Peters Winston: Urgent Debates — SIS—Report on Release of InformationText is incorporated into the Bound VolumePeters Winston: Urgent Debates — SIS—Report on Release of Information[Sitting date: 25 November 2014. Volume:702;Page:769. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First):This issue concerns the functioning of the Prime Minister’s office and the Prime Minister’s role as the previous Minister in charge of the NZ Security Intelligence Service. If you go page 7 of the findings of this report it says as follows under point 9: “The Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister made public comments in reliance on information provided by the NZSIS and that information was at least partially incorrect.” Point 10 says: “The Director and the NZSIS also failed to provide any clarification or correction once the effect of these errors became apparent.” Then if you go to “Political neutrality findings” on page 8 at No. 17 the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security says: “I did find that NZSIS information was disclosed by a member of the staff of the PMO”—that is the Prime Minister’s office—“to Cameron Slater for political purposes but that disclosure did not breach any obligations of confidentiality owed to the NZSIS on the part of the PMO staff member.”If anyone remembers the movie A Few Good Men they will recall the famous interview where a character called Kaffee was questioning Colonel Jessup on the stand and Jessup says: “You can’t handle the truth!”. Well actually we can and that is what this debate should be about today. Let us go to this magnificent conversation on page 58. It is Dr Warren Tucker the former head of the SIS. He quotes Mr Goff: “Can I have a few days please to think about it?”—it is to Phil de Joux that he is saying that. Tucker: “I said ‘Well I could give you a couple of days’…”. De Joux—who is he? He is the deputy chief of staff in the Prime Minister’s office. What is he doing having this conversation? He says: “Look Warren”—not “Mr Director-General” or anything else—“I think we should give him some space.” Tucker: “Well what I said was … ‘I wouldn’t want to leave it much beyond about close of play Monday but let’s do that. I’ll hold it until then.’ So I’ve agreed to do that I want to inform you about that.” And on and on it goes all the way down.Then Tucker says at the very bottom of this transcript: “Yeah he will in terms of overall credibility.”—that is about Goff—“But anyway I have agreed to hold it till Monday and if he still needs another day or two I will do that but I don’t want to leave it … Are you happy with that?”. De Joux: “Yeah I am happy with that.” Tucker: “Very good. Thanks Phil.”Then over the page—this is amazing actually. It is page 59: “However the press release …”—this is under point 198—“was in large part consistent with the outcome as understood by Mr Goff”. What it is saying right there is that Mr Goff was telling the truth. It goes on further in point 199: “The Deputy Prime Minister”—Mr English who almost lost his voice in shouting denial today—“following the advice provided by the NZSIS commented that he thought that: ‘the Leader of the Opposition is going too far in questioning the integrity of a senior and respected civil servant … If you were given the choice I think you would take a senior civil servant … a man of integrity I’d believe him.’ ” It is all there.Now you have got the new person involved the Deputy Director Relationships Outputs and Communications for the SIS and he is having a conversation. This person is having a conversation with de Joux as well: “… is the PM gonna come out in support of Warren”—“gonna”; that is what he said—“or is what Mr English has said [it]?”. De Joux: “I understand the PM has done media … he has done TV3 … So yeah Bill [English] had done that on the House run. That will be what most media use … And I would have thought … I had a chat to Warren before and he wants … the word integrity to be in and I would thought”—I am reading exactly what they said—“that line … ‘senior civil servant … a man of integrity. I believe him.’” The Deputy Director Relationships Outputs and Communications for the SIS says: “… That’s lovely. That’s really good. OK—that’s great. Thanks.” So who is this man de Joux? Well he is the deputy chief of staff of the Prime Minister’s office and his wife runs the National Party electoral campaigns. This has got an acrid stench about it surely.Hon Steven Joyce: It’s outrageous that somebody should run a campaign!Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I know that “Big Ears” will not get it because this is about fact. It is not about fiction; it is about fact. If you go to the point quoted on page 66 today by the Prime Minister—who again was shouting in the House—point 222 this is what this investigator of this matter said: “Had it been necessary I should also have sought the Prime Minister’s appearance before the inquiry. However I have found that the Prime Minister’s involvement in these particular events was limited to a briefing given by the Director to the Prime Minister” etc. etc. Let me ask this question: how on earth could she have come to that finding without asking the principal alleger or the recipient of it—namely the Prime Minister—whether he was briefed or not? Surely if this was a thorough investigation even a constable or a first-line police person on the street would ask the question of all parties involved. As a former policeman Mr Deputy Speaker you know full well that this—I apologise for that.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! You are not bringing me into this debate.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I know but you know you cannot argue with experience. The reality is that any police person or investigator would have asked the Prime Minister this one question: “Were you advised or not?” and the inquirer Ms Gwyn never did.Ron Mark: Why not?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Why not? That is a very good question and it underscores the inference that the security services of this country and certain law enforcers of this country are politically biased yet they are sworn to neutrality on these matters. But the most fundamental thing about this is if I was responding to this inquiry I would say: “Because the Prime Minister at all points in time was the political head of the SIS.” That is why you would ask him. Are there allegations that infer that he knew? Yes there have been countless allegations. So why would you not do the most rudimentary thing? I cannot recall in all my years in Parliament a Prime Minister who has been wilfully indifferent to events happening in his own office and the ministries like the GCSB and the SIS that he is responsible for.Or is he just bone idle and does not care? Or worse still does he resort to not stating the facts when they are screaming out there for an answer? I do not know.What I do know is that the Prime Minister is pushing the bounds of total credibility to claim he did not know. Why was he not interviewed and asked at least one question: did he receive information or not yes or no? Incredibly he was not even interviewed at all presumably because she said: “I have found from other evidence.” Well how would that be evidence? That is did she ask Mr de Joux? Did she ask Mr Ede? Did she ask Cameron Slater? Whomever she asked she did not ask them to name the main man the Prime Minister about whom all the allegations are made. So what I want in this urgent debate is answers to why that question was not put to the Prime Minister and who played what roles in effectively leaking intelligence to the attack blogger Cameron Slater.Forget all that—has this got a pattern about it? Remember when it was said that Peter Dunne a Minister for the Inland Revenue Department was a prime leak on an intelligence and security matter? What did the Prime Minister say? He said: “Look I want to believe him but I really just can’t.” And then there was a second investigation into Mr Banks and the police report. The Prime Minister’s response was: “I’m not even going to read it.” This was a police report that saw this man seriously before the court and he is still there now and yet the Prime Minister did not want to know. On the Oravida scandal again he said there was nothing wrong—all above board. But in the heat of the campaign down goes Judith. Apparently now she is exonerated—not on Oravida but on this other matter. But the Prime Minister still does not know.Then of course you have got the one that is paramount of all. Everybody was involved—the police the SIS the Government Communications Security Bureau the international agencies and America’s security agencies. The Prime Minister’s office knew about this raid coming up and so did the Attorney-General. He was a prime informant all the way along and far further back than anybody including him has ever been prepared to admit. It will get out. He can smile but we do now know of meetings that he had planes that were commissioned out of the United States particularly to see of all people him—him. When it gets out he will not look so flash then.My real point is that in all of these things what was the Prime Minister’s offence? [Interruption] I beg your pardon?Hon Christopher Finlayson: Been at the Green Parrot this morning have we? You’re more incoherent.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well how could you possibly go to the Green Parrot this morning when it is not open? You see that is the kind of information source that he has built his hitherto very strained political career on.