Timeline: Key responsible for SIS release

73 comments on “Timeline: Key responsible for SIS release ”

• Comments are now closed

1. AmaKiwi 1

   23 August 2014 at 10:21 am

   100% correct
   • Red Rosa 1.1

     23 August 2014 at 10:38 am

     +1
2. kenny 2

   23 August 2014 at 10:36 am

   So who gives permission for the speedy release of the information requested by Slater?

   If not John Key, who?

   Surely not some non-elected clerk or aide? This is a highly sensitive political matter.

   Maybe the cleaner?

   Unbelievable!
   • AmaKiwi 2.1

     23 August 2014 at 11:28 am

     A script for methadone can NOT be signed by a practice nurse. It MUST be signed by a licensed doctor.

     An SIS classified document can NOT be declassified by “the office of the PM.” It can ONLY be declassified by one human being, the Prime Minister.

     The power to declassify can NOT be delegated.

     Smoking gun!
     • Pasupial 2.1.1

       23 August 2014 at 11:51 am

       Would this have been one of the times when Bill English was acting PM while Key was back home in the USA? Tucker says; “I notified the Prime Minister”, who would have arguably been English rather than Key at the time of declassification. Has anyone asked English if he authorised the release in this capacity? He was certainly aware of the issue (from TVNZ 4/8/2011):

       A handwritten note on the documents states Goff has read the papers. It is not clear who wrote the note. In Tucker’s response, he said the SIS does not have any acknowledgement by Goff of having read or received the documents…

       Deputy Prime Minister Bill English said he is taking Tucker’s word over Goff’s.

       “I think a senior civil servant who advised the previous Prime Minister and the current Prime Minister on issues of national security – a man of integrity – I’d believe him.”

       English said Goff “is going too far” in questioning Tucker’s integrity.

       http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/goff-attacks-sis-head-over-spy-probe-4339542

       Note the slippery use of language; “I think… I’d believe him.”, rather than; “I do believe him”.
   • Delia 2.2

     23 August 2014 at 1:55 pm

     Do not be surprised if we do hear the cleaner did it next.
3. dv 3

   23 August 2014 at 10:40 am

   Perhaps his office also runs his blind trust???
4. Weepus beard 4

   23 August 2014 at 10:43 am

   John Key: Confusing National’s security with national security since 2008.
5. Ant 5

   23 August 2014 at 10:48 am

   Tucker and Key are both lying. Some regular public service arse-covering, in the context of a closely fought election, became an expedient and convenient political hit.

   It seems fairly obvious that Tucker didn’t discuss shit with Goff, probably just ticked it off his list of things to discuss after the fact, what we’re seeing is a lie that has grown legs of its own.
6. ianmac 6

   23 August 2014 at 10:51 am

   Excellent outline Rob.
   The Master of a ship is held responsible for all actions of his ship. If he is asleep and the ship hits something he is still held responsible.
   In Key’s ship he denies responsibility but leaves open to speculation just who might be responsible. He, the captain, knows but he is not saying who was the commanding officer at the time in question.
   So Key is still responsible for the actions of the SIS shipwreck and the staff in his office.
   • Pasupial 6.1

     23 August 2014 at 11:55 am

     +1 ianmac
   • UglyTruth 6.2

     23 August 2014 at 12:08 pm

     The Master of a ship is held responsible for all actions of his ship.

     Who is the master when it is a matter of espionage/defence, involving a group with known links to state-sponsored terrorism? The commander in chief of the state is not a New Zealander, and has traditional links to those involved in the establishment of the Zionist state favoured by Slater.
     • tricledrown 6.2.1

       23 August 2014 at 7:43 pm

       Simon go fishing with jordan you can’t muck that up surely
   • Man in a Barrel 6.3

     23 August 2014 at 2:47 pm

     “So Key is still responsible for the actions of the SIS shipwreck and the staff in his office.”

     By constitutional convention, yes. See a very useful and succinct (not by me) summary of this in my post:

     http://thestandard.org.nz/we-are-asking-the-wrong-question/#comment-872033
     • Man in a Barrel 6.3.1

       23 August 2014 at 3:14 pm

       Of course respecting constitutional conventions, and resigning on breaking them, is purely down to a matter of personal self-respect and integrity, perhaps with some help from peer pressure. Key’s blustering refusal and the apparent lack of pressure ‘to do the right thing’ from his peers shouts to me of a complete lack of integrity in both him and them. Ditto Collins who’s disregard of constitutional convention is even more blatant.

       I have in the past 25 years voted variously for National, Labour, New Zealand First, the Alliance and the Greens and often don’t make up my mind finally until in the polling booth. There are National policies I support and Labour policies I don’t, and as someone choosing to live my own life frugally on the income from limited investment portfolio as opposed to selling my labour and my time to another, – no doubt qualifying me to the title of ‘renter’, ‘financial parasite’ or ‘rich foreign prick’ in the minds of some of you – National might even have picked up my vote this time around. I’ve always thought of Key as shallow and insincere but until his recent performance over this matter would have have credited him with at least a basic human grasp of integrity and ethics. FWIW he’s blown it with me, and National have ruled themselves out for my vote this time around at least.
       • Colonial Viper 6.3.1.1

         14 September 2014 at 11:39 pm

         If you can get by day to day without having to enrich other people through your own hard labour, and you are not imposing onerous usurious requirements on others or on the environment, then all the power to you mate.
7. Tigger 7

   23 August 2014 at 10:55 am

   Thanks AR, that provides some clarity on the timeline. Really appreciate you taking time to step this out.

   MSM – why haven’t you done this? This is your damn job!

   This issue isn’t going away.
   • Chooky 7.1

     23 August 2014 at 3:57 pm

     +100…where is the MSM? !
8. UglyTruth 8

   23 August 2014 at 10:57 am

   This belongs in your timeline regarding the reason why Slater made the OIA request.

   Goff complains to SIS about PM’s briefing claim
   Published: 6:42AM Monday July 25, 2011 Source: Newstalk ZB/ONE News
   http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/goff-complains-sis-pm-s-briefing-claim-4321799
   • Pasupial 8.1

     23 August 2014 at 12:04 pm

     Ugly

     I believe that very point was included in the timeline:

     July 24
     “John Key says the SIS briefed Phil Goff about the behaviour of Israeli nationals in Christchurch. Mr Goff contacts SIS director Dr Warren Tucker to say he had not been briefed.”
     July 25
     “Mr Goff and Dr Tucker meet to discuss the matter.”

     However, your link does have some interesting lines:

     Key has admitted he didn’t handle initial questions on the scandal last week, very well.
     “Sometimes you don’t get it perfectly right in the first moment,” he told reporters in Washington, saying he later realised the impression he had first left “wasn’t sustainable”.

     Goff said the prime minister’s comment on the killings in Norway were also wrong… He said the prime minister has to understand the responsibilities of his office and cannot “mouth off” without checking his facts first.
     • UglyTruth 8.1.1

       23 August 2014 at 12:11 pm

       Thanks Parsupial, I was wondering if Slater’s claim that his motivation to file the OIA request arose from a news report stood up to scrutiny.
       • Brendon Harre 8.1.1.1

         23 August 2014 at 6:37 pm

         Hi guys. It would be helpful in telling the story to start at the beginning. A brief summary of how the original story of Israeli’s leaving Christchurch became newsworthy.

         The PM’s corrupt behaviour needs to be put into context. Your account is excellent in detailing the middle and end. I and other readers here need to be able to retell this story to our mates as a short story so the message spreads.

         Points I would like to tell my mates are. How long was it before the 2011 election? A brief summary of what the PM said in public about the original story? What and why Phil Goff criticised this? How did this morph into an attack on Phil Goffs creditability, including John Key, his PM office and his SIS Ministry being Donkey deep in feeding the political attack to Whaleoil? Did this have an effect on the election?

         It would be best if this was presented in story form. Simple and short as possible with links to more detailed information on each point.
         • UglyTruth 8.1.1.1.1

           24 August 2014 at 7:18 pm

           Brendon, some info about the original incident:

           Mizrahi, the driver, was killed instantly, and Jordan, in the front passenger seat, smashed a window and climbed through the hole to escape. The two women, Fraidman and Sade, who were sitting in the back seat, also managed to crawl out.

           They were unable to reach Mizrahi and, after taking photographs of the crushed van, made their way to Latimer Square, where Israeli officials had set up an emergency meeting point. Within 12 hours they had left New Zealand.

           Link

           Fred Tulett, editor of the Southland Times, said an “extraordinary” reaction by the Israeli government in the hours after the earthquake had heightened the suspicions of New Zealand’s Security Intelligence Service.

           Link
         • UglyTruth 8.1.1.1.2

           24 August 2014 at 7:32 pm

           In 2004 there was a major diplomatic incident when Israelis in New Zealand were found to be stealing identities and faking passports. The New Zealand Herald broke the story in April 2004, stating that two men, believed to be Israeli secret service agents, were arrested in Auckland while trying to obtain a false New Zealand passport. They had been nabbed as part of a police operation. The Israeli Government wanted the matter kept out of the courts, but the Labour Government, would not bow to pressure. The two Israelis caught were Urie Zoshe Kelman and Eli Cara. Zev Barkan fled the country.

           Link
     • MrSmith 8.1.2

       23 August 2014 at 6:03 pm

       http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/5333344/PM-regrets-comment-on-Israelis

       In his last interview before leaving the United States, Mr Key was asked about revelations Government agencies including police and the Security Intelligence Service had investigated the actions of a group of Israeli backpackers following February’s massive earthquake in Christchurch. He said Mr Goff had been briefed on the investigation.

       “I personally didn’t brief him, but my understanding from the director of SIS, Warren Tucker, is that he was briefed and he was shown the same note and report that I saw,” he told TVNZ’s Q+A programme.

       Mr Goff said Mr Key was wrong. “I have not received that report, I have not seen any report, I was not aware of the allegations.”

       The prime minister’s comment on the killings in Norway were also wrong, he said. “I’m sorry, the appalling murders in Norway have nothing to do with Afghanistan. They had a lot to do with a Right-wing, probably psychopathic, zealot who is anti-immigration.

       “The prime minister has to understand the responsibilities of his office. He cannot mouth off without checking his facts first, which he’s now done … on a number of occasions in the past few days.”

       Mr Key’s comments about Norway were “premature, unfortunate and didn’t stack up”, Mr Goff said. “Those were comments that were perhaps designed to impress the president.”

       The prime minister was wrong to initially refuse to comment on the Israeli backpackers, citing the national interest, Mr Goff said.

       However, Mr Key admitted the mistake himself, saying he later realised the impression he had first left “wasn’t sustainable”.

       “If I … did it all again, I’d probably start where I ended six hours later, but it comes with the territory,” Mr Key said.

       “Sometimes you don’t get it perfectly right in the first moment.”

       This is starting to smell like a Collins/Slater style attack on Goff after he embarrassed the PM after his idiotic comments.
9. Dont worry. Be happy 9

   23 August 2014 at 10:57 am

   “People go to jail for that sort of thing” John Key accidentally telling the Truth at a presser.
10. disturbed 10

    23 August 2014 at 11:03 am

    Timeline: Key responsible for SIS release
    Written
    By: Anthony R0bins –
    Date published:
    9:54 am,
    Thank you for making this so much clearer for us Rob. ++++++++100% we were getting confused and you have helped here.

    While my wife is reading the Micky Hager book Dirty Politics and me reading every blog on this subject between TDB & The Standard we sat for awhile after reading your good thorough “joining of the events to the time lines,”

    Afterward we sat and reflected on the whole thing, and clearly as the dots from the book and the article here match as a clear case of Ministerial interference in a Judicial process that was used as a tool by this Government to undermine the opposition Party during the last election.

    Litany of lies yes and another example of how dirty politics is the norm for this administration.

    Democracy has been given away for a cheap dirty means of holding on to government at any cost.
11. aerobubble 11

    23 August 2014 at 11:11 am

    Let’s just understand this. News media put in requests all the time for government information, and when they do, other media can request the same information. How would they know, well its would be obvious which requests were to be made, and what documents sort. Well not always. Sometimes very specialized documents are needed, and professional media has gone to some effort and cost to deliberate source said documents.

    Now here’s the problem. Once the government knows which documents are sort, often because they have nudge nudged the media onto them… …all good I suppose… …it is a democracy. They can also indicated to their favorable media outlets who don’t know about the issue and so balance the inevitable slagging match when the story breaks.

    But what happens when the internet appears. And a blogger with little in the way of costs, is handed over and over again inside gos. Preempting not only the slow media, but faster television, without any actual upfront costs. Immediate monetrization. Worse. Without the time for a balanced response the blogger now has a clear advantage to set the framing of the future story, its narrative path.

    Now, add the injury. An election is raging. A story that undermine the integrity of the opposition leader, which essentially boils down to his word against a public servants recollection of a secret briefing. Enough to lose maybe 10,000 votes. Now this story allowed for no balance, ignored the election limits on political advertizing, which giving its actual lack of substance and inability to be verified made it so. Provided to what amounts to a paid advertiser for the right, Slater.

    So my question is, why would government public services allow a OIA to be released why an election was taking place? Why nobody seems to be worried about the implications of the organized dissemination of information via Slater that undercuts any balance? Worse, why does the government get to tell just one blogger immediately about the OIA requests of big media, then hand them over immediately, during an election, about the opposition leader?

    I mean what could be worse for our democracy. That to short it so ruthlessly, with information that could not be verified, that was no better than heresay. i.e. the information may have been in the briefing and I can’t go into what was in the briefing because its all secret. So you had the perfect gooley buster from the invisible bowler, on a staged field without any catchers.

    We need to know that OIAs to non-media like Slater are immediately available to everyone. Big media can argue that to protect their effort and cost… …hey that’s up to them.

    Key is corrupt. He cannot seriously believe he can rush out of the Beehive and declare his shock at what has been going on in the Prime Ministers Office, though I expect it to happen very soon.
12. politikiwi 12

    23 August 2014 at 11:15 am

    Great post. Thanks for setting this all out.
13. Stunned mullet 13

    23 August 2014 at 11:57 am

    Do I have this right, this whole argument is over whether John Key knew in advance that material was being released under the OIA, ahead of it being released that showed that Phil Goff lied to the public. Surely the story should be about Phil Goff lying??
    • mickysavage 13.1

      23 August 2014 at 1:06 pm

      Why do you approve of the SIS being used for political attacks and for the PM’s office giving a Nat blogger inside information?
    • One Anonymous Bloke 13.2

      23 August 2014 at 2:11 pm

      Goff paid the price for his error in 2011, and the Prime Minister is telling the truth when he says that if he was been involved in the release (especially to Slater before the fact) he’s off to prison.

      You may think it’s no big deal, Stunned Mullet, and you’d be flat wrong. The political neutrality of the SIS is fundamental to our government.
      • dave 13.2.1

        23 August 2014 at 7:50 pm

        this government could use the internal security service against any citizen then that challenged then or got in there way its wrong it corrupt practice
        as for goff you we aware they are not aloud to tell anyone about an sis briefing mullet head you know that don’t you?
    • Rob Taylor 13.3

      23 August 2014 at 2:12 pm

      IMHO, the whole thing was a setup – Goff says he was not permitted to keep the agenda or take notes and was NOT briefed on the Israelis.

      Clearly, that item was added to the agenda later, in an act of pure political opportunism by John Key.
      • Anne 13.3.1

        23 August 2014 at 4:18 pm

        It was not necessarily added to the agenda later Rob Taylor. I suspect it was buried deep in the notes that Goff was not allowed to keep, and he didn’t get a chance to read them carefully and at the same time follow Tucker’s verbal briefing. And Goff was adamant at the time that Tucker did not mention it in his verbal briefing.

        I think it is normal procedure for SIS documents to be handed back at the end of a briefing.
14. Chrissy 14

    23 August 2014 at 11:59 am

    ‘This will be devastating for Goff’ hmmm. Yinno it’s the coverup, John, it’s always the coverup. And, in this case, it’s also the nasty nest of conspirators, and the corpses you seem to have to hug these days.
15. kiwigunner 15

    23 August 2014 at 12:00 pm

    I’m waiting for this to hit the main stream media next. It clearly will. Things that happened in education have clearly been ‘dirty politics’. It is referred to in the book and Duncan Garner being mentioned above is no real surprise to me.
16. Mike Smith 16

    23 August 2014 at 12:11 pm

    Re the delayed release to Selwyn Manning of Scoop, it was Alastair Thompson of Scoop who is heard telling Key at the press conference on 8 August 2011 that they had not received the response to their OIA request dated 29 July. That may also explain the reference in the SIS letter “of which you are no doubt aware.” It would be interesting to know exactly when Manning received the 8 August 2011 response – before or after the press conference.
17. Paul 17

    23 August 2014 at 1:04 pm

    Isn’t that called check in chess?
18. CM 18

    23 August 2014 at 1:30 pm

    There was scrambling response on RNZ from Key a few days ago in which he mentioned that part of the reason that Tucker released the OIA to Slater so quickly was because he may have been personally annoyed at Goff for disputing the top secret meeting. Is it possible that Tucker went rogue in this case and expedited the OIA to damage Goff as revenge/utu?

    It’s the SIS ffs. Would you trust them?
    • ianmac 18.1

      23 August 2014 at 2:28 pm

      So true CM. Can/would a man in such a position retaliate in such a damaging way? If so then we are in big trouble in the State Service.
    • One Anonymous Bloke 18.2

      23 August 2014 at 3:38 pm

      Read the act.

      12A Prohibition on unauthorised disclosure of information
      (1)An officer or employee of the Security Intelligence Service, or a former officer or employee of the Service, shall not disclose or use any information gained by or conveyed to him through his connection with the Service otherwise than in the strict course of his official duties or as authorised by the Minister.

      Does protecting the Director from an error by the leader of the opposition count as an official duty?
    • Ffloyd 18.3

      23 August 2014 at 5:17 pm

      Where is Tucker? Can he not clarify if everything is aboveboard. Also at what stage did he tell key he had got legal advice, or did he tell the cleaner that as well.
      • One Anonymous Bloke 18.3.1

        23 August 2014 at 5:21 pm

        Retired, and bound by the NZSIS Act not to discuss any matters learned as a result of having once held office.
19. Kiwiri 19

    23 August 2014 at 2:35 pm

    July 24 ….. Note that Key and Tucker have been in touch about this while Key is not in NZ – so they certainly communicate while Key is abroad.

    Question for clarification:

    Does John Key travel out of NZ and keep in touch while in Hawaii with Tucker, or does the “Prime Minister’s Office” travel out of NZ and keep in touch while in Hawaii with Tucker?

    Also, can both John Key AND the Prime Minister’s Office do that, or would neither ever be possible?

    Note to self: wasting time over a Liar.

    Gradually working through that impressive timeline which you put together, Anthony Robins. Thanks.
20. philj 20

    23 August 2014 at 3:04 pm

    xox
    Hey kiwis,
    Li’l ol noo zeeland. Who da thunk?
    We find ourselves in a detective spy novel! Israeli or kiwi? A classic who done it. We know it wasn’t Jason, that’s one off the suspects list. And it wasn’t the missus, at least there’s no evidence. Do we call 111?
21. Mike the Savage One 21

    23 August 2014 at 3:15 pm

    It gets better by the day, the evidence is constantly building up, leaving us without little doubt:

    “Collins grants blogger’s request in just 37 minutes”

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11313041

    “Whale Oil blogger Cameron Slater got a response to an Official Information Act request from Justice Minister Judith Collins in just 37 minutes.

    He received another OIA response with just a five-hour turnaround by Ms Collins’ office – including being given correspondence which had come in just that day.

    Documents released to the Herald through the act show Slater made three requests in relation to Canadian jurist Ian Binnie’s report, which recommended David Bain be paid compensation after being found not guilty of killing his family in Dunedin.”

    Read the whole article by David Fisher here:
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11313041

    The story was broken on The Nation this morning! It will be repeated at 10 am on TV3 tomorrow morning!

    Staff at Key’s Office, most likely with his full knowledge, and Judith Collins, possibly a fair few others, have closely worked with Whaleoil, Farrar and others, and most certainly Slater got preferential treatment when it came to OIA requests.
22. disturbed 22

    23 August 2014 at 3:37 pm

    Nixon started this way deny, deny, deny, and ended up still covering his arse by letting his closest aids Halderman & Erichman to attempt avoiding impeachment.

    These two advisors who had been with him since day one.

    So who has been with Key since day one?
23. Guesting 23

    23 August 2014 at 5:10 pm

    1) Key and the PM and the PM’s Office are the same;
    2) Key and the PM and the PM’s Office are not the same.

    Q: has anyone observed Key and the PM and the PM’s Office in the same room at the same time?
24. BLiP 24

    23 August 2014 at 5:55 pm

    ‘

    Hello Mr R0BINS – how nice to have back here posting for us.

    I agree entirely with your TLDR conclusion that “Key is responsible for the release”. The joining of the dots timeline you have produced must have taken some time to compile, thank you. How interesting that various bits and pieces are being excised from the intrawebz by the MSM. I too have found that to be the case, especially when tracking down details of John Key’s lies. I have also noticed that various blogs, keepingstock being one example, have recently started doing the same. Frustrating.

    I do wonder, though, if you’re timeline isn’t missing a couple of important things. First, one of the major messages to come from Nicky Hager’s Dirty Politics is the sheer sophistication of John Key’s Black Ops Department tactics and the concomitant efficiency of the vital “plausible deniability” aspect. In one of the videos, John Key talks about how he has “streamlined” the “no surprises” process and how he himself has been somewhat taken aback at some of what has been released into the public domain by his spies. This, of course, is a short-hand announcement that when an agency says it has spoken to the Prime Minister what that really means is that the agency as not spoken to the Prime Minister but has advised the Prime Minister’s Office. No need to say who in the Prime Minister’s Officer and/or whether or not that person passed the information along to someone else in the Prime Minister’s Office. Cut-outs left, right and centre. The glib manner in which this plausible deniability line is being delivered indicates a fair amount of rehearsal has gone into it. In fact, I expect that if Kim Dotcom’s 15 September reveal does confirm that the Prime Minister knew of Dotcom and his situation well in advance of when John Key says he did, we will see this same line being delivered with the same dimissive alacrity.

    Second, what seems to be missing from the timeline is what was going on for John Key at the time and the fact that the SIS “took legal advice” prior to the release of the briefing notes.

    What was going on for John Key is that he was facing a barrage of criticism for what should’ve been – in his mind – a spectacular display his overwhelming wonderfulness. There he was, on the international stage, standing side-by-side with POTUS speaking out on a dreadful situation before the mass media. ‘Cept, John Key fucked it up. Also worthy of mention is that John Key had been caught out lying about how many passports were found on the Israeli Mosad agent “tourist”. John Key went to obfuscate his way out of that one but repeatedly said that there had been no illegality surrounding the issuing of New Zealand passports at that time. The questions were being asked because of the 2004 incident when Mosad agents Uriel Kelman and Eli Cara were caught trying to fraudulently obtain New Zealand passports. Does New Zealand now allow spies to use New Zealand passports? Anyhow, the point is, John Key’s showboating on the international stage had turned to custard and inconvenient questions about New Zealand passports and Israeli spies were being asked. This provides both John Key and the spy agencies motivation to distract the media and the public.

    Now, when John Key says Warren Tucker spoke to the SIS lawyers, what he means is that Warren Tucker went off to Crown Law to cover his arse and make sure his release of the, albeit hugely redacted, Phil Goff briefing notes was legit. Questions I have about Tucker’s visit to Crown Law is whether or not Crown Law was being used as a cut-out and/or to reinforce actual instructions from the Prime Minister’s office to release the information. Remember, the sole reason given as to why the briefing notes were declassified is that the material was already in the public arena and the only reason the material was in the public arena was because John Key had put it there. That, my friend, is called a “set up”.

    Further complicating the matter is the fact that Warren Tucker is himself something of a dodgy bugger. There are various incidents involving the SIS and GCSB when Tucker was pulling the levers which cannot accurately be pinned directly on him. But, remember all the fuss and palava about why the GCSB had to be given the right to wholesale spy on New Zealanders was because “the law was not clear”? Well, back on 30 January 2006, Warren Tucker said . . .

    . . . The GCSB’s twin roles and functions are spelled out in the GCSB Act 2003. These are – first to collect and report secret foreign intelligence derived from the interception and analysis of foreign communications, on matters of importance to the New Zealand Government. Secondly, the GCSB provides the tools and advice necessary to ensure that the communications systems and computer networks used for official and governmental business and for critical infrastructure are properly protected from tampering and from unauthorised access. These twin roles are likened by some to that of “poacher” and “gamekeeper”, and it is no accident that they both reside within the one organisation. The GCSB Act – which enshrines in law the longstanding practices of the Bureau – makes it absolutely clear that the GCSB must not target the communications of New Zealanders . . .

    ^^^ emphasis in original

    . . . yet, Tucker didn’t issue a single peep during John Key’s ramming through of the new legislation.

    A big part of John Key’s justification for allowing the wholesale spying on New Zealanders was that the legislative changes also strengthened oversight. We now have Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security with a broadened mandate and greater authority. Trouble is, the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security is Cheryl Gwyn who, up until April 2014, was the Deputy Solicitor-General at Crown Law, the very same Government agency which cleared Warren Tucker’s release of Phil Goff’s briefing notes. What’s more, the Crown Law Counsel for constitutional, human rights and international law, Ben Keith, has only just recently been appointed as the Deputy Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. That is the same Ben Keith who, in his previous role as Crown Law Counsel for constitutional, human rights and international law, has assisted National Ltd™ through its Attorney-General Chris Finlayson in the systematic trashing of all sorts of human rights legislation. Among other things, he was the one from Crown Law who signed off on the GCSB legislation as being “consistent” with the Human Rights Act.

    In short, the only people investigating John Key’s involvement in the release of Phil Goff’s briefing notes the very people who gave the okay for the release of the notes. We’re fucked. Basically we will never find an actual smoking gun in John Key’s hand in releation to this matter because of the players involved and the sophistication of John Key’s malfeasance.
    • karol 24.1

      23 August 2014 at 6:27 pm

      Interesting BLiP, and worthy of a post on its own.
      • Anne 24.1.1

        23 August 2014 at 6:45 pm

        Agreed karol.

        My thanks and gratitude to Anthony Robins and BLiP.

        And don’t forget who appointed the current SIS director, former Cabinet Secretary, Rebecca Kitteridge. Yes, John Key. And true to form:

        She backs John Key.

        I doubt there is much chance of a genuine and transparent investigation either within or beyond the agency.

        Looks like New Zealand’s once proud egalitarian and democratic system of government is coming to a sad end.

        Perhaps our only chance of changing things lie with Whaledump – NZ’s equivalent to Deep Throat?
    • kenny 24.2

      23 August 2014 at 6:55 pm

      That’s bang on the money.

      Another white-wash on the way.

      The only way to stop this crap is to vote them out! I don’t care which party you vote for as long as it’s one that wants to change the government.

      New Zealand needs nothing less. Time to make a stand.

      ‘The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing’
    • Brendon Harre 24.3

      23 August 2014 at 7:08 pm

      Justice will only be found if the Court of Public Opinion can be sufficiently engaged to make this an election issue. Post election if National wins you can guarantee that Key will say the majority support what he has always said. Dirty Politics is all a left wing conspiracy…… Some trumped up investigation using handpicked players like the above will guarantee Key and National come out smelling like roses. Key and National will then use ‘conspiracy’ to purge all opposition in a NZ version of McCarthyism.

      What we need in NZ politics is an independent referee type institution, something like this.

      Parliament enacts a law that requires the Speaker of the House be appointed by unanimous vote (Like the Catholic Bishops voting for the Pope, MPs could be locked in Parliament without recess until they decide).

      Give the responsibility to appoint senior civil servants, judges, ombudsman, process OIA and recommendations for knighthood to the Speaker. Instantly this changes the culture of civil society.
    • yeshe 24.4

      24 August 2014 at 12:16 am

      Thx Blip … brilliant post, as always.

      So this:

      ‘Remember, the sole reason given as to why the briefing notes were declassified is that the material was already in the public arena and the only reason the material was in the public arena was because John Key had put it there. That, my friend, is called a “set up”.’

      Is this not Key breaking the law making public an SIS matter ?
      • BLiP 24.4.1

        24 August 2014 at 4:07 pm

        ‘

        Dunno, looks like it though. Its no secret that the Opposition receives SIS briefings but the content of those briefings is secret. By stating that Goff was briefed about the Israeli spies “tourists” John Key talked about specific content. John Key also dragged the SIS into what was a political spat.

        Mind you, Phil Goff did not help the situation by denying that he had been briefed, unless, although unlikely, he really wasn’t briefed and the SIS is lying. By making his denial, Phil Goff called into question the functioning of the SIS in its role of keeping the Opposition broadly up to date with what’s going on. It is that aspect which delivered Warren Tucker the additional justification of “public interest” because Tucker was very keen to maintain a positive image of the SIS as doing its job by the book. It may have been that Warren Tucker was feeling personally aggrieved by Goff’s suggestion that he did not do his job properly.

        Personally, I don’t believe Tucker did do his job or, at least, the “briefing” wasn’t really a briefing. Phil Goff says he was not allowed to have anyone with him during the briefing, he could not keep any documents, and nor could he take any notes. If mention about Mossad activities the Israel “tourists” was one of, say, thirty items and was skated over real quick, its hardly surprising he might have forgotten about it. The correct manner for Warren Tucker to behave in that situation, IMHO, is for him to quietly tap Phil Goff on the shoulder and remind him about the briefing and, thus, allowing Goff the opportunity to gracefully back down. Instead, Warren Tucker colluded with or was forced to go along with John Key’s Dirty Ops Department “hit”.
        • Anne 24.4.1.1

          24 August 2014 at 7:59 pm

          Up until this point, I gave Dr. Warren Tucker the benefit of the doubt. That is, there was a genuine ‘misunderstanding’ between himself and Phil Goff and that it unfortunately developed into a public spat between the two of them. However since Tucker came out and backed John Key the other day, I have concluded he probably colluded with Key – or his office 🙄 – because he was still smarting over Goff challenging him about the content of the briefing. Had he remained silent, then that would have been tantamount to an admission he was indeed “forced to go along with the Dirty Ops Department”.

          I should imagine Intelligence chiefs don’t like being called to account.
          • karol 24.4.1.1.1

            24 August 2014 at 8:57 pm

            And Winston Peters has something to add to this… sort of. Peters (step around all the homophobia, etc from NZ First as reported in this article) talked about his experiences with Tucker.

            Earlier, Mr Peters said his party wanted a full inquiry into the allegations contained in Nicky Hager’s book Dirty Politics.

            He repeated his earlier hint that former SIS Director Warren Tucker – who has backed Prime Minister John Key’s version of events on an OIA briefing – was unreliable.

            “As I said on [TVNZ show] Q+A this morning, ‘Mr Tucker, I know you, because we had a run-in ourselves when I was Deputy Prime Minister.

            “And you are not going to get away with that now’…if anybody understands how important words or language is, it’s someone in security.”

            Mr Peters would not elaborate when asked by the Herald for further details of the “run-in”.

            Of course, it could just be Peters’ being a bit attention-seeking.

            .
            • tricledrown 24.4.1.1.1.1

              24 August 2014 at 9:09 pm

              Karol its all about timing Winston will have a couple of juicy titbits’ the whiley old politicians politician!
              Whaleoil’s attempted blackmailing of Peters was a huge mistake cause if anyone knows the dirt its Winston!
              So watch this space when the :?#% hits the fan ?
              Their will be more than slippery Slaters hiding under rock’s
    • r0b 24.5

      24 August 2014 at 10:35 am

      Interesting. Great work BLiP as ever. I might do a re-release of this post on Monday, adding what you have written here.
      • BLiP 24.5.1

        24 August 2014 at 3:50 pm

        ‘

        @r0b

        I would be honoured to have some material I have written included in a post by you.

        I suggest that you temper my categorical statement that it was Crown Law the SIS went to for its legal advice. Since making my comment, its been pointed out to me that its entirely possible John Key was lying in order to explain the time frame or Warren Tucker could have gone to the SIS in-house legal team. My suspicion of Crown Law involvement comes from the idea that the SIS would want to be squeaky clean and the stated functions of Crown Law.
    • Kiwiri 24.6

      24 August 2014 at 11:38 am

      Worthy of a place in The Guardian.
    • Chrissy 24.7

      24 August 2014 at 11:50 am

      So, for simplicity’s sake, and because this story is so complex it’s gonna be hard to convey, if there’s an MO here, a pattern, that would include Goff and Cunliffe incidents, it would seen to have these elements.

      weeks out from an election, a staged slur attack on the opposition leader, in which his credibility is held up for question through him saying one thing where the evidence (was he briefed, did he help Liu) can be made to look otherwise.

      the attack comes via a blogger, somewhat arms’ length, who gets a very specific tip off and expedited OIA from the minister concerned; via the PM’s office

      the minister has privileged access to info / files; but to be seen to be using that access to attack the opposition leader directly would be to be accused of dirty politics. There’s the need, as above, for plausible deniability.

      it gets launched while the PM is out of the country: further distancing clean and robust Brand Key from the dirt being thrown. : I was on holiday, it wasnt me, it was my office, I dont remember, etc.

      what am I missing here? what are the core simple elements of this story the MSM etc might be able to grasp?
      • BLiP 24.7.1

        24 August 2014 at 4:18 pm

        . . . what are the core simple elements of this story the MSM etc might be able to grasp?

        Don’t for a minute think that the MSM does not grasp the situation. The problem is that too much sunlight will expose the MSM’s own direct involvement in the practise of dirty politics. There are too many media reputations and the illusion of Fourth Estate impartiality to protect for any real analysis of the situation to come from the MSM. Radio New Zealand’s Mediawatch takes a quick look at this in today’s show: http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player/20146877

        Long live the Fifth Estate.
25. Jessica Parsons 25

    23 August 2014 at 6:07 pm

    All true, but I have bad news for all of us.

    Key has been fully trained in facing situations like this. His experiences in the USA will leave him very prepared to have been responsible for just about anything, yet continue to deny it so long as nobody has the power to force him. And who does? Would someone take this to the Governor General?

    Bush got away with the devastation of the Iraq war. Reagan got away with the Contra arms deal. Key is probably going to get away with this, and based on the average voter’s interest, memory and understanding, we will be lucky if he doesn’t get reelected.
    • Peter 25.1

      24 August 2014 at 7:28 am

      Agreed, my money is on him getting away with it unless forced from Office.
26. disturbed 26

    23 August 2014 at 6:50 pm

    Jessica Parsons said,
    “We will be lucky if he doesn’t get re elected.”

    All because of the notion that “this goes on all the time nowday’s” and the lack of a free press.

    Looks a lot like 1933 Goebbels/Hitler again as I have said countless times, do we want to go there?

    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/goebbels.html

    Joseph Goebbels was rewarded on 13 March 1933 by Adolf Hitler with the position of Reich Minister for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda, which gave him total control of the communications media – i.e. radio, press, publishing, cinema and the other arts.
    • MrSmith 26.1

      23 August 2014 at 7:14 pm

      Go easy Disturbed.
27. Brendon Harre 27

    23 August 2014 at 7:18 pm

    Another thought on this issue is that the Goff, SIS, PM Office, Whaleoil political attack system was in its infancy. National hadn’t perfected the system. They left evidence, linking all pieces of the chain. How often since have they done the same but they were better at hiding their tracks?

    If National get back into power they will recreate the system -probably not with Whaleoil or even with bloggers. But you can guarantee now they have a taste for abusing the power of executive to achieve their political goals through fear and intimidation it will not stop.
28. MrSmith 28

    23 August 2014 at 7:38 pm

    I just read this on a Herald tread.

    “John Key the Lance armstrong of New Zealand politics”

    Oh shit the rugby bye.
    • Brendon Harre 28.1

      23 August 2014 at 10:06 pm

      I know what you mean I rushed my comments so I could watch the game. Now that we (ABs) won convincingly I can relax and read up on these issues……
29. BLiP 29

    24 August 2014 at 3:48 pm

    Ooops.

Links to post

1. Timeline: Key responsible for SIS release « The Standard The Standard: posted on 25 August 2014 at 8:25 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS