the truth. In fact the lies of this right wing government are getting more unbelievable by the day.

So much for democracy

Today, Stuff reported:

The New Zealand military received help from US spy agencies to monitor the phone calls of Kiwi journalist Jon Stephenson and his associates while he was in Afghanistan reporting on the war.

Stephenson has described the revelation as a serious violation of his privacy, and the intrusion into New Zealand media freedom has been slammed as an abuse of human rights.

The spying came at a time when the New Zealand Defence Force was unhappy at Stephenson's reporting of its handling of Afghan prisoners and was trying to find out who was giving him confidential information.

The monitoring occurred in the second half of last year when Stephenson was working as Kabul correspondent for the US McClatchy news service and for various New Zealand news organisations.

This is further evidence that a concerted effort is being made to quell calls for an inquiry into SAS activities in Afghanistan after Jon Stephenson revealed that New Zealand soldiers were detaining and handing over people to authorities who are known to use torture.

The New Zealand SAS and government clearly didn't like this information being made public and have undertaken further questionable steps to close down an award winning journalist who's simply doing his job.

The Sunday Star-Times has learned that New Zealand Defence Force personnel had copies of intercepted phone "metadata" for Stephenson, the type of intelligence publicised by US intelligence whistleblower Edward Snowden. The intelligence reports showed who Stephenson had phoned and then who those people had phoned, creating what the sources called a "tree" of the journalist's associates.

Earlier this year John Key claimed that; "New Zealand agencies did not use the international connections to bypass the law." However it appears that GCSB personnel posted in Afghanistan were involved in using a US spying agency to monitor Jon Stephenson.

If the Prime Minister is willing to lie about such a serious issue, then why should we believe him about anything else? For instance, when Key says:

Jon Stephenson's a guy that texted me one night impersonating Duncan Garner ... I hung up on him, because when people impersonate somebody else, I don't take them seriously.

This appears to be a further attempt to discredit Stephenson simply because he’s reporting the facts. Stephenson is likely being targeted because he's providing information to the public that John Key and the Defence hierarchy simply don’t like being reported on, not because such reporting is inappropriate, but because it's reality and puts into question New Zealand's continued role in war torn countries like Afghanistan.

Clearly New Zealand Defence personnel in Afghanistan have undertaken illegal activity in turning over prisoners for torture. It also appears that Lieutenant General Rhys Jones defamed Stephenson in an attempt to discredit the journalist's work and the NZSAS has used US spying agencies to monitor a New Zealand citizen’s communications.

However, what's perhaps of more concern is exactly what spying agencies were involved:

The sources who described the monitoring of Stephenson's phone calls in Afghanistan said that the NZSIS has an officer based in Kabul who was known to be involved in the Stephenson investigations.

And since early in the Afghanistan war, the GCSB has secretly posted staff to the main US intelligence centre at Bagram, north of Kabul. They work in a special "signals intelligence" unit that co-ordinates electronic surveillance to assist military targeting. It is likely to be this organisation that monitored Stephenson.

This is despicable conduct that shouldn't be tolerated. It's also another clear breach of New Zealand law. Furthermore, Jon Stephenson is obviously not a military target and therefore monitoring him with an agency that helps conduct military targeting and perhaps even assassinations isn't acceptable behaviour by any stretch of the imagination.

In light of these further revelations, any journalist with an iota credibility should be questioning the New Zealand governments underhanded and undemocratic behaviour. Accurate reporting is an essential part of accountability after all and without journalists like Stephenson being in the field certain war atrocities would likely remain a secret forever.

Without the media questioning John Keys credibility as the Minister responsible for such immoral and illegal activity, little will change and our so-called "democracy" will effectively mean nothing.

Fletcher drops a clanger

Tonight, the head of the GCSB, Ian Fletcher, said on Campbell Live that they simply didn't understand the Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003 (PDF), and that's why they have undertaken illegal spying on New Zealand citizens... WTF!

Here's the particular part of the Act he's referring to:

Restrictions imposed on interceptions

14 Interceptions not to target domestic communications

Neither the Director, nor an employee of the Bureau, nor a person acting on behalf of the Bureau may authorise or take any action for the purpose of intercepting the communications of a person (not being a foreign organisation or a foreign person) who is a New Zealand citizen or a permanent resident.

How is that sentence hard to understand?

Clearly this is just pathetic spin to try and shift the conversation away from culpability to one of changing a few laws... Let's hope the public doesn't buy such obvious bullshit!

Dotcom spy debacle timeline

In early 2011 New Zealand Police were contacted by the FBI with a request to assist them with the investigation regarding the Mega Media Group founded by Internet entrepreneur Kim Dotcom.

On January 19 2012, Detective inspector Grant Wormald signed a police planning document that states Kim Dotcom has New Zealand residency.

Kim Dotcom was granted residency on November 23, 2010 and co-accused Van der Kolk holds a permanent NZ resident's visa granted in early 2011. In the same year, Kim Dotcom spent approximately $500,000 for a fireworks display in Auckland harbour to celebrate him gaining New Zealand residency.

A Special Tactics Group Request for Assistance form was made by Wormald on 19 January 2012.

On the same day, Assistant Commissioner Malcolm Burgess authorized the deployment of the STG and a special planning meeting was then held at Police National Headquarters, 180 Molesworth Street Wellington, which an undisclosed number of Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) operatives attended.

Presumably they would have been given a copy of the police planning document that clearly states Dotcom was a New Zealand resident at the time of the meeting.

Wormald then gave evidence in a court of law stating that apart from the police, to his knowledge there was no other agencies involved in the surveillance of Mr Dotcom.

According to John Key, the GCSB spying on Dotcom and co-accused began on 16 December 2011 and continued until the day of the raid on January 20, 2012.

On 15 August, Dotcoms' legal representative Paul Davison QC wrote to request:

Disclosure of all information (if any) provided by the GCSB to the New Zealand Police (including OFCANZ) relating to any information or data intercepted or obtained by GCSB relating to Mr Dotcom, Megaupload and any associated parties.

On 16 August, Bill English then wrote to Inspector Grant Wormald, The Commissioner of Police, Peter Marshall, and the Director of the GCSB to object to the disclosure of any information being released. When questioned by media on 25 September, English was initially unsure whether he had signed the order but later told reporters he hadn't.

It was also reported that Police Commissioner Peter Marshall signed an indemnity order which accepts potential liability if Kim Dotcom lays a claim for damages.

Also on 25 September, John Key stated that he learnt about the illegal spying on 17 September 2012 from the Director of the GCSB, Ian Fletcher. On the same day Key wrote to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, Paul Neazor, to request an urgent report into the unlawful GCSB activity he told the media was a simple "mistake".

Key has stated that he previously knew nothing of the GCSB's involvement and despite 15 meetings with the Director so far this year, he was told nothing about the GCSB's investigation.

The GCSB supposedly informed the Prime Minister an entire month after the Prime Minister's deputy, Bill English tried to suppress details of the debacle being released to Dotcom's legal representatives. Key tries to put this down to a miscommunication between himself and Bill English, saying:

He was of the view that the Government Communications Security Bureau would probably inform me of that matter.

The next day John Key said:

The Government Communications Security Bureau recognised the error a few days before it told me—I think it was about 5 to 7 days before it told me.

If true, the time before the GCSB started their illegal surveillance and them realising they had acted unlawfully was nine months. Interestingly it appears that the GCSD apparently realised they had acted illegally at the same time the information was about to be released publicly.

Key also states in the house of representatives that he had received no advice on Kim Dotcom from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the SIS, or the National Assessments Bureau in the last twelve months, despite the high profile nature of the case.

Last night, John Key stated on Close Up that if the GCSB were not involved, somebody could have been killed in the raid on Dotcom's mansion. This is despite the police planning document classifying the operation as low risk.

On the same day Paul Neazor releases his report, which states:

In my view the only issue of illegality arises in this matter from confusion in this instance between the case of a person transferring funds and the general category of residents.

The opposition are rightfully unsatisfied, and the Green's have today made an official complaint to Police commissioner Peter Marshall concerning the illegal GCSB activity.

3 News reports:

"The Neazor Report clearly concludes that the GCSB had no authority under the GCSB Act to intercept the communications of Mr Dotcom and Bram van der Kolk," says Dr Norman.

"Both the Neazor Report and the Prime Minister’s public statements have repeatedly labelled the GCSB’s actions illegal.

It would be good to see the GCSB, the Prime Minister and his deputy held to account for what is at least gross incompetence, if not a conspiracy to breach the law.

Spooks - a law unto themselves

Today, Radio NZ reported:

High Court documents show that police assured the bureau that Mr Dotcom and his co-accused were foreigners, so it did not require a warrant to spy on them - which was incorrect.

Mr Dotcom is a New Zealand resident and it is illegal for the agency to spy on people who live in the country.

It might be illegal, but is the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) ignoring the law and routinely spying on New Zealanders in breach of the Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003 (PDF)? This question can only be answered if we first define what spying is:

Spying or espionage is generally considered to be the gathering of information on potential or actual enemies. It involves accessing secret or confidential information without the permission of the holder of that information, legally or illegally as the case may be.

In New Zealand the two main agencies responsible for spying are the Security Intelligence Service (SIS) which is in charge of the government's counter-intelligence work and the GCSB which collects and processes information for intelligence purposes. Both these agencies provide information on threats to national security and report directly to the minister holding the Intelligence portfolio, who is always the Prime Minister.

So how exactly does the GCSB gather secret information? Investigative Journalist Nicky Hagar, answers this question with his excellent book, Secret Power. Chapter Three, The Power of the Dictionary Inside Echelon, outlines exactly how the spooks gather information:

It extracts the different categories of intercepted messages (known just as ‘intercept’) from the large GCSB computer data base of intercept from the New Zealand stations and overseas agencies.  Before anything goes into this data base, the actual searching and selection of intercepted messages has already occurred—in the Dictionary computers at the New Zealand and overseas stations. All the text messages (written communications such telexes, faxes, e-mail) intercepted at the Waihopai station are fed into these computers.This is an enormous mass of material—literally all the business, government and personal messages that the station catches. The computers automatically search through everything as it arrives at the station.

So the system spies on every communication whether foreign or domestic.

It reads every word and number in every single incoming message and picks out all the ones containing target keywords and numbers. Thousands of simultaneous messages are read in ‘real time’ as they pour into the station, hour after hour, day after day, as the computer finds intelligence needles in the telecommunications haystack.

[...]

The implications of this capability are immense. The UKUSA agencies can use machines to search through all the telephone calls in the world, just as they do for written messages. Since they have this equipment to use in embassy collection, they will certainly use it in all the stations throughout the ECHELON network, including, in all probability, the GCSB stations. Anyone who makes international telephone calls needs to be aware of this capability. It has nothing to do with whether someone is deliberately tapping your telephone, simply whether you say a keyword or combination of keywords that is of interest to one of the UKUSA agencies.

All the messages intercepted at the two GCSB stations are connected by Telecom line to the Information Centre in the Wellington headquarters, sent there in unbreakable UKUSA codes. From the ‘Infocen’, they are transmitted by fibre optic cable down to the GCSB data base computers on the 12th floor. These computers are connected back up to computer terminals used by the operations staff who study and process the intercept on the 14th floor.

In this way, the GCSB through its massive database system is in fact in breach of the law all of the time. The keyword search enables them to find data of interest from all sources of electronic communications, which they're meant to then acquire a warrant from the Prime Minister to use. The spying part takes place before a warrant is issued even when a specific person is targeted.

Unbelievably a warrant lasts for an entire twelve months and gives the agency access to all real time and recorded electronic communications that individual has ever made. GCSB can also pass this information onto other agencies whenever it chooses... Talk about a massive breach of people's privacy.

Unfortunately the amount of warrants issued each year is not made public... Neither is the amount of complaints these spying agencies receive, with the Inspector General's annual report to the Prime Minister that might bring to light any inherent problems kept entirely secret. The SIS and GCSB are not bound by the Official Information Act 1982 (PDF), and its left entirely up to the Inspector General whether he investigates any complaints made under the Inspector-General Intelligence and Security Act 1996 (PDF). That Act doesn't specify a time limit for when a complaint needs to be acted upon, so there's disappointingly no proper way for the public to find out about the underhanded tactics these extensive spying agencies use.

They are effectively a law unto themselves, which is unacceptable considering the GCSB and SIS were funded by the taxpayer to the tune of $112 million in 2011.

There are no real checks or balances to ensure the spooks do not abused the system for political, business or personal gain... In fact if the recent Dotcom debacle is anything to go by, the law that's meant to bind the GCSB, which couldn't be more succinct, has been completely ignored by them and their boss.

In my opinion, anybody who believes the GCSB wasn't aware of a $500,000 fireworks display in Auckland to celebrate Dotcom gaining residency needs their heads read. What a lame excuse. It appears that they're lying to cover Key's arse who would have been all gung-ho about using his powers to placate the FBI. The other option is that our largest "intelligence" service is being run by a bunch of complete morons!

It's apparent that the GCSB routinely spies on the electronic communications of New Zealand citizens and residents. In doing so it grossly breaches our right to privacy and ignores the well defined laws it's meant to adhere to. The lack of proper oversight and avenues for redress when things go wrong shows that the current system is not operating in the best interests of the country or its people. But what's going to be done about the problem? Absolutely nothing while John Key is in charge.

GCSB Waihopai Echelon Station in New Zealand, Code Name: Flintlock

A Conspiracy to Protect John Key

I was interested to see a video of a press conference today on Gordon Campbell's excellent blog, where John Key is questioned about Warren Tucker releasing declassified documents to right wing blogger Cameron Slater.

It reminded me that I'd tried to get to the bottom of the debacle concerning whether Phil Goff had been properly briefed about possible Mossad agents in New Zealand. At first I wrote to the Ombudsman and made a formal complaint under the OIA:

Private and Confidential

Dear Ombudsman,

I write to lay a formal complaint against Warren Tucker for a breach of the Official Information Act 1982.

1. That a request was made by Cameron Slater and granted for information that was not personally relevant to him.

2. That the request was made for secret information held by the NZSIS that was specifically declassified by Warren Tucker so that it could be released under the OIA.

3. That the information was used for a purpose not in connection with which the information was obtained.

4. That the information has been used by Cameron Slater in a vexatious manner and that Warren Tucker knew of the intent of Cameron Slater to use that information in a vexatious manner before releasing it to Cameron Slater.

5. That the release of information was undertaken in a prejudiced manner.

6. That previous requests for the same information were made by other interested parties but only declassified for Cameron Slater's request.

7. That the release of information breaches laws concerning confidentiality between Warren Tucker and the leader of the opposition party.

8. That Warren Tucker supplied information not defined in Cameron Slater's OIA request.

9. That Warren Tucker broke normal NZSIS protocols to facilitate the release of information that would not normally be given.

10. That the information was released for the purpose of discrediting Phil Goff.

11. That the information was released because of a personal interest Warren Tucker (and John Key) had in seeing the information made public.

12. That the manner in which the documents were redacted was undertaken to fabricate an incorrect meaning when the documents were published by Cameron Slater.

13. That Warren Tucker ignored the grounds on which documents can be refused to be released under the OIA.

14. That Warren Tucker has abused his position.

I would appreciate acknowledgment that you have received this email. I look forward to your reply.

Unbelievably, my request in bold that my formal complaint be kept private and confidential was ignored by the Ombudsman's Office:

COMPLAINT AGAINST NEW ZEALAND SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE

Thank you for your email of 6 August 2011.

You have raised concerns about the NZSIS treatment of requests for information concerning briefings the Director had given to the Leader of the Opposition. These are not matters which fall within the jurisdiction of the Ombudsmen under the Official Information Act 1982 and because the Ombudsmen do not have jurisdiction over the NZSIS under the Ombudsmen Act 1972, I have referred your complaint to the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security.

Leo Donnelly

Deputy Ombudsman

 On 29 August 2011 07:59, Carole Cole Carole.Cole@justice.govt.nz wrote:

Dear Sir

The Ombudsman's Office has referred your message of 6 august to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security.

The Inspector-General's jurisdiction in respect of complaints is limited to any activity of an intelligence or security agency has or may have adversely affected a New Zealand person who complains or the law of New Zealand may have been contravened.

Please advise whether you have been personally adversely affected in this matter if so how, and whether there is any question of law arising not mentioned in your message to the Ombudsman.

Yours faithfully

Carole Cole 

Personal Assistant to the Inspector-General

Looks like they'll use the exact same rule that should have been applied to the release of previously secret information to Cameron Slater... that the information is not directly relevant to the individual making the request/complaint. It's a rule outlined in the Official Information Act that should have been adhered to by Warren Tucker.

Dear Carole Cole,

As outlined in the initial complaint to the Ombudsman, I believe there has been a breach of the Official Information Act 1982.

The complaint relates to politics. A breach of law that disadvantages one politician over another effects all New Zealander's. I believe as a New Zealand citizen that the law of New Zealand has been contravened.

The question of any further law arising will be determined when I have received a response from my initial complaint.

I specifically requested information in my previous email: Would you be so good as to highlight what section of the Ombudsman Act 1972 states that the NZSIS is not under the Ombudsman's jurisdiction in cases where there is a possible breach of the OIA?

I would appreciate an answer to that question.

On 29 August 2011 12:25, D P Neazor the Inspector-General wrote:

Dear Sir,

I have read your response to Ms Cole. 

Official Information matters are for the Ombudsmen to deal with, not me. If you want an explanation about them you will have to ask the Ombudsman's Office.

So far as my complaints jurisdiction is concerned, the Act under which I operate in my view is clear: I enquire into any complaint by a New Zealand person that that person may have been adversely affected by any act, omission, practice, policy, or procedure of an intelligence and security agency. 

In my view your response does not indicate that you come within the category of people whose complaints are to be investigated, so I will not proceed further with it as a complaint. 

The alternative would be for me to enquire of my own motion into a matter involving compliance with the law by an intelligence and security agency. I do not see it as my function to become involved in politics, which you say this is. Nor do I see any breach of the law of a kind I need to investigate. Accordingly, I will not respond further to your document. 

Yours faithfully

 D P Neazor

Well I thought that was rather rude... particularly because it was Warren Tucker who politicized a release of secret information in the first place. For an excuse that an investigation into a possible breach of the OIA doesn't need to happen because there is a political connotation to the complaint seems rather obtuse! So on the 29 August I again wrote to Carole Cole at Justice:

Dear Carole Cole,

D P Neazor informs me that my formal complaint concerning the possible breach of the OIA is not the jurisdiction of the Inspector-General of Intelligence & Security. If this is the case, why was my privacy breached and the complaint forwarded to them?

The Office of the Ombudsman has informed me that they have no jurisdiction over the NZSIS under the OIA. Could you please clarify who's jurisdiction my formal complaint falls under? I do not think it is acceptable that an organization that is funded by the tax payer is unaccountable and should not adhere to law outlined in the OIA.

Could you also provide information confirming jurisdictional requirements of the Inspector-General of Intelligence & Security and the Ombudsman? Please be specific and provide exact excerpts from relevant Crown Acts?

Please respond to the other questions that have not been answered within my previous emails?

In response to D P Neazor's email:

I said the complaint relates to politics. I also stated that the breach could effect all New Zealander's. It is not the political aspect but the breach of New Zealand's law that should be investigated. I believe there has been a clear breach of the Official Information Act as outlined in my initial complaint. I therefore do not think the dismissal of my complaint is justified.

It would be democratic for the Inspector-General of Intelligence & Security and/or the Ombudsman to reconsider investigating my formal complaint concerning a possible breach of the OIA by an employee of the NZSIS.

That's about where things are at with that one. The Ombudsman says that none of the fourteen items listed in the initial complaint fall under their jurisdiction and the Inspector-General of Intelligence & Security says that he wont investigate because of politics.

They effectively cover Warren Tucker and John Key's arses, and we may never know who is actually telling the truth. Although this obvious picking and choosing what laws to abide by points in only one direction if you ask me.

Anyway here's the video that reminded me of our faltering democratic process. Check out how angry Key gets when questioned about his role in the nasty affair:

Request Ignored by SIS

There's been a lot written about the possibility that Israeli spies gained false New Zealand passports and whether Phil Goff was briefed on the situation by the head of the SIS, Warren Tucker.

I'm not particularly interested in adding to any fictional spin that is presently pervading the blogosphere and some news outlets... what I am interested in though is if Phil Goff's request for full disclosure will be adhered to?

It's a reasonable request by Phil Goff that he be privy to documents Warren Tucker has said Phil Goff has already seen. Therefore there's no reason to withhold that information from the opposition leader.

Recently I blogged about John Keys lies concerning the investigation into Israeli spies gaining false passports and the happenings after Ofer Mizrahi's death in the Christchurch earthquake. The inconsistencies within John Key's explanation have not been resolved.

Key's excuse for not informing the public about the investigation was that it's "not in the national interest" if Israeli spies are gaining false passports for possible terrorist acts. Wrong! It's very much of national interest if New Zealands sovereignty is being abused, especially after the Israeli's gave assurances that such behaviour would not occur again.

So full disclosure concerning this matter is required and Phil Goff rightly requested this on the 4th from the SIS and John Key:

"Rather than the selective release of information, I call on the SIS and John Key to release all the documentation they have about the investigation into the Israelis and give a full and frank account of what happened to New Zealanders.”

I'm also interested to know why it's John Key who's insisting that Phil Goff was briefed? John Key was not present at any meeting between Phil Goff and Warren Tucker so cannot insist on the specifics of the situation.

If we were to read a little more into the Prime News first broadcast I've embedded below, perhaps we can say that John Key is insisting that Warren Tucker says Phil Goff was briefed, to avoid a controversy concerning the initial lack of disclosure and why such deception was undertaken.



Why would Warren Tucker not brief Phil Goff I hear you ask? Could it be that he knew Phil Goff would want a more robust investigation instead of what was essentially a cover up? Could it be that Warren Tucker thought Phil Goff might inform the public concerning this matter instead of us gaining that information through an SIS agent leaking details to the media?

Perhaps Warren Tucker withheld the information from Phil Goff in the first instance because he believed the Israeli spy issue would never come to light through an SIS leak. That would have been the belief of John Key as well, that the public would never know.

It's unlikely that Phil Goff would simply forget such an important briefing if it was given. He has no reason at all to lie about such a thing. At best it's an oversight by Warren Tucker, at worst it's an underhanded smear campaign by Warren Tucker, Cameron Slater and the Minister of the SIS John Key.

In making the unusual move of releasing cherry picked information to a right wing blogger, and that Warren Tucker knew Cameron Slater would use such information in a vexatious manner, he has breached a principal of the Official Information Act. Warren Tucker has also breached confidentiality and undertaken this specifically to besmirch Phil Goff's credibility.

Somebody with an ulterior motive would be more likely to breach normal procedure and initially try to hide information. I don't have to spell out what the Minister in Charge of the NZ Security Intelligence Service motivation might be to firstly instigate a cover up and then want to discredit the opposition leader do I? In effect John Key has abused his position, but what else is new?