PQ 2. Security Intelligence Service—Report on Release of Documents
[Sitting date: 26 November 2014. Volume:702;Page:2. Text is subject to correction.]

2. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister : Does he stand by his statement that parts of the Gwyn Report are “highly contested”; if so, which parts are contested and by whom?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes. For example, in yesterday’s urgent debate Winston Peters contested the inspector-general’s decision not to interview me as part of her inquiry. Cameron Slater has also been in the media contesting the inspector’s finding in relation to him. Another thing that was contested yesterday—but appears not to be today—is that Phil Goff leaked the inspector-general’s report and broke his confidentiality agreement. That is not contested.

Andrew Little : What does he contest about paragraph 154 of the Gwyn report, which states that his then deputy chief of staff initiated contact with the SIS to seek information about any briefings the SIS may have given to Phil Goff ?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY : Nothing.

Andrew Little : What does he contest about paragraph 218 of the Gwyn report, which states that his then deputy chief of staff passed a detailed description of the SIS briefing to another prime ministerial staffer, suggesting that it would make a good Official Information Act request?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY : Once again, I do not contest that. It may well have happened.

Andrew Little : What does he contest about paragraph 218, which states that the second staffer—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER : Order! I am going to invite the member to start his question again.

Andrew Little : What does he contest about paragraph 218, which states that the second staffer provided SIS information to a blogger and that blogger then requested the information under the Official Information Act while on the phone with his staffer?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY : The point that is contested there is a point where Mr Slater emphasised that he had already—it says that he had decided to make the Official Information Act request himself. That point is therefore contested.

Tim Macindoe : Has the Prime Minister seen any reports about the view of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security regarding the release of her report?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY : I have. I have seen a report in which the inspector-general says that the parties who received her report were “subject to express confidentiality orders ” made under the New Zealand Security Intelligence Act . I also saw her report that said the premature disclosure of some details was “grossly unfair to others”—that would be me. Some of the coverage—this would also be about me—was not accurate. I want to know whether the Leader of the Opposition—he might like to answer this—condones the leaking of the report, which Mr Goff admitted to on Radio New Zealand today.

Andrew Little : Does he contest paragraph 193, which states that his then deputy chief of staff discussed with the SIS director the timing of when to release information to Cameron Slater?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY : No, but I will make it quite clear, though, from the inspector-general’s report, paragraph 225, that she “did not find any indication of collusion by or direction to NZSIS .” I know it does not fit the narrative of the Opposition, but the bad news is that there was no influence by my office. That was the absolute finding. My office was fully exonerated.

Mr SPEAKER : Supplementary question, Tim Macindoe. [Interruption] Order! Every member has a right to ask a supplementary question without that sort of howling coming from a couple of members to my left.

Tim Macindoe : Is the Prime Minister aware of any issues in the report that were contested but no longer appear to be?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY : I am. Just this morning I heard someone say on Radio New Zealand that they did not release or show the inspector-general’s report to anyone except their party leader and party whip. When that was contested by Radio New Zealand, the same person finally fessed up and admitted that he had rung journalists and given them a heads-up—that would be a briefing—about parts of the report. But there you go—having admitted that, he did, I guess, what that sort of person would do. He blamed the journalists for running it, to try to get the positive spin the day before. That person was Phil Goff.

Rt Hon Winston Peters : Is the Prime Minister aware that Cameron Slater had already leaked the findings of that report over 8 days ago?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY : No.

Andrew Little : Why is he showing contempt for the report of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and undermining her integrity by denying what the whole country has seen in black and white?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY : Quite the opposite. I have absolutely accepted the findings of the report, and the findings of the report, unfortunately for the Opposition, do not fit its narrative. The findings of the report are quite clear. They say in relation to any exchange or discussions between my office and Mr Slater—and I quote—that they “did not breach any obligations of confidentiality owed to the NZSIS on the part of the PMO staff member.” The information was not classified. She says in her report—and I quote—that she “did not find any indication of collusion by or direction to the NZSIS over the request.” She says in her report—and I quote—that the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security found quite clearly that my involvement was limited to only one phone conversation on 22 July. What is quite clear is that the report does not say what the Opposition was desperate for it to say. That is why Phil Goff leaked it a day earlier, and Cheryl Gwyn is very unhappy about that.

Andrew Little : Why will he not admit the truth—that his office worked with his blogger to use information held by his security agency to attack his political rival, and the buck stops with him?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY : Because that is not the truth, but what I will admit is the following truths. I am not part of a political party that went out there and impersonated a researcher to go through my personal financial records. I am not part of a political party that impersonates someone to go to a National Party conference to secretly tape us. I am not part of a political party that leaked an embargoed document. “Black ops” is alive and well—in the Labour Party. That is where it is.

Andrew Little : Why does he not cut the crap and just apologise to New Zealand for running a smear machine out of his office? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER : Order! The question has been asked. I will hear the answer.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY : It is going to be a very interesting 3 years, and I cannot wait for the debates, because if we are starting there, we are going to end up here. It is pretty simple. The report from Cheryl Gwyn makes it clear: the SIS made its own decisions, and there was no indication of collusion or direction. I will say it one more time: if this report was so damning and if it so much backed up what the Labour Party had said weeks before the 2014 election, Phil Goff would have let it run. But he ran right over the top of his own leader, he bumped him off the news—

Mr SPEAKER : Order! That answer is sufficient.

ENDS

© Scoop Media