New Zealand First leader Winston Peters is calling on the Government to release all information on the decision to grant New Zealand residency to Kim Dotcom.
Dotcom, the founder of Megaupload.com and three others were arrested in an FBI-led raid on Friday at a luxury mansion north west of Auckland. The FBI is seeking to extradite them to the US to face charges including conspiring to commit money laundering and copyright infringement.
Dotcom's application for bail in the North Shore District Court has been reserved and is expected to be released today or tomorrow.
The Immigration Service granted residency to Dotcom despite his full disclosure of previous convictions.
Mr Peters called for the Government to tell the public whether any ministers were involved in the decision to grant residency.
"The Prime Minister has a duty to tell New Zealanders whether any National MPs, particularly cabinet ministers, made any representations, verbally or in writing, in support of Dotcom's application."
"New Zealand First is seeking the release of all the papers relating to this case and will make them public as soon as they are available."
"The issue for us here is not the charges he faces in the United States, but the question of why Dotcom, with his criminal record, was ever allowed into New Zealand."
Labour leader David Shearer, who was in Ratana today, said the Government should provide clarity on how "somebody like this gets into the country".
"On the one hand, you have an Immigration Minister prepared to let him come in. On the other hand we've got other ministers looking at it through the point of view of the OIO (Overseas Investment Office) ... I think there's a need to take a look at it for an inquiry."
Despite gaining residency, Dotcom's applications to buy sensitive land in New Zealand were turned down last year by then-Associate Finance Minsiter Simon Power and Land Information Minister Maurice Williamson - the ministers who were overseeing the OIO decisions.
Mr Shearer wanted to know which ministers were involved in the residency decision, and if they were not involved, "why not?"