📸

were some three weeks after termination and after interception had ended”. The GCSB said they were going to investigate and Wormald promised to help.

That was a Thursday but it wasn’t until the following Tuesday that Ofcanz emailed Immigration NZ to asked for the “exact residency status” of the three residents, the Dotcoms and van der Kolk. They also sought advice on the difference between resident and permanent resident, and whether there was a “special investor resident category”.

The question was odd, coming two months after the initial meeting and more than a month after Ofcanz had received all the details available from Immigration NZ. Odd, too, given a quick check of the explanation showed clearly there was no difference — any type of residency was protected by law from surveillance.

The picture was becoming clear for Ofcanz. An analyst wrote to the GCSB saying “it is becoming apparent that there are some serious issues that might need to be addressed”. Checks were underway with Immigration NZ, the GCSB was told, but it was likely “these checks will show that all three have NZ residency status”. The analyst was to set out the “important (but subsequently incorrect) assumptions and apprehensions from our end”. There were assumptions everywhere — some Ofcanz staff figured citizenship was the key, not residency. They also made incorrect assumptions about the immigration status of some of those who were targeted. Interesting, too, was the claim “certain persons were indeed not being targeted and that the intelligence was derived from external, non-resident targets”.

The assumption appeared to be based on the GCSB carrying out a legal work-around which had been long denied — accessing communications from banned individuals by intercepting their communications with those they were speaking with or emailing. There were “errors of process and judgment” but the request for help was made in “good faith”.

A GCSB team leader wrote back to “make sure that there wasn’t an impression at the Ofcanz end that there has been a major inquiry or witch hunt here at GCSB”. A “summary document” would be given to GCSB’s “legal advisor” and it “will likely then be stored on file (in case it is needed for future reference)”. “GCSB staff and managers are still viewing TF [task force] Debut as a very successful collaboration with Ofcanz and we would not want this issue to take the shine off things”.

Ofcanz’s analyst was relieved. “That certainly does help to put my mind at ease.” It wasn’t the “witch hunt” which was troubling — it was GCSB’s desire to be seen as “ethical and proper” and “not a bunch of clowns walking roughshod over the law and sound practice”. They were keen on future co-operation.

Despite the assurances on either side, the inquiry was not yet over.

📸