Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 25 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5567. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
11. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Attorney-General 
: Has the Government given any type of indemnity relating to legal actions concerning Kim Dotcom; if so what are the terms and which agencies were consulted before it was given? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 As was reported in newspapers on 24 May an undertaking as to damages was given by the Commissioner of Police in relation to the foreign restraining order made on Mr Dotcom’s New Zealand - based assets and I refer the member to section 29 of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009. It is not related in any way to litigation surrounding the wider extradition proceedings or to criminal charges in the United States. It is not related to any other actions by Government agencies. Undertakings as to damages in litigation are routine but in this case no Minister including the Minister of Finance has any role in approving or signing off this kind of undertaking. That was the sole responsibility of the Commissioner of Police and I refer the member to section 92 of the same Act. I am advised officials from a number of Government agencies were consulted including the Ministry of Justice Crown Law the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the New Zealand Police. 
Charles Chauvel 
: When the undertaking as to damages was being consulted upon was the United States Ambassador to New Zealand or the United States Government one of the people or agencies consulted about the decision to grant an undertaking as to damages? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Not to the best of my knowledge. In these sorts of things in terms of international criminal litigation the matter is one where the costs are normally picked up by the country that has been requested to undertake the particular activity. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Can he explain to the House why if the United States Government was not consulted about the indemnity material was withheld under the Official Information Act citing the ground of disclosure being likely to prejudice the international relations of the Government of New Zealand; if he cannot can he explain why that ground was cited in any other respect? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I am not privy to that particular decision that was made under the Official Information Act but I imagine it was because of the general sensitivity concerning these sorts of matters which would necessarily have a foreign component—namely in this case the United States of America. 
Charles Chauvel 
: How likely is it in his view that the undertaking as to damages will be called upon? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: As I say it relates to the restraining order that was granted under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act. In terms of section 28 of that Act a certain amount is being released. At the end of the day we have to wait until the end of the litigation or the expiration of 3 years to determine whether or not the undertaking would be called on and then determine at that point what if any damages would be payable. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Will the experience of the Government in respect of the present litigation alter his position in respect of the advice he gives as to the wisdom of future such undertakings as to damages? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: As I said in my answer to the primary question the decision whether to give an undertaking was for the Commissioner of Police. As I understand it under another type of legislation in 2002 the Solicitor-General gave an undertaking in relation to certain damages that could be suffered if as a result of that particular restraining order having been made damages were suffered. As I say undertakings as to damages generally in litigation where a person is seeking either an interim injunction or interim restraining order are not uncommon. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Can he confirm that in respect of this particular undertaking as to damages briefings were given to Ministers including the Minister of Finance and himself given the high-profile nature of this application to the court and is he concerned that the Crown is going to be exposed to further damages in respect of the Dotcom litigation given the admission of the Prime Minister yesterday that illegal actions had occurred in respect of the matters that were dealt with at the post-Cabinet press conference? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I have already said that the undertaking is in terms of section 29(1) of the Criminal Proceeds Recovery Act and that does not extend to any acts or omissions on behalf of the Government Communications Security Bureau. It extends to the making operation or extension of the duration of the restraining order. The first part of the question was whether Ministers were given briefings on the subject. The answer is yes there was a briefing.