Liar

Phil Goff has continued to lie about the SIS briefing he said he didn’t have that documents prove that he did.

Mr Goff has said the release was politically motivated and it was strange that the blogger got the documents before media which had also asked for them.

“I think the last thing you do is politicise (information releases) as the Beehive did over the incident last week.”

He suggested Slater was directed on what to ask.

“I am sure that Warren Tucker didn’t brief Cameron Slater on what he might ask for under the Official Information Act.”

Quite right, Warren Tucker didn’t brief me, but he did brief Phil Goff. Has Phil Goff thought, for just a moment, that the reason I got the documents first is because I asked for them first? Has Phil Goff thought, for just a moment, that I was treated worse by the SIS and waited longer than media outlets for their requests to be met in this instance? I asked on the 26 July and received the documents on the 4th of August. When did Fairfax put in their request? They got their request met the exact same day as me, did they get preferential treatment?

The fact that he sees conspiracies everywhere tells us more about how the Labour party used to run things than anything else.

Funnier still is Phil Goff trying to say that his leak of confidential documents is different from my OIA request.

Mr Goff today disagreed that was an example of similar politically motivated release of information.

“It wasn’t intelligence information, it was (exposing) a blatant example of hypocrisy where politicians were saying one thing to you in the media and to the public and saying the absolute opposite when they thought they weren’t being recorded.”

In that respect, and only slightly, is he right. He leaked the documents, I put in an OIA. He also lied about those documents he leaked and Wikileaks proved he lied about it. However it doesn’t stop Phil Goff from continuing the falsehood that Don Brash said something that was only ever a figment of Phil Goff’s imagination.

Phil Goff has a proven history of leaking, he has a proven history of lying and he just keeps on keeping the story alive. Phil Goff needs to accept he forgot about teh briefing, got it wrong, and was wrong to attack a senior civil servant. There was a point where I could accept that Phil Goff just forgot. That point passed when he insisted that he and he alone has things right.

But pause for a moment and think about what Phil Goff is suggesting. If he is right and he was never shown anything, or even briefed. remember his first contention was that he was never briefed, then he was briefed just a little bit. But think, about what Phil Goff is really suggesting.

He is suggesting that Warren Tucker has falsified documents, made up minutes for briefings that never occurred and lied about it all. That really is too unbelievable. The alternate is Phil Goff simply forgot about it, tried to make political capital, got sprung and then made some stuff up to cover for his faulty memory.

What is more believable? That the head of the SIS falsified documents and lied about meetings, or that Phil Goff forgot.

Phil Goff really does have a faulty memory. He can’t remember SIS briefings, he can’t remember 6 soldiers before a court martial for drug offenses and now he can’t remember a Colonel who abused duty free privileges who smuggled vast quantities of liquor, all on his watch as Defence minister.

A senior army officer who abused his duty free privileges while serving as a military attache at the United Nations in New York has been reprimanded and fined $1500.

Colonel Selwyn Heaton, who bought 100 bottles of gin, rum, vodka, whiskey, liqueur and wine and more than 200 packets of cigarettes for a friend just three weeks before his posting was due to end in 2006, pleaded guilty at a court martial at Trentham yesterday to two charges of bringing discredit to the army.

He pleaded not guilty to two alternate Crimes Act charges of deception, which could have carried a much stiffer sentence. Those charges were withdrawn.

The charges follow a major inquiry after an anonymous letter to the UN alleged he had sold duty free goods to a friend.

An audit of Heaton’s activities while a military adviser to the UN from 2002 till 2006 found e-mails from a Canadian friend, Rick Schwartz, asking Heaton to order large quantities of liquor. Heaton signed a form saying it was for personal use.

Duty and taxes of $1180 were avoided on two transactions involving more than 100 bottles of liquor and 200 cartons of cigarettes.

A far cry from his claims that “he could recall nothing similar during his tenure as Defence Minister between 2005 and 2008.”

We are fast getting a picture of Phil Goff’s powers of recall.

Matthew Hooton is blogging again and his first post is about Phil Goff and his fanciful position on the SIS briefings he said he never had but documents prove that he did.

Until Mr Goff’s attacks on Mr Tucker yesterday, there has never been any suggestion that the SIS has not faithfully complied with this part of the law.  Opposition leaders Helen Clark, Jenny Shipley, Bill English, Don Brash and John Key have never expressed any concern about a lack of consultation.  In fact, Dr Brash felt sufficiently well briefed as Leader of the Opposition to express reservations as to the quality of the SIS’s case against Ahmed Zaoui, surprising many liberals.  It wasn’t that he wasn’t briefed – it was that he was sufficiently well briefed to form a view.

It is deeply implausible that Warren Tucker of all people would be the first to break this convention and law by insufficiently briefing the Labour Leader.  Just read his CV.  This is a former Army Major who joined the Government Communications Security Bureau in 1982.  He had the trust of the Labour Government of the 1980s to serve throughout David Lange’s prime ministership as the bureau’s liaison officer to the National Security Agency in Washington.  In his book Mr Life, Mr Lange expressed concern about the conduct of some military and intelligence personnel that he felt undermined him, but there is not the slightest criticism of Mr Tucker.

Mr Tucker was then appointed Intelligence Coordinator in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet under Prime Minister Jim Bolger and then Director of the Government Communications Security Bureau in December 1999 under Helen Clark.  Ms Clark then advised the Governor-General to appoint him Director of Security, New Zealand Security Intelligence Service, a role he took up on 1 November 2006.

An impeccable legacy of public service being smeared by Phil Goff for political gain.

For Mr Goff’s position to be credible, it is necessary to believe a number of things about Mr Tucker including that he would fake documents in order to mislead the Prime Minister and the media and discredit the Leader of the Opposition.  Make no mistake, the documents that have been released under the Official Information Act do not consist simply of a scrawled note by Mr Tucker saying Mr Goff had read the key paper on the Israel issue. They also reveal that an agenda was prepared in advance for the 14 March meeting showing Mr Tucker planned to raise the matter with Mr Goff and that it was in fact “discussed at length”.  The documents also reveal that Mr Tucker recorded that Mr Goff raised questions about the matter and that it was “discussed at length”.  Mr Tucker then referred to the discussion again when preparing the agenda for the next regular meeting, required under statute, with Mr Goff, which was held three weeks later

Mr Goff would have it that these documents are fakes.  Mr Tucker wrote things down, and prepared agendas and minutes, that were untrue. He then gave these false documents to the Prime Minister’s Office and to Whaleoil in order to discredit Mr Goff.

This is an extraordinary allegation for Mr Goff to be making, even implicitly.  How credible is it that Mr Tucker would behave that way?  My intelligence sources tell me he has always been the ultimate straight-shooter and has done more than any of his predecessors to bring openness and transparency to the intelligence community.  Any personal political views he may have are, I’m told, completely unreadable and, as outlined above, he has maintained the confidence of every New Zealand prime minister from Muldoon, to Lange, to Bolger, to Clark to Key. It is impossible to believe he has now risked his reputation to take a cheap shot at Mr Goff, who he served loyally when he was Foreign Minister, Defence Minister and Trade Minister through the 2000s.

It is pure fantasy for Phil Goff’s multiple and changing positions to remain.

Isn’t it far more likely that Mr Goff, having previously said the matter had not even been mentioned to him at all, has been caught lying and is now forced, Nixon-like, to maintain the lie – even if it requires implicitly attacking Mr Tucker’s integrity to the extent of suggesting he has behaved illegally?

The alternative theory is that Mr Goff was distracted by the Darren Hughes affair when the 14 March meeting occurred and so didn’t engage properly or since forgot what discussed.

This may be more charitable to Mr Goff but is in fact less credible than the outright-lie theory. As Mr Goff has said, he is immensely interested in Israel spy issues and Middle East politics. It is implausible that if, as Mr Goff now admits, Mr Tucker at least “flicked the issue past him“, that Mr Goff would not have asked him more – especially as I am told by intelligence sources that Mr Goff earned a reputation with intelligence officers for always engaging deeply on intelligence issues when he was a minister, something they appreciated.

Despite all this, Mr Goff would now have us believe that when the Israeli spy/backpacker issue was mentioned in the briefing, he asked no follow up questions – indeed showed no interest engagement or interest at all – but that, nevertheless, Mr Tucker went away and wrote down that he had engaged with Mr Goff on the issue at length.

It is not often that the only logical conclusion is to believe that a major political figure is telling barefaced lies, but this is one of them.

Occam’s Razor is clear and unequivocal:

“simpler explanations are, other things being equal, generally better than more complex ones”

Phil Goff is now frantically trying to disguise his embarrassment at the fact that he was briefed by the SIS on the Israeli ‘spy’ story despite public claims to the contrary.

The reason Goff should be held to account over this, is that he made hay in the media for over a week – claiming he was being kept in the dark – and implying that the head of the SIS had not done his job. He went large on the issue.

On Radio New Zealand two weeks ago he categorically stated he had not been briefed.

Radio NZ: Phil Goff says he was not briefed.

He even mentions that he gets regular briefings from the SIS.   Why didn’t he check his facts before pushing on with the story for the rest of the week?

As late as Monday the week after he went large on the story he was still claiming he knew nothing and was busy fuelling speculation.

bFM: Phil Goff still claiming he was not briefed.

So now, after a week of huffing and puffing, we discover Phil Goff was indeed briefed – but the issue was so insignificant it was not worth remembering.

But it gets worse for Phil Goff.

After watching him spin this to maximum advantage for himself then squirm under questioning I saw that there was the possibility that Phil Goff was being extremely economical with the truth. So I sent in an OIA to the SIS and today I got their reply. [OIA letter and documents.]

Contrary to Phil’s assertions that the item was just flicked past him, it was actually the third agenda item in his March 14 briefing and not only that re-briefed a his April 6 briefing.

It certainly looks far different from Phil Goff’s description of just “flicked past”. Phil Goff also raised questions about the issue:

“Discussed at length” seems incongruent with “flicked past”. The documents released by the SIS, though heavily redacted also show that a full page report on the investigation was shown to Phil Goff.

Phil Goff has categorically lied about this episode from the go. He lied about not being briefed, he was. He lied about not covering the detail, he was.  He lied about it being inconsequential, it wasn’t, he asked questions.

This man is unfit to lead a cub scout troop let alone the nation, he should resign or Labour should gank him.

But Deputy Prime Minister Bill English on Thursday criticised Mr Goff’s attack on Dr Tucker.

Mr English says he knows who he believes. “If you were given the choice, I think a senior civil servant who has advised the previous prime minister and the current prime minister on issues of national security – a man of integrity – I’d believe him.”

Yep, I know who to believe too. In a question of integrity between the man who keeps NZ’s secrets and Phil Goff, a man who blabs secrets, I trust Dr Warren Tucker.

More at 6pm.

Phil Goff has attacked the head of SIS, Dr Warren Tucker. It has made Stuff now.

A fresh political row has broken out over Israeli spy allegations after Labour leader Phil Goff accused  SIS head Warren Tucker of misleading the public over what he knew about an investigation into the death of an Israeli citizen in the February 22 Christchurch earthquake.

Goff today disputed a notation by Tucker on a briefing note - released under the Official Information Act - which suggested the opposition leader had seen the briefing of the Israeli “spy” investigation.

Goff disputed the notation and accused Tucker of calling his credibility into question.

“In future, I will only meet with Warren Tucker or representatives of the SIS if there is someone independent in the room to keep a true and accurate record of what is discussed.”

The questions Phil Goff needs to answer since he insists he was never briefed are:

Why, if he was never briefed, did he ask a question about the Israeli tourists in the briefing he says he never had?

and:

If he wasn’t briefed and never asked the question, why then did the SIS note in their meeting minutes that the issue was “discussed at length”?

Seriously, he needs to answer those questions.

More at 6pm.

Phil Goff has issued a press release accusing the head of the SIS, Dr Warren Tucker of lying.

“I will not stand by and have my credibility questioned over this issue. In future, I will only meet with Warren Tucker or representatives of the SIS if there is someone independent in the room to keep a true and accurate record of what is discussed.”

Phil Goff has a history of lying. He has been caught pants down again and instead of admitting he was wrong he has decided to attack a civil servant and that civil servants integrity. Dr. Warren Tucker serves New Zealand not the National party or any other party.

So a top civil servant who discharged his duties professionally throughout the entire Clark government is now bailed up as untrustworthy by the new Labour leader, and a leading light of the old Clark govt.

More at 6pm.

Winston Raymond Peters, 65, pensioner of St Mary’s Bay has decided to campaign using Social Media. At least he won’t be spending taxpayer dollars this election telling us lies.

Since he is going to use social media it is appropriate that he has a parody account as well, some wag has set that up and is tweeting madly making the official Twitter account look like a bunch of old senile numpties are running it….oh wait!

Phil Goff just keeps on lying. Here is a transcript of his interview with Larry Williams last night during Drive Time at 06:13 PM. He clearly maintains he was not briefed then goes to explain the details of the briefing he did not have.

LARRY WILLIAMS:     The Israelis, the Prime Minister said his understanding from director SIS, Warren Tucker, that you were briefed and it seems that you were.

PHIL GOFF: No, I wasn’t briefed. He said that I’d received the same document that he had received. I saw no document. There were three documents. I have seen none of them. Briefed is not a description that I would give. I had the director of the SIS in this morning, as soon as I heard the Prime Minister make that comment on Sunday on Q&A and the director said there are a lot of issues on the agenda. I flicked past that one. It was not something that I dealt with in any depth and I said that there was probably nothing to it. I don’t even recall him mentioning it but it certainly did not reflect what you would take from the term briefing and I saw no document.

LARRY WILLIAMS:       You were given the papers though, were you? I mean, that’s what Tuck…

PHIL GOFF: No, I wasn’t.

LARRY WILLIAMS:       Tucker’s an honourable guy, isn’t he? Were you given the papers or not?

PHIL GOFF: No, I wasn’t given the papers and nor – nor will Warren Tucker say that I definitely received those papers. I would have recalled reading the paper had I been given it. I was not given it.

LARRY WILLIAMS:       Well, what information did Tucker give to you then?

PHIL GOFF: Well, he said that he flicked – we had several major items on the agenda that day. He flicked past a number of issues including the case of Israelis that were in Christchurch for the earthquake. He said we did not go into it in any depth and I probably said to you there was nothing to it.

LARRY WILLIAMS:       Is it possible that – is it possible that he gave you the information, you flicked past it and you didn’t look at it?

PHIL GOFF: No, no, that’s not possible, that’s not the way we organised it.

How Phil Goff can reconcile that he wasn’t briefed with the details he then talks about regarding documents and the Israeli’s and still maintain he was not briefed just shows the lengths this man will go to to deny the truth.

Trevor Mallard is Labour’s campaign manager, so it is with little surprise that the campaign is going to be dirty with plenty of muck flung. Mostly it will be flung by him or his assistants.

Readers need to be aware of Mallard’s history though. His history of telling lies, and his history of defaming people under parliamentary privilege.

So I will start a series looking back at Labour’s campaign manager and his history of muck-raking so we can all be under no illusions that whenever he opens his gob it is likely to be pouring forth lies, innuendo, defamatory comments and muck.

Mostly his slurs and attacks are simply fanciful, given credence only in his twisted mind. But in his long parliamentary career he has never stopped doing it. He continues to this day. Let’s look at the 80s in today’s post.

Tuesday, October 13, 1987

PERSONAL EXPLANATION—APOLOGY

TREVOR MALLARD (Hamilton West): With the leave of the House, I want to make a personal explanation under Standing Order 171 in relation to a supplementary question I asked during question time, in which I alleged that the member for Tamaki was a patron of the Mongrel Mob. It has been pointed out to me that he is not the patron of that gang, and I want to apologise.

So he flung dirt at Muldoon and was wrong. He had to apologise.

Tuesday, March 22, 1988

TREVOR MALLARD (Hamilton West): I request the leave of the House to make a personal explanation under Standing Order 171, about compliance orders.

John Banks: Apologise.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no discussion on this matter. It is a question of the House granting leave. Is there any objection to leave being granted? There appears to be none.

TREVOR MALLARD: When I spoke in the debate I made an error about the method of review of the appointments of chief executives. A review can be done by the High Court, but not by the Labour Court. Therefore the Governor-General cannot be affected. I do not retract the comments I made about the effect of compliance orders on Ministers of the Crown under other clauses in the Bill.

Labour at the time was trying to stop public sector workers who refused to join the PSA access to the the provision of the Labour Relations Act. Not only that Labour’s Bill would have given the Public Service Association the statutory right, for the first time, to insist on compulsory unionism. But Mallard ruined his arguments by lying and then having to apologise tot eh house.

Tuesday, November 21, 1989

PERSONAL EXPLANATION—QUESTION OF THE DAY No. 5

TREVOR MALLARD (Hamilton West): I seek the leave of the House to make a personal explanation relating to a supplementary question I asked during question of the day No. 5.

Hon. W. F. Birch: What’s it about?

TREVOR MALLARD: The Opposition Whips have been briefed.

Mr SPEAKER: The member has given a brief explanation. Is there any objection to leave being granted? There appears to be none.

TREVOR MALLARD: During question of the day No. 5 I asked a supplementary question relating to payments for public relations contracts. I stated that the National Government had produced a green booklet with a photo of its current leader that promised 410 000 jobs, and that that booklet had gone to every household. I also implied that a company involving the member for East Coast Bays was involved. The member has indicated to me that I was wrongly briefed. I make it clear that I accept his word, and I apologise for any embarrassment that I have caused him.

Another day where Mallard has had to make a personal explanation in parliament about more lies he has told. This example is particularly interesting in that Mallard was spreading muck leaked to him from someone, and he got it wrong. It is exactly the same type of thing he doing to this day. Again involving himself in the affairs of another political party, receiving emails and txts from affiliated protagonists including sitting MPs and even Ministers and then repeating those on his blog and in parliament as statements of fact.

Those examples are from the 80s….step forward just a few more years and Mallard was at it again.

Thursday, April 18, 1996

TREVOR MALLARD (Pencarrow): It became clear to me late yesterday that the information that I had that suggested that the Minister had said that President Mandela was “a fat, balding, Maori” was in fact incorrect. The information that the Minister had twice indicated that a photograph of President Mandela was a photograph of a Maori resembling President Mandela was in fact correct. I took some advice as to whether it was appropriate to apologise at that stage. The advice I got was that bringing it up again might in fact further embarrass our relations with South Africa, so I did not. But I do apologise to the Minister for the partial inaccuracy.

Another day  a few later and he was smearing John Banks this time. Another apology. Getting the picture. Mallard lies, then he gets caught, then he has to apologise.

I will cover the 90s in another post. This could take a while there is so much material to work with. Mallard was a muck-raker then and he is a muck-raker now. He was wrong so many times then, he is still wrong today. When I call him an apologist you can see why, he spends a great deal of time apologising for his lies and smears.