Joyce Steven: Urgent Debates — SIS—Report on Release of InformationText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeJoyce Steven: Urgent Debates — SIS—Report on Release of Information[Sitting date: 25 November 2014. Volume:702;Page:772. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development):I have to say that the quality of this urgent debate so far has not actually been that high. It has actually been I think a bit of a testament to the fact that the Opposition has been completely disappointed by the outcome of this report.First up Russel Norman was I have to say in fantasyland—he was in absolute fantasyland. I have read this report and it bears virtually no relation—no relationship at all—to what is going on inside Russel’s head. It is a dark dark place inside Russel Norman’s head. But fortunately out in the real world the report says nothing like what Russel thinks and he should go and read it. It is absolute fantasyland from the Greens and they wonder why the public does not listen to them. They wonder why the public does not listen to them. It is because every time they massively overreach—every time.And then you have Mr Peters and something about a parrot—although I think to be fair that was partly because of Mr Finlayson. Mr Peters is already criticising the inquiry. So here we are half an hour into the discussion and it is the inquiry that is at fault. He said the inquiry did not ask the right questions—if only it had asked the right questions. If only the inspector-general had been up to her job she would have found that in fact the Prime Minister was the devil beast. It would have found that the Prime Minister was the devil beast; but no. So here we are with a critique of the inspector-general.And then we have the Labour Party. It is the first parliamentary day of the new leadership of the Labour Party. How did the Labour members decide to spend their time? Well you would have thought there might be a few issues today at question time perhaps and that they might have some things to discuss—I do not know maybe the economy maybe China maybe the Korean free-trade agreement perhaps the United Nations Security Council perhaps some other issues that might have been relevant to New Zealanders. I know this is a reasonably efficient Government but there must have been something in the last 2 weeks that they could maybe come up with. But instead the new leader of the Labour Party Andrew Little “Mr Angry” decides to spend the first parliamentary day working out his anger yet again on a rerun of the Dirty Politics allegations of the election campaign—which were so successful! They were so successful at the time and now they are back again. When will they learn?You would have thought that perhaps with a new leader they might move on to something else; but no. As well as “Angry Phil” we have “Angry Andy” now. They are prosecuting a report that does not back up what they say—a report that has no smoking gun of political interference no unexplained ordinance of political partisanship. It actually does not stack up with any of the claims. In fact the report clearly states: “I did not find any indication of collusion by or direction to NZSIS over the request.” I note that it goes on to say that the disclosure of information “did not breach any obligations of confidentiality owed to the NZSIS on the part of that PMO staff member.” That is it. That is what the inspector-general says. The rest with respect is flannel from the Opposition.So we move on to another issue that comes out of this inquiry which is a little ironic: the handling of the report. So this report was released at 10 a.m. this morning. That is fair enough except that a selective view of this report started to appear in the media yesterday afternoon. How was that? I thought all participants had been subject to a confidentiality order. In fact I think they were all told that “You cannot disclose or discuss matters raised with you as part of the inquiry. This order is expressed to continue in effect until advised otherwise. I have now revoked the confidentiality order from 10 a.m. Tuesday 25 November.” So who breached that order? Well it was one Phil Goff who breached that order.The inspector-general said at her press conference this morning: “I should note at this juncture that I am very disappointed that details of the report were disclosed to some news media yesterday while the report was with affected parties and under embargo. Those parties were subject to express confidentiality orders made under the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act.” I continue the quote: “The premature disclosure of some details was grossly unfair to others. Some of the coverage was not accurate. For the time being I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the unfairness caused to other affected parties. I will be looking at what steps can be taken both in the context of this report and future reports.”That is the most ironic thing—the most ironic thing. The parliamentarian who complains that information has been used for political purposes against him has been found guilty of doing the exact same thing in the release of the report. What a clown—what a clown. And it was also a political mistake because he did it over the top of the announcement of his new leader’s new line-up—the beginning and dawning of a new day and “Angry Phil” could not wait. He had to get his oar in—Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Once or twice you might expect people to fling a few things across the Chamber. This member has repeatedly throughout his speech been referring to members by other than their actual names which is a clear breach of the rules. Once or twice you might kind of think “Oh whatever.” but he has been doing it repeatedly throughout his speech and there has been no caution or sanction from you at all.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Speaking to the point of order—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not need any advice in respect of this matter. The debate has been very robust. I take the member’s point that the reference has been repeated but there have as the member has noted himself been a number of references by nickname or other superlatives to various members. The points are noted but the Hon Steven Joyce will resume his speech.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. That is interesting in itself. That is ironic. Some would say it smacks of a double standard but let us be fair: it is not the first time. We can all recall—I was not even in the House—a time in 2004 when one parliamentarian used a confidential Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade note. He released it to make a political point—he released it to make a political point. That was what he did. And yet apparently when this Government does not release information to make a political point that is somehow bad and yet for Phil Goff it is OK. That is actually the issue.Hon Annette King: Why don’t you concentrate on the report Steven?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well I will concentrate on it. The allegation from the Opposition this afternoon was that a political smear machine was operating from the ninth floor. Well there was. It was called the Helen Clark Government. Ask Peter Doone about that because that is how Labour started: smearing Peter Doone from the ninth floor. That is a ninth floor smear machine; it is not what we have today—it is not what we have today.This Government set up the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. This Government acted where no other Government has to create more accountability for the Security Intelligence Service. This report is clear. The Security Intelligence Service made many mistakes and the director of the time made mistakes. They were bad mistakes and they should not have been made. The current director of the NZ SIS has apologised to Mr Little and Mr Goff and has apologised to the Prime Minister for the inaccuracy of the information and the way it was handled. And that is correct but it is not correct for the Green Party to make the most outrageous slurs on the Prime Minister of this country and this House this afternoon when it is not remotely backed up by the report. The Greens are relying on New Zealanders not reading the report and actually accepting their ridiculously fabricated view of things. That is appalling—that is what is appalling.The appalling behaviour of Phil Goff and the way he has treated this report in express contradiction of the instructions from the Inspector-General of the Security Intelligence Service shows that the real dirty politician in this is one Phil Goff.