Norman Russel: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeNorman Russel: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 25 November 2014. Volume:702;Page:747. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]1.Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green)to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):Yes.Dr Russel Norman: Why did he tell reporters that Cameron Slater’s decision to make an Official Information Act request for Phil Goff’s SIS briefing in 2011 was “nothing to do with my office”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because I believe that to be correct.Dr Russel Norman: In light of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security’s report that found that his office was deeply involved in encouraging Mr Slater to make that Official Information Act request does he now accept that his office was involved in assisting Mr Slater to make that Official Information Act request?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No. In fact the report does not show that my office was deeply involved. There were a series of claims made and not a single one of them has stacked up. That is why Phil Goff had to leak the report yesterday because he knew it would not stand up on its own merits.Dr Russel Norman: Is the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security wrong when she wrote: “information which his deputy chief of staff received from the NZSIS was used by Jason Ede a senior adviser within the Prime Minister’s office to assist Mr Slater in making the OIA request.”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly the full statement actually from the inspector-general makes it quite clear that inasmuch as there were any discussions they did not breach any obligations of confidentiality owed by the New Zealand SIS on the part of the Prime Minister’s office staff. It is quite contested about what discussions were held between Mr Ede and ultimately Mr Slater. But I make the point that there was a wide range of journalists who asked for exactly the same information. If the thing was germane to Mr Ede how come all of the other journalists asked for that information?Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I just have a bit of assistance from members to my left with keeping the noise down so that I can hear the content of the answer.Dr Russel Norman: So to be clear is the Prime Minister saying that the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security got it wrong when she wrote: “information which his deputy chief of staff received from the NZSIS was used by Jason Ede a senior adviser within the Prime Minister’s office to assist Mr Slater in making the OIA request.”—was she wrong?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly I would say that it was contested. Secondly it is quite clear that what drove the Official Information Act request from a wide range of people—journalists and Mr Slater—was the public comments made by Mr Goff and the public comments made by me. If it was solely germane to information from Mr Ede how come every other journalist asked for the same information?Dr Russel Norman: So is the Prime Minister now saying that he disagrees with the findings of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security that “information which his deputy chief of staff received from the NZSIS was used by Jason Ede a senior adviser within the Prime Minister’s office to assist Mr Slater in making the OIA request.”? Is he saying he no longer accepts the inspector-general’s findings?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No I did not say that. I am saying that I agree with the inspector-general when she said that I personally played no involvement other than a phone call on 22 July despite all the assertions made by the Opposition members. Secondly I agree with the inspector-general when she said that there was no breach of confidentiality owed to the NZSIS. I agree with the inspector-general when she said that there was misleading information given to me and on that basis I have accepted the apology from the SIS.Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order. I wish to hear it in silence.Dr Russel Norman: I have now used three supplementary questions trying to get an answer to this question and the Prime Minister has answered many other questions—which were interesting I give you that—but he has not answered whether he accepts this finding of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security.Mr SPEAKER: Can I offer some assistance to the member. If he simply asks a concise question I can try to assist to get the answer. If the member looks at the last question he will see that he finished with a part of the question that was concise enough but he had led in with quite a lot of extraneous material at the start of his question. So to move this matter forward I am going to give the member an additional supplementary question. I hope he uses it well.Dr Russel Norman: Does he accept the findings of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security that “information which his deputy chief of staff received from the NZSIS was used by Jason Ede a senior adviser within the Prime Minister’s office to assist Mr Slater in making the OIA request.”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I certainly accept there may well have been a discussion between Mr Ede and Cameron Slater on this matter. I also accept that it is quite contested and I also accept that it was not in breach of any obligations on them. Every single political party in this Parliament has staffers and politicians who talk to the media. Yesterday Phil Goff was talking to the media about the contents of this report despite the fact of there being an embargo.Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order!Dr Russel Norman: Does he now stand by his statement that “the OIA request was nothing to do with my office” given that he just said in that answer that he accepted that Jason Ede and Cameron Slater when Jason Ede was working in his office discussed this very matter?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Absolutely it was nothing to do with my office. If you look at paragraph 225 of the report it says—Hon Annette King: How can you say that?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Oh well you will not like to hear this because I know that it bursts your bubble but here we go. It said: “The inspector did not find any indication of collusion by or direction to the New Zealand SIS over the request.” The simple facts of life are that a wide range of people asked for information. The SIS made a decision how to process it. The SIS made the decision when it was released. It was nothing to do with my office and nothing to do with me. That is the problem is it not?Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I have called Dr Russel Norman for a supplementary question.Dr Russel Norman: Given that in his earlier answers he conceded that Jason Ede and Cameron Slater did discuss this issue when did he become aware that Jason Ede and Cameron Slater were discussing the issue of the release of the Goff briefing?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The first I would have been aware of it was when there was an allegation made in the book and then ultimately as a result of this there has obviously been an inspector’s report. What I have been made aware of is that there was no breach of any confidentiality or any information that my office was not involved and that all the decisions were made by the SIS. I hate to tell the member that there is a good reason Phil Goff leaked it. It does not stack up today. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! And I say to the Prime Minister that when I am on my feet calling for order it is no excuse for the Prime Minister to interject.Dr Russel Norman: Will the Prime Minister stand aside from his job as Prime Minister while a full royal commission can look into the truth around the dirty politics that he has operated out of the office of the Prime Minister?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No but I will be interested in reading the police report of how Nicky Hager got stolen emails.