Friday document dump

63 comments on “Friday document dump ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Private baldric 1

   2 August 2013 at 5:46 pm

   This reminds me a bit of things under General Melchard.

   http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f05_1182492198
2. gobsmacked 2

   2 August 2013 at 5:51 pm

   I for one am losing track of the lies here

   Yes, that’s the tactic – tried and tested. Too much info to take in, people have lives, Friday afternoon is not a time for politics, and so (Key hopes) they will be bored by the story before they are informed by it.

   It’s not going away though. The privileges committee should be a TV soap, if the opposition and media do their job (two big “ifs”, admittedly). Time for a new distraction? (but not the Yemen thing, that didn’t work John …).
   • Tim 2.1

     2 August 2013 at 8:12 pm

     “I for one am losing track of the lies here”

     That’s the thing about pathological liars – especially those that display all the characteristics of the malignant narcissist.
     They tell so much kaka, it’s second nature. They forget one set of lies and in their bid to cover it up when sprung, another load of crap is offered.
     In ordinary times, the decent thing for this government to have done would have been to resign.
     These are indecent times.
     History is repeating, the natives are getting restless and the longer it goes on, the worse the outcome will be for the bullshitters and the self-serving.
     I need to opt out for a while because I’m developing this ‘like’ of watching the bullshitters fucking themselves up at every turn.
     Btw … I predict: the ‘leaker’ of the Kitteridge will survive.
     All I’ve seen so far in this whole frikken matter is JUST how frikken incompetent the players (the executive and its agencies’ management) is/has been.
     IF we had a decent sort of media, there are some real opportunities for a new television comedy.
     You could probably use some of those burnt political models resulting from the Backbenchers’ fire.

     ….more to come ;p
3. Veutoviper 3

   2 August 2013 at 6:28 pm

   The gift that keeps on giving.

   And kudos goes to this commentator on TS for the heads up earlier today. – but lets not shout it from the roof tops.

   http://thestandard.org.nz/key-throws-thorn-to-the-wolves-2/#comment-673341
   • Alanz 3.1

     4 August 2013 at 5:57 pm

     There are at least three, at the last count, key [pun haha] issues that were not in the document dump, according to those in the know.

     There are more related nationally grave [more puns haha] matters not yet being made public. So news stations and others should dig some more.
4. red blooded 4

   2 August 2013 at 6:29 pm

   Irritating (but predictable) to see Gower proclaiming that Key must have been mislead or lied to by Parliamentary Services. ‘Cos there’s no way the nation’s golden boy could have given an unethical instruction, eh?

   Plus, surprise surprise: another cup of tea on the way. Gotta love him!
5. yeshe 5

   2 August 2013 at 6:40 pm

   After Dunne’s specious schtick about when you have “a willing buyer and a willing seller” — which one was Dunne ? Maybe he can ask for his money back — caveat emptor and all that.

   I cannot understand how this man will support the GCSB bill. What does Key have on him ? And are these emails the source ?? ( Mrs Dunne ? Anything to say yet ?)

   Rogue government is right. It stinks a little worse every single day. And there was Key this morning at an ACT breakfast, and John Banks saying he is standing in Epsom at the next election.

   I couldn’t write this stuff as a TV or movie pilot and have it in any way be believable !
6. bad12 6

   2 August 2013 at 6:50 pm

   The real question isn’t what the Henry inquiry is supposed to have asked for and been given, the real question is what the Prime Ministers chief of staff, Wayne Eaggleson asked for and was given,

   i can find myself believing slightly the assertion that the Henry Inquiry sent the Dunne emails straight back,

   What needs answering is why Eaggleson demanded, and it seems those demands were repeated, that Parliamentary Service’s hand over the full emails and was this befor or after Dunne had lost His Ministerial position for essentially refusing the Henry inquiry access to them,

   Did Eaggleson also receive a copy of Dunne’s emails and from who, the Henry inquiry or Parliamentary Services,

   Slippery Duck, Dive, Dodge, the Prime Minister, spinning ever faster yesterday tried to dodge the bullet by dragging the terrorism red herring across the trail,

   That’s had the effect of simply smearing Him with His own excrement albeit a different shade of brown than the revelations emanating from the Henry inquiry and the Prime Ministers office’s involvement,

   Of course if the information in the emails between Vance and Dunne are detailed enough in the vein of ”regarding our phone conversation of (insert time date) blah blah blah” then this might be how Henry came to be questioning Dunne over specific mobile phone communications between the pair of them which would make the assertion that Henry received the Dunne emails and sent them back unopened and unread utter bulls**t,

   That too would to a certain extent explain why Andrea Vance believes that Her personal land-line phone was accessed,(by as yet someone unknown),

   The other question here is why has the Prime Minister decided to ‘dump’ so much information into the public arena, it certainly aint from the kindness of His heart, Russell Norman for one will connect enough of the dots within this information to flay the Prime Minister in the House,

   A gamble, that’s my conclusion, Slippery the Prime Minister has ‘dumped’ 100’s of pages of information into the public arena knowing that some of it will give the opposition some ammunition with which to question and attack Him in the House simply to cover up an even bigger pile of excrement,

   The bigger pile of excrement, the SIS, on the grounds of ‘national security’ has been regularly spying upon the Parliamentary Press Gallery???, (that’s a question not the assertion)…
   • pollywog 6.1

     2 August 2013 at 7:46 pm

     I loved playing connect the dots as a kid…

     Never knowing what the big picture was but always guessing before it became apparent 🙂
     • bad12 6.1.1

       2 August 2013 at 7:58 pm

       LOLZ to a large extent i have been playing exactly that with the limited information available, the big DOT that doesn’t fit is the Henry assertion that He never accessed the phone records sent from Parliamentary Service,( i will assume Henry hasn’t been entirely devious and he also includes the Dunne emails),

       Why that particular DOT does not fit is that Dunne is adament that Henry approached Him with questions about specific phone calls between Him and Andrea Vance…
       • pollywog 6.1.1.1

         2 August 2013 at 8:14 pm

         Henry may not have opened them, but if Eagleson was cc’d and did, then relayed the contents to Henry…

         It might explain why Eagleson suddenly phoned and needed Dunne’s written consent on the 23rd after already authorizing ministers email/phone releases to Thorn on the 8th.

         I’m guessing he assumed a signed ministerial code of conduct gave him the authority to tell Thorn to comply with all of Henry’s requests…but maybe it doesn’t and that’s what Dunne is seeking legal advice on.

         In which case…Eagleson’s arse is flapping in the wind?
   • Treetop 6.2

     2 August 2013 at 7:47 pm

     Dunne pissed on himself by not fully cooperating with the Henry inquiry. To a point Vance took a gamble with her correspondence with Dunne and being a mature woman she had to protect herself. (When I blog on the Standard it is at my own peril).

     When it comes to Parliamentary Services and the DPMC there needs to be an independent inquiry. What is Key thinking as he is creating a new mess when the last mess has not been cleaned up, 88 people spied on and Dotcom’s extradition.

     The third reading of the GCSB bill has to be delayed indefinitely as it is a multi headed monster and it is about to grow a new head. Key knows he will have to constanly defend himself over such an unpopular bill and that he will have to look over his shoulder to see if anyone will spill the beans.
   • yeshe 6.3

     2 August 2013 at 8:43 pm

     Bad 12 — I think Dunne said this afternoon that this new info with the date the emails were sent to Henry was THE DAY BEFORE Henry asked his permission to access them which Dunne denied and subsequently resigned … THE DAY BEFORE.

     slow fade to black, bring up theme music, have to wait for next episode
7. karol 7

   2 August 2013 at 7:07 pm

   Really?

   “The attachment was in a file format that could not be opened on DPMC’s system and I can confirm the attachment has been deleted from DPMC’s server,” Mr Kibblewhite says.

   What’s wrong with the DPMC’s systems?
8. Pascal's bookie 8

   2 August 2013 at 7:12 pm

   Lol remembering that tory hanging about here last night talking about how there’d be four count em resignations on the left soon about this.

   This Prime Minister is good at politics. But the actual job of doing the Prime Minister of NZ stuff? Jesus wept.

   How many fuckups have compounded through this bloody yarn?From the Dotcom raid, through the shoddy Fletcher appointment and the leak of the report into the fuckups? Now the inquiry into the leak of the report into the fuckups on John Key’s watch, turns out to be an absolute shambles from woah to go.
   • handle 8.1

     3 August 2013 at 11:29 pm

     Wouldn’t trust the guy to organise a pissup in a brewery.
9. Takere 9

   2 August 2013 at 7:19 pm

   Hopefully Dunne will change sides on the vote on Monday for the GCSB Bill?At a quick glance it looks like it started as a fishing expedition then found a purpose and the authorisation verbally then road blocked because Henry was blagging it …. all I can say, a f#@k’n expensive fishing trip??
   • Dv 9.1

     2 August 2013 at 7:34 pm

     If Dunne does change that will be 60 – 60
     Does that mean the speaker gets a casting vote?
     • bad12 9.1.1

       2 August 2013 at 7:50 pm

       That 60-60 i believe would include the vote of the Speaker, i until recently where i was corrected by another commenter here at the Standard was of a belief that the Speaker did not vote in the Parliament,

       That used to be the case, but, was changed at some time which at this time escapes me and now the Speakers vote is automatically recorded as siding with His/Her party of origin…
       • Dv 9.1.1.1

         2 August 2013 at 8:04 pm

         OK what would happen in a tied vote?
         • Veutoviper 9.1.1.1.1

           2 August 2013 at 8:53 pm

           In the case of a tied vote, the Bill cannot be passed.

           “If a party vote or a personal vote is tied, the question is lost. [129] There is no longer a casting vote vested in the Speaker.”

           Source: Chapter 17: Termination of Vote, Parliamentary Practice in NZ

           http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/about-parliament/how-parliament-works/ppnz/00HOOOCPPNZ_171/chapter-17-temination-of-debate#_Toc263861151

           However, other things can affect the number of Party votes (especially in the case of the smaller parties) – in particular the requirements in respect of the number of Party MPs present or deemed to be present within the Parliamentary Precinct at the time the vote is taken.

           See the Absence of Members section in this link.
           http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/about-parliament/how-parliament-works/ppnz/00HOOOCPPNZ_171/chapter-17-temination-of-debate#_Toc263861132

           An example of how this affects vote numbers was the Second Reading of the GCSB Bill yesterday where there were 61 votes for and 59 votes against – not 60 being the total number of MPs in the parties opposing the Bill. Labour (34), Greens(14), NZF (7), MP (3), Mana (1), Horan (1).

           I checked the video as to why it was 61/59 (no written record yet available) and this was because the Maori Party recorded only 2 votes (against) – not 3.

           Under the rules on absence of members, presumably only one Maori Party member was within the precincts at the time of the vote (Flavell?), with only one other proxy vote allowed for one of the two other absent members. This seems to happen from time to time with the Maori Party …
           • Dv 9.1.1.1.1.1

             3 August 2013 at 9:58 am

             Thx
             The maori party vote is interesting!!
             It seems beyond belief that a member would miss the vote on such and important issue.

             But then again the whole affair is beyond belief!!!
10. BLiP 10

    2 August 2013 at 7:38 pm

    I for one am losing track of the lies here.

    Yep, me too. There are other players in this who are spinning like tops but I’m keeping my focus on John Key. I would love to include the lie where he said emails were not handed over but I can’t find DOX to support it . . . was it Key that said it or was it someone else?

    Anyhow, just to keep you on track with our Prime Minister John Key’s list of lies as they relate to the GCSB affair . . .

    Iain Rennie came to me and recommended Fletcher for the GCSB job

    I told Cabinet that I knew Ian Fletcher

    I forgot that after I scrapped the shortlist for GCSB job I phoned a life-long friend to tell him to apply for the position

    I told Iain Rennie I would contact Fletcher

    for 30 years, or three decades, I didn’t have any dinners or lunches or breakfasts with Ian Fletcher

    I did not mislead the House (14)

    I have no reason to doubt at this stage that Peter Dunne did not leak the GCSB report

    I called directory service to get Ian Fletcher’s number

    the new legislation narrows the scope of the GCSB

    the GCSB has been prevented from carrying out its functions because of the law governing its functions

    because the opposition is opposed the GCSB law ammendments, parliamentary urgency is required

    the increasing number of cyber intrusions which I can’t detail or discuss prove that the GCSB laws need to be extended to protect prive enterprise

    it was always the intent of the GCSB Act to be able to spy on New Zealanders on behalf of the SIS and police

    National Ltd™ is not explanding the activities of the GCSB with this new law

    cyber terrorists have attempted to gain access to information about weapons of mass destruction held on New Zealand computers

    the law which says the GCSB cannot spy on New Zealanders is not clear

    the illegal spying on Kim Dotcom was an isolated incident

    first I heard I heard about Kim Dotcom was on 19 January 2012

    first I heard about the illegal spying on Kim Dotcom was in September

    I did not mislead the House (6)

    I won’t be discussing Kim Dotcom during my Hollywood visit.

    The Human Rights Commission couldn’t get its submission on the GCSB legislation in on time.

    it would cost too much to for the police and SIS to carry out the spying on New Zealanders that this new legislation will permit

    critics of the GCSB legislation, including the Law Society, the Human Rights Commission, and the Privacy Commission, are all uninformed

    no, I did not mislead the House (?)

    we do not spy on journalists

    I wasn’t aware that my own Chief of Staff was instructing Parliamentary Services to hand over information concerning journalist Andrea Vance

    National Ltd™ has never tried to impinge on the role of the media

    I had nothing to do with information on a journalist being handed over to the inquiry into the leaking of the GCSB report

    I was not opposed to the NZ Defence Force, Police and SIS making a presentation at the public submissions on the GCSB legislation

    the terms of the enquiry made it clear to everyone that it was only the phone records of parliamentary staff and ministers that were to be provided

    I have the utmost respect for the media and the role it plays in New Zealand’s democracy

    the Henry Enquiry did not access a journalist’s building-access records

    the Greens are opposed to the GCSB and the SIS even existing

    the GCSB needs to spy on New Zealanders because there are al-Qaeda trained operatives living here

    John Minto is in the Green Party

    the GCSB needs to spy on New Zealanders because of the terrorist threat, even though official reports released over my signature say there is no risk and the SIS has the matter in hand

    . . . Pinnokeyo in action.
    • karol 10.1

      2 August 2013 at 8:08 pm

      An impressive list. however, I think some of your points are ones where there’s a high suspicion Key was lying, but actual explicit proof is not in the public domain. TGake this one:

      for 30 years, or three decades, I didn’t have any dinners or lunches or breakfasts with Ian Fletcher

      The actual quote from Key is:

      “From the best of my memory, from the age of about 18 to the age of about 48, so for 30 years, or three decades, I didn’t have any dinners or lunches or breakfasts with Ian Fletcher, nor do I actually recall actually seeing him in that time. So, I’m not a great and close friend of him.”

      The meals mentioned in the link in the above comment refers to meetings after 2009.
      • BLiP 10.1.1

        3 August 2013 at 12:37 am

        ‘

        Good call, thanks. I’ll swap it for these two . . .

        I haven’t seen Ian Fletcher in a long time.

        The advice I have had in 4 years as a Minister is that in no way ever has there been an indication of unlawful spying

        . . . you mentioned “some”, any others you can pinpoint?
        • karol 10.1.1.1

          3 August 2013 at 7:02 am

          This is a suspicion at the moment. I know of no evidence that he did know:

          I had nothing to do with information on a journalist being handed over to the inquiry into the leaking of the GCSB report

          Key is still denying he knew, and the evidence only points as far as the PM’s office – hard to believe he didn’t know, but there’s no solid evidence.

          I don’t know how we could verify this:

          cyber terrorists have attempted to gain access to information about weapons of mass destruction held on New Zealand computers

          It sounds like spin…. but as for solid evidence, it’s hard to get it when the information is secret.
          • BLiP 10.1.1.1.1

            3 August 2013 at 5:52 pm

            ‘

            Thank you. I take your point on the WMD an will put it aside for now . . . I note that John Key hasn’t mentioned it again, hasn’t provided a shred of evidence, and has gone on to “terrorism” . . . does seem something of a pattern of scare mongering . . . hmmmm.

            As for:

            I had nothing to do with information on a journalist being handed over to the inquiry into the leaking of the GCSB report

            . . . Geoffrey Palmer made it clear that responsibility the inquiry into the leak belongs to John Key. For him to say “I had nothing to do with” something that his own staff did as part of his own inquiry is plainly a falsehood.
        • karol 10.1.1.2

          3 August 2013 at 7:14 am

          Yes that change is better. Part of the problem with Key is that he often obfuscates and misleads rather than telling outright lies: he misleads with a hint – in this case implying he hadn’t maintained his friendship with Fletcher overtime & downplaying the relationship – doesn’t actually tell a lie.

          People often remember the implied misleading point, rather than being a ware of the fuzziness of his original statement.
    • mickysavage 10.2

      2 August 2013 at 8:21 pm

      I am pretty well the same age as Key. When he said that he did not recall what his view of the Springbok tour was, even though he was in the country at the time, I knew he was a pathological fibster.
      • Murray Olsen 10.2.1

        2 August 2013 at 9:55 pm

        Yep. For people of our generation, the Vietnam war and the Springbok tour were defining moments. We don’t forget where we stood.
      • Puddleglum 10.2.2

        2 August 2013 at 10:31 pm

        From the Herald’s unauthorised biography:

        “It was in this environment that Key’s political instincts germinated. Ruth had a rule that they were to eat dinner together and that everyone was to bring a conversation topic to the table.

        …

        Sue also remembers fiery debates between her mother and brother. “Mum was fiercely Labour and John was fiercely for [National leader Sir Rob] Muldoon,” says Sue. “I used to take the middle ground, they’d be on either side of the dinner table just about with knives out on each other as to who was right.”

        …

        Key himself credits those early debates as sparking his interest in politics. He remembers being attracted by the fiery political arguments of the 1970s and 1980s. “They were quite intense debates – Kawerau and Kinleith and people striking over the Cook Strait ferries – all of those kind of things,” he says. “It was certainly a period of time where politics were prominent and I was fascinated by it.”

        This fascination with the political debate of the time does not square with answers Key gave in his early political career about his stand on one of the most divisive issues of the early-1980s – the Springbok Tour. During a television interview before his rise to the leadership of the party, Key was asked: “In 1981, were you for or against the Springbok Tour?” He answered: “Oh, I can’t even remember … 1981, I was 20 … ah … I don’t really know. I didn’t really have a strong feeling on it at the time. Look, it’s such a long time ago.” “
        • Mary 10.2.2.1

          2 August 2013 at 10:41 pm

          Not surprising. Key’s such a fraud. He needs to be dealt to properly. Russel’s got a big job on his hands but I think he can do it. Shearer might be best to go on holiday right about now…just to make sure he doesn’t fuck things up for everyone.
      • Tiger Mountain 10.2.3

        3 August 2013 at 11:01 am

        My political bullshit detector went off rapid fire when I first heard that statement from Key too. It was near impossible for any New Zealander to not have a position on the ’81 tour given it was so in your face from Prime Minister Muldoon on down to the local sports clubs, workplaces, families and especially universities where our PM happened to be at the time enjoying free or near enough, tertiary. Surely one of his contemporaries must have known the little tory turds view on the tour, but sociopaths are good at masking their real self so maybe not.

        Some people did not want to discuss the tour, but not many in my experience. Particularly when I had a HART badge on!
    • Jackal 10.3

      3 August 2013 at 8:32 pm

      Blip

      I would love to include the lie where he said emails were not handed over but I can’t find DOX to support it . . . was it Key that said it or was it someone else?

      Here is where the problem is:

      In this video, John Key claims that he wasn’t aware that his chief of staff had requested Parliamentary Service to release communications between Andrea Vance and Peter Dunne. He then says that it was solely a decision by Parliamentary Service to release the emails to the David Henry inquiry.

      On 1 August, Steven Joyce being questioned by Grant Robertson is recorded in the Hansard as saying:

      Grant Robertson : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry; that still does not answer the second leg of the question. The second leg of the question asked whether that took place after the Henry inquiry was told that Parliamentary Service would not release the information. All that Mr Joyce did then in his further answer was tell us something we already knew about an email from 9 May.

      Mr SPEAKER : It would be helpful if the Minister on behalf of the Prime Minister could address that particular fact. It is a primary question that was on notice.

      Hon STEVEN JOYCE : I understand, Mr Speaker. My understanding is that this email occurred at the point where it was felt that Mr Eagleson would need to clarify that the Prime Minister and Mr Eagleson, as his chief of staff, had given permission for Ministers to be accessed, and that was first. So I think we can assume that might have occurred after originally being told that they needed that clarification so it would be available.

      More obfuscation in other words.

      Grant Robertson : So, to completely clarify, the Henry inquiry was told by Parliamentary Service that it would not release the electronic information and it did release that information only after Wayne Eagleson sent an email on behalf of the Prime Minister?

      Hon STEVEN JOYCE : I am not sure I can be as emphatic as the member would like me to be. [Interruption ]

      Mr SPEAKER : Order!

      Hon STEVEN JOYCE : But I think that certainly we can take from the email that the chief of staff felt that he needed to clarify for Parliamentary Service that there was indeed a request to make available on behalf of Ministers.

      Grant Robertson : Did the Henry inquiry request and receive swipe card data for Andrea Vance on her movements in and out of this building after Wayne Eagleson’s email on the Prime Minister’s behalf requesting any other material be provided by Parliamentary Service to the Henry inquiry?

      Hon STEVEN JOYCE : I do not have that chronology to hand, but what is clear—

      Grant Robertson : Oh yes, very convenient.

      Hon STEVEN JOYCE : No, what is very convenient is your question, Mr Robertson. What is clear is that Mr Eagleson in no way asked for that information, so whether it was supplied before or after is entirely incidental to Mr Eagleson’s email.

      However we already knew the DPMC did in fact ask for that information. The previous day, 31 August, the Hansard records:

      David Shearer : Did his chief of staff ask Parliamentary Service for information on, or records of, phone calls from the parliamentary precinct, as part of the Henry review?

      Rt Hon JOHN KEY : I think it is important, for the record, just to relay what my chief of staff did. So effectively there are two things. Mr Eagleson emailed the offices of the Ministers who had received the report to inform them that on my wishes they should comply with the inquiry, and, secondly, on 9 May he emailed Geoff Thorn at Parliamentary Service to confirm that I wished him to make available the inquiry records in relation to Ministers and their staff. At no point did he ask for information about journalists. That would not have been appropriate or right. He did not do so, and nor did the inquiry want that information.

      Interestingly there is no record of an email from Eagleson to Geoff Thorn on the timeline released by DPMC on 9 May. They are clearly still trying to hide certain information. Here is the hansard from 31 July:

      David Shearer : Under what authority was Wayne Eagleson operating when he contacted Parliamentary Service asking for phone and email records to be released?

      Rt Hon JOHN KEY : In two areas. The first was that I had issued terms of reference for the inquiry, which were put into the public domain, and, secondly, on the basis that he had written to those individual Ministers requiring and telling them and their staff to comply with my wishes. He was making sure that Parliamentary Service understood that.

      There is clearly a huge distinction here between what the Prime Minister wishes for and what he orders.

      Steven Joyce was babbling on The Nation this morning. That’s because he mislead the House of Representatives in a most disrespectful and stupid way. He was speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister at the time of his lie.

      John Key has simply forgotten his lie from one day to the next. Clearly he is not Prime Minister material.
      • BLiP 10.3.1

        4 August 2013 at 3:05 am

        ‘

        Nice work. Thanks very much. Collecting the lies of each National Ltd™ cabinet member would be a full time job. I agree that there is key information missing from this lastest DOX dump as National Ltd™ continues its obfuscation tactics. What I want to see are John Key’s emails, phone meta data, and record of movement within the Beehive. I wonder who in Aotearoa has the power to order that information be released?
      • karol 10.3.2

        4 August 2013 at 7:47 am

        Useful information, Jackal.

        I wasn’t clear here if you are confusing the DPMC with the (Chief of Staff for) the Prime Ministrr’s Office:

        However we already knew the DPMC did in fact ask for that information.
11. bad12 11

    2 August 2013 at 7:46 pm

    The Scoop press release is of interest as much for what it doesn’t say as what it does, what needs connecting dot dot dot is Eaggleson’s contribution within this particular timeline,

    This also becomes ‘interesting’ from the Scoop timeline, 30th May 5.27 pm,

    ”Parliamentary Services ”contractor” sends Henry Inquiry Administrator email titled ”phone call information”,

    ”It says Parliamentary service confirms happy for me to provide you with information, could you forward request to me via email” unquote,

    Presumably ”the contractor” received such happy news from Parliamentary Service after the Eaggleson email on behalf of the Prime Minister told Parliamentary Service to make available ”all relevant information” to the Henry Inquiry,

    What of ”the contractor” seconded from the SIS/GCSB perhaps it’s the done thing in overseas intelligence agencies to ”contract out” certain functions that it would be found unsavory for the State to be involving itself in…
    • bad12 11.1

      2 August 2013 at 8:14 pm

      The way this works is that Governments cannot be seen to for instance to be monitoring the communications into and out of branches of that Government,

      The function of supplying all areas of these communications and maintainence of this network is then ‘hived’ of from the Government’s own provider of services and contracted out to the private sector,

      Meanwhile in the murky world of the States spy agency, in this case the SIS, there will be registered with the company’s office dummy company’s of any number and one of these will be used by the SIS to contest and win the government communications contract on offer…
12. karol 12

    2 August 2013 at 8:34 pm

    One of the interesting things I learned from the document dump, pdf (as linked in the post), is to do with the issue of “personal landlines”.

    Details from emails of 4 & 5 June, from contractor to Parliamentary Services, says Ministers “private lines” are not logged, and there are a limited amount of people they can call with them eg other ministers, no outside lines, etc.

    Mobile phone records: some ministers have their accounts with Vodafone or Telecom. Parliamentary services had a record of these accounts from March 25 to April 25. Ministerial services/Henry Inquiry particularly wanted records from 22 to 24 March. They would need to access each individual’s account separately. They said they can “drill down the record of the staff member you would like to see.”

    The Inquiry administrator asked for Dunne’s phone log from 27 March to 9 April 2013.

    But, really, there seems to be a lot of emails there, but little useful info.
    • TruthSeeker 12.1

      2 August 2013 at 10:28 pm

      What I’ve noticed about the timeline of emails…

      1) The Henry inquiry told PS on 14 May that it had the written permission of all Ministers to access their cellphone records. Three days later the records were provided to him

      But according to Peter Dunne, permission was never sought to access his cellphone records. So who is telling the truth?

      2) The Henry inquiry first requested the phone records for land-lines and extensions in writing on 20 May. But for 10 days nothing happened until a PS contractor emailed Henry on 30 May to say that PS was “happy” to provide the records. Henry’s administrator then sent an email to the contractor containing instructions and a list of Ministers – this is the email that Key tabled in the House on Wednesday.

      The big question now is what happened in the intervening week between Henry’s original request for landline/extension records and PS consenting to the release of the information.

      Why did PS consent to their release anyway? Who did they consult? What was the advice?

      If Eagleson’s statement and timeline are to believed, then he and PS never discussed the matter. They only talked about the emails. We don’t have any reason to doubt that. Eagelson is too smart to be caught out so easily.

      What hasn’t been disclosed, however, are the communications between the DPMC and PS.

      Let’s recall that Henry was reporting directly to Andrew Kibblewhite. Further, Henry’s administrator was seconded from the DPMC (the National Assessments Bureau to be precise). It is highly likely that PS did consult the DPMC regarding aspects of the inquiry.

      Is it possible that the PM’s Office used the DPMC to put pressure on Thorn? Just a thought…
      • Colonial Viper 12.1.1

        2 August 2013 at 10:44 pm

        Is it possible that the PM’s Office used the DPMC to put pressure on Thorn? Just a thought…

        Here’s the thing…in theory the DPMC should have no leverage whatsoever on the head of PS. What Thorn says on a PS decision, goes.

        Unless other, ‘additional’ leverage was brought to bear on Thorn.
        • Jackal 12.1.1.1

          3 August 2013 at 8:49 pm

          That other, ‘additional’ leverage Thorn caved for you mean, for which he has rightfully resigned.
13. Adrian 13

    2 August 2013 at 8:35 pm

    On Natrad tonight, sorry can’t recall the name of the very good reporter, he said Thorne had instigated the rule that no MP could have his or her communications accessed without the MPs consent and that Thorne had refused EaglesonTWICE before being pressured so much that he relented.
    Wayne Eagleson does not or should not have that much power, I bet that sort of shit can only come from the slippery little lying shit.
    • Colonial Viper 13.1

      2 August 2013 at 8:41 pm

      And Thorn was with the special investigations branch of the Royal NZ Military Police for many years.
    • pollywog 13.2

      2 August 2013 at 8:42 pm

      Key to Eagleson…

      ‘There’s a bus coming along soon, you’re going to be under it!”
    • RedLogix 13.3

      2 August 2013 at 8:55 pm

      No no this does not make any sense whatsoever.

      Why the hell does Eagleson pressure Thorne twice in order to do something that he must have known had trouble written all over it? Especially over a matter that should have been a relatively low-level affair. After all this wasn’t a major inquiry or significantly damaging leak, it never justified this level of political risk. It was merely the leak of a report that was going to be released a week later.

      So why this stupidity? Only two explanations come to mind; either there is something else Key was worried had been leaked and he desperately needed to plug it … or perhaps more disturbing still … this kind of behaviour had pretty much become business as usual in Key’s office and Eagleson got careless.
    • yeshe 13.4

      2 August 2013 at 8:58 pm

      and Geofftey Palmer is crystally clear that said ‘slippery lying little shit’ even as PM does not have the legal power to do it either … power yes, legal ? Definitely not.

      Methinks it will evolve to be a curse that our current GG is recent ex head of GCSB. As the last constitutional refuge for us all, he may be completely comromised already.
    • yeshe 13.5

      2 August 2013 at 9:10 pm

      and Geofftey Palmer is crystally clear that said ‘slippery lying little shit’ even as PM does not have the legal power to do it either … power yes, legal ? Definitely not.

      Methinks it will evolve to be a curse that our current GG is recent ex head of GCSB. As the last constitutional refuge for us all, he may be completely compromised already.
14. red blooded 14

    2 August 2013 at 8:41 pm

    Meanwhile, getting back to the issue of why so many of these toxic revelations are coming out now, & especially why this latest news has been sprung on us late on a Friday afternoon; Key is a skilled politician (no matter how awful he is as our PM). He knows that if this stuff was found and revealed next year it would be far more damaging. He’d rather maintain some control over the information flow, spike the guns of anyone canny enough to track this stuff down and get any fuss over this year so that he can go back to being Mr Smarmy-Charmy next year.
    • Colonial Viper 14.1

      2 August 2013 at 8:46 pm

      no question that the NATs are capable political and information managers.
      • Tim 14.1.1

        2 August 2013 at 10:48 pm

        Are you being serious there CV?
        I’d have thought it was more a case of bullshit, luck, a lazy and unquestioning MSM and others (who generally rely on being spoon-fed), right up until some inconvenient little ‘smart-ass’ sees the bleeding obvious, or someone becomes personally affected – then it all unravels.
        It’s unravelling now – its just that all that laziness and spoon feeding has given the liars and manipulators time to try and cover their tracks and make up even more bullshit.
    • BLiP 14.2

      3 August 2013 at 1:00 am

      ‘

      Late Friday afternoon government DOX dumps are pretty much SOP when it concerns bad news. I’m not convinced the material would be more damaging to John Key in a year from now, but agree that he is seeking to control the flow of information with a view to mitigating fall out. What concerns me about this DOX dump is that it may be incomplete. Very easy to hide a few key emails by deleting them from a large DOX dump.

      To reiterate my earlier point, given who and what is involved in the wider context of this situation, any and all emails released by National Ltd™ in this affair must be subject to independent, forensic, keystroke-by-keystroke analysis for parity with the originals. To date, John Key has presented exactly zero evidence of his integrity and commitment to veracity.
15. Penny Bright 15

    2 August 2013 at 8:52 pm

    Biography of Prime Minister John Key’s Chief of Staff, Wayne Eagleson.

    http://www.anzsog.edu.au/magma/media/upload/ckeditor/files/Alumni%20Events/Wayne_Eagleson_Bio.pdf

    ” Wayne Eagleson is Chief of Staff to Prime Minister John Key.

    Wayne was Chief of Staff to Mr Key as Leader of the opposition from November 2006 to the last election in November 2008.

    Prior to that Wayne was Chief of Staff to Mr Key’s predecessor Dr Don Brash from November 2005.

    In his role as Chief of Staff, Wayne is responsible for the management of the Prime Minister’s office and leads the political staff throughout the government.

    He is also actively involved in the management of the relationships with support parties represented in parliament.

    This is Wayne’s second stint as a political advisor.

    Between 1986 and 1993 he worked for National as a researcher, Private Secretary to then Leader Jim Bolger, Director of the party’s research Unit and as the Campaign Director for the 1993 General Election.

    During his twelve year period out of politics, Wayne held a number of senior public affairs roles, including general Manager Corporate affairs at DB Breweries, head of Media relations at Westpac Banking Corporation, and general Manager public affairs at Transpower New Zealand Limited. …”
    ______________________________________________________________________________

    So – where did Prime Minister John Key’s Chief of Staff, Wayne Eagleson, get his his training to give ‘impartial, high quality advice’?

    Oh – that’s right.

    Not his job, as the Chief of Staff for the Office of the Prime Minister – that’s the job of the DEPARTMENT OF THE PRIME MINISTER AND CABINET?

    http://www.dpmc.govt.nz/dpmc

    “Administrative support to the Prime Minister

    This includes preparation of replies to Parliamentary questions, and dealing with Official Information Act requests and other correspondence. A totally separate body, the Office of the Prime Minister, also advises the Prime Minister: it is the primary point of responsibility for managing political issues and relationships with other political parties and for providing administrative and media support.”

    “STRUCTURE

    DPMC formally came into existence on 1 January 1990, as a result of a report which recommended establishing structures to provide two separate streams of advice to the Prime Minister; one, a new government department to supply impartial, high quality advice and support to the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC), and another, a Prime Minister’s Private Office (which is not part of DPMC), to provide personal support and media services, and advice of a party political nature.”

    How long before the Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff, Wayne Eagleson, ‘jumps’ or is ‘pushed’?

    Penny Bright
    ‘Anti-corruption /anti-privatisation’ campaigner
    2013 Auckland Mayoral candidate
16. Mary 16

    2 August 2013 at 10:59 pm

    Emails given to Henry by mistake, then within an hour they were recalled and deleted.

    Kibblewhite says they weren’t opened or read, but only because their computer wouldn’t let them.

    Kibblewhite says he went through the emails to fix some error, and that he talked to Henry and then to Eagleson about whether the emails could be released.

    Spot the inconsistencies.
    • Colonial Viper 16.1

      2 August 2013 at 11:06 pm

      but only because their computer wouldn’t let them.

      This is beyond believable.
      • Mary 16.1.1

        2 August 2013 at 11:41 pm

        There are quite a few players in all of this, many with different interests, some with a lot to lose and others with less to lose. The inconsistencies that are slowly but steadily emerging reflect this, but it also says something’s seriously not right. Dunne now threatening legal action adds to the weirdness. Peters is now saying it all leads to the top. Exciting times.

        (Key’s face looked extra guilty on the TV3 news tonight, too, but that’s probably just me.)
        • Mary 16.1.1.1

          3 August 2013 at 2:23 pm

          Liars, all trying to protect Key. Incredible.
      • yeshe 16.1.2

        3 August 2013 at 10:31 am

        it means they tried to open them, doesn’t it … grubby bunch they are ..
17. bad12 17

    3 August 2013 at 9:38 am

    From the Trevett piece in today’s Herald, a spokeswoman for Prime Minister John Key said He learned of the email release yesterday morning and was ”deeply disturbed”, but noted that Mr Henry’s report said He had been unable to get the emails,

    Is that on any level, from the Prime Minister believable, well NO, unless of course you can believe that in the middle of what is possibly the worst scandal His administration has been included in in four and a half years of Government that every aspect of His offices actions have not been dissected by Him and His staff attempting to snuff out the fire,

    The Prime Minister only learned in other words that His Chief of Staff had told Parliamentary Services to hand over the Dunne email file to the Henry Inquiry yesterday, to believe that we would all have to believe that they all, Slippery the Prime Minister, Eaggleson his Chief of Staff, and, Henry who conducted the Inquiry all live under separate rocks miles apart in some desert without the luxury of modern communications,

    The second line of the quote in the Trevett article in today’s Herald simply proves the LIE of the first, unless of course the Prime Minister would have us all believe that He didn’t bother to read Henry’s report,

    Of course He read the report, He, the Prime Minister is quoted as saying that the Henry report said that He, Henry, had been unable to get the emails,

    Beyond belief???, too right it is, this is simply a piece of Jonolism from the Heralds Trevett which attempts to hide the ‘truth in plain sight’ and the only thing it proves is that Trevett a member for life of the Fifth Column of journalism has in no way wavered from Her support of National,

    It beggar’s belief for the Prime Minister to claim that He had only heard of the release of Dunne’s emails yesterday while claiming Henry has said that He , Henry, had been unable to get the emails,

    Both claims are simply untrue…
18. bad12 18

    3 August 2013 at 10:16 am

    LOLZ, perhaps what the Prime Minister really ”meant” when His spokeswoman quoted by the Herald’s Clair Trevett said ”He learned of the email release yesterday morning” is the fact that it was becoming ‘breaking news’ that Dunne’s emails and possibly Andrea Vance’s emails had been got to by Wayne Eaggleson in His zealous efforts to provide aid to the Henry Inquiry,

    Not wanting to pump up my or the Standards ego here but on the Thursday night befor yesterdays document dump there was a discussion between us on 1 post where i used the words ‘sneaking suspicion’ and ‘needing a few days to develop that sneaking suspicion’ with regards to the 9th floor of the Beehive having obtained the full texts of at least Dunne’s emails,

    Lolz, are we keeping the Slippery little Shyster awake at night trawling the pages of the Standard looking for hints of just how far the rot has set in to His administration perhaps provoking Him to release far more details than He would like to see the light of day…

Links to post

1. The Daily Blog Watch Friday 2 August « The Daily Blog: posted on 3 August 2013 at 7:12 am
2. Andrea Vance's privacy breach is going to the Privacy Commissioner - The Standard: posted on 3 August 2013 at 8:12 am
3. Spying scandal forensics - The Standard: posted on 4 August 2013 at 10:46 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS