Peters Winston: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumePeters Winston: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 25 November 2014. Volume:702;Page:754. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]7.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First)to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement in regard to the book Dirty Politics that “They’re based on one perspective and probably a bit out of context and with a whole bunch of assumptions that either aren’t correct or are made up and now can’t be backed up.”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):Yes. That statement is absolutely correct as demonstrated by the fact that the book made the assumption that my office directed the SIS. It did not. The book made claims about Judith Collins. They were incorrect. The book made claims about Rodney Hide. They were incorrect. There was a whole wide range of assumptions made in that book—based on stolen emails—that were just simply wrong and incorrect.Rt Hon Winston Peters: In the investigation carried out by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security did she interview him as the then Minister in charge of the NZ Security Intelligence Service and the Prime Minister?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: She did not and she makes it quite clear in paragraph 222 of the report that if it had been necessary she would have sought my appearance before the inquiry. She did not do it because despite all the claims made by Mr Goff—made on nationwide television and on every radio station that would listen—weeks before an election in an attempt to skew the scrum they were all wrong. I was out of the country. I have not handled an Official Information Act request in the entire time I have been the Prime Minister. Phil Goff should apologise—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The Prime Minister answered the question right at the very start.Rt Hon Winston Peters: If one of the central allegations was that the Prime Minister was aware why would the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security not actually ask him that question as to his knowledge?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: She makes it quite clear in the report. She went through all of the source documents and could see I played absolutely no part—Grant Robertson: Apart from the phone calls.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: —other than a phone call on 22 July. That is exactly right and I can tell the member about the phone call. In the phone call I said that I saw in the paper that Mr Goff said he was not briefed. I said to Dr Tucker: “That is surprising because you told me Dr Tucker that actually you did brief Mr Goff.” He said: “Yes I did brief him.” I said: “I am going on Q+A I am doing a pre-record in Washington and I intend to say that.” He told me that was totally and utterly fine.Rt Hon Winston Peters: If one of the central allegations is not as to the Prime Minister’s role or part but as to his knowledge why would she have not asked him whether he had any knowledge at all—not his role or his part but whether he as Prime Minister and head of the SIS had knowledge?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I had no knowledge of these matters other than the phone call I had on 22 July. That is not contested by anyone. The reason the member asks that question is the same reason that Phil Goff leaked the report—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The Prime Minister will resume his seat. Supplementary question—[Interruption] Order! This is a conversation you can have after question time if you so desire.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why has he argued that his staff were not involved in a smear campaign when the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security has confirmed that they were?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: My staff were not involved in a smear campaign. My staff responded to an Official Information Act request.But here is a very interesting fact: Mr Goff has now said no one saw a copy of the report but that does not mean he did not talk to—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The Prime Minister has answered the question.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want you to clarify your earlier statement to the Prime Minister about what material he should add at the end of answers because he has consistently done it on every single question in defiance of your instruction.Mr SPEAKER: I accept this point. The Prime Minister has continued to add to the end of his answers comments that will not help the order of the House. I have consistently sat the Prime Minister down. I should not have to do so. The Prime Minister should accept my ruling and simply answer the questions that are asked.Dr Megan Woods: Did his staff member Jason Ede dictate the Official Information Act request to Cameron Slater?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have no knowledge of that but not as far as I can see from the public statements that Mr Slater made on Radio Live today.Dr Megan Woods: Did he or his chief of staff discuss with Jason Ede the circumstances that led to the filing of Cameron Slater’s Official Information Act request in 2011; if not why not?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Given that Mr de Joux and Mr Ede of his office are said in the report to have “treated information that they were given as available for release for political purposes unless they had been advised otherwise.” can he assure this House that the security services have not been used for political purposes on occasions other than this?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes and they were not on any other occasion either.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Is he expecting the public to believe that his staff got information seriously damaging to the then Leader of the Opposition and yet did not tell him as their boss?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes. Amongst a whole bunch of things I was on holiday at the time. It is worth remembering—because all of this is forgotten—that actually Mr Goff made some statements that I believed to be wrong. They were based on the information given to me by Dr Tucker. I sought to make sure I was right and then I corrected those statements on Q+A. That is why a whole bunch of people put in requests for information. It was nothing to do with in my opinion the issue with Jason Ede particularly. But as the inspector has said and I go back to this point insomuch as there was any discussion between Jason Ede and Cameron Slater it did not breach any obligations of confidentiality owed by the New Zealand SIS. The claims made by the Opposition—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The answer now is quite long enough.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Prime Minister not admit that this is rather strange when it comes to the SIS of which he was the then Minister responsible the Government Communications Security Bureau which he was at the time responsible for or the Helensville raid when a cast of thousands knew but he did not know and that this defence of “I was not told.” is starting to run very very thin?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member may not like the truth but that is the truth. I actually fondly remember being in this House prior to the 2008 election when the Rt Hon Winston Peters was Minister of Foreign Affairs and I think he missed Air New Zealand dropping some people in Afghanistan or something and “he had not read the papers”.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is a point of—well I am certainly hoping that it is a genuine point of order.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well Mr Speaker it certainly is because you have of your own volition got up and asked the Prime Minister to stick to the facts and he did not. He ignored you constantly for the whole time. But here is the real point: I want the Prime Minister to table that because he is talking drivel.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I accept I am wrong. It was Iraq.