SIS

Is this the start of detente and the rehabilitation of the relationship between NZ First and National?

New Zealand First will support law changes allowing the GCSB to spy on Kiwis, giving the Government a comfortable majority on the controversial legislation.

But leader Winston Peters says his party’s support is conditional on additional safeguards for the public against unfair surveillance.

Prime Minister John Key last night briefed Mr Peters, Labour leader David Shearer, Green co-leader Russel Norman, United Future’s Peter Dunne and Act’s John Banks on his proposed amendments to the GCSB Act.  Read more »

David Shearer saying the PM is sexing up the threat posed by hackers and terrorism.

He is on the intelligence committee and knows the threat is real, and on the rise.

His claim that the PM is ‘sexing up’ the threats posed by terror and cyber crime is naive and stupid.

He’s now calling the PM a liar almost everyday.

So much for Shearer’s promise not to play ‘Gotcha’ politics and to go after the ball rather than the man.

Read more »

Further to my earlier post about the conflicts of Bruce Ferguson.

I wonder how exactly he managed to go from being the HR Manager at the third tier of the civil service to being the Chief of Defence, under Helen Clark?

Prime Minister Helen Clark today announced the appointment of Air Marshal Bruce Ferguson as Director of the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB).

Air Marshal Ferguson will take up his new role when the current Director, Dr Warren Tucker, takes up his new role as Director of Security on 1 November 2006. Mr Ferguson’s term of appointment is for four years.

Helen Clark said Air Marshal Bruce Ferguson, who is currently the Acting Director of the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management, retired earlier this year from a distinguished military career which culminated in four years as Chief of Defence Force.

“Air Marshal Ferguson is a skilled leader with strong relationship management abilities. He has proved himself in a demanding chief executive role as the Chief of Defence Force, and has a strong track record of achievement.

“He is experienced at senior levels in the security and intelligence community, with a sound understanding of security and intelligence matters, and a good understanding of the role of Director, GCSB,” Helen Clark said.

Do you think perhaps there might have been some shoulder tapping going on there?

Remember Warren Tucker too, the SIS head that Phil Goff accused of lying and then was proven to himself have lied in attacking a senior civil servant.

We now have two very similar cases before us regarding briefings from intelligence agencies.

In 2011 I broke the story that contrary to his assertions that he was never briefed by the SIS about the Israeli citizens involved in the Chirstichurch earthquake that he was in fact briefed.

Phil Goff maintained and still maintains to this day that he was never briefed and worse he went on to attack the head of the SIS.

Move forward to today and we find out that John Key was briefed in February, in a superficial way, about the Kim Dotcom raid and the involvement of GCSB.

A review of Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) files has revealed Prime Minster John Key was told about the spy agency’s role in the Kim Dotcom case in February.

Until now, Key has insisted he wasn’t told until September 17 – when he was briefed about illegal snooping by the agency. He can’t remember the reference in February but accepts it took place.

Three more cases of possible illegal spying have also been identified.

Key visited GCSB offices on 29 February for a briefing and to meet staff. A presentation contained a short reference to the Dotcom arrest in January ”as an example of cooperation between the GCSB and the Police.”

”The presentation was an electronic slide presentation. The cover slide was a montage of 11 small images, one of which was of Mr Dotcom,” Key said.

No written record was kept of the meeting and he wasn’t given a copy of the briefing.

Key says no reference was made to questions about residency status.

John Key hasn’t denied that he was briefed, in fact he has said he doesn’t remember it and no notes were were kept but accepts that the briefing took place.

The difference is clear. Phil Goff and Labour attacked the civil servants, attacked the blogger who made an OIA request and still denys the briefing ever took place. If he had said at the time he was mistakedn and now accpets he was briefed then there never would ahve been a big story about it.

Unfortunately for John Key the left wing and media will use this in an attempt to suggest that John Key lied….when in actual fact he has been remarkably forthright about details concerning the intelligence agencies. The left wing, labour and their apologists in the media unfortunately see conspiracy everywhere.

A New Zealander with links to terrorist group al Qaeda and who once was arrested trying to enter an al Qaeda stronghold in Pakistan is back in New Zealand, but the Prime Minister does not believe he is a threat.

Yes but what I want to know is does Phil Goff remember the SIS briefing him on the Kiwi who is a member of Al Qaeda, or has he
forgotten that also?

Yet another of Phil Goff’s lies has been busted.

Asked if he would consider letting the Prime Minister sit in, Goff said: “The Prime Minister would be very welcome to sit in. I would love to get all the same briefings that he gets.”

Note how he does that. Suggests that his briefing is somehow materially different from John Key. He is suggesting and cultivating the impression that poor Phil is left out.

However in another release and letter from the SIS to Scoop Media, Warren Tucker buries that lie of Phil Goff’s.

[scanned document]

There it is in black and white, for all to see. The briefing Phil Goff receieved was “identical” to John Key’s briefing. Phil Goff’s comments about getting different briefings to the PM is exposed for the lie it was.

Phil Goff hasn’t told the truth, either deliberately or by omission from the get go in this whole sorry affair. He needs to come clean, or failing that apologise.

If he does not it shows quite clearly that the man is unfit for office. I wonder though why he is continuing to keep this issue in the public domain?

Phil Goff now says that he will take one of his current MPs, ostensibly an ex-Minister to meetings with Warren Tucker. He says they already have clearance. Let’s check this out against facts shall we, since Phil Goff and reality seem to be completely divorced.

Basically Phil Goff, as is usual these days, gets it wrong. He claims he will take a former minister with an appropriate security clearance into briefings with Warren Tucker. There is a slight problem with that premise.

Ministers don’t get security clearances. Ministers aren’t even vetted. Ministerial staff are, but the clearance doesn’t survive the departure from ministerial services, so even though Grant Robertson had two clearances, initially for MFAT and then Ministerial Services, he currently has no clearance

No ministers ever get vetted and Former ministers don’t have clearances once they cease being a minister.

Basically Phil Goff is wanting to include somebody who isn’t even on the Security and Intelligence Committee in secret and top secret briefings from the Director, and is lying about that person having a security clearance.

Even if it was true that some of his current MPs had a previous clearance, it’s the employing agency that grants a clearance, not the SIS. Ministers don’t have an employing agency. It would be preposterous for a Prime Minister to consult or have the SIS pre-vet prospective Ministers before making ministerial appointments.

Worse still for Phil Goff’s silly premise that his MPs still have clearance is that the Security in the Government Sector manual [alternate link] is very precise about security clearances.

Lapses and Transfers of Security Clearances

60. A security clearance lapses after five years or when the holder leaves the organisation that granted it.

61. When an employee with a clearance transfers to another government organisation, the Chief Executive of the new organisation may grant a new clearance at the same or lower level, without further vetting, if:

• the previous clearance is less than 12 months old, and
• the employee’s duties, for which access is required, are broadly comparable to those of the position in the previous organisation.

62. When transferring a clearance, the expiry date of the new clearance should be made the same as that of the original clearance from the former organisation.

63. For advice about confirming original clearance expiry dates and other information relevant to security clearance transfers, consult the NZSIS.

As you can see it is impossible for Phil Goff to suggest he takes another of his MPs or even a staff member along with to see Warren Tucker. All Goff has done now is ensure a Mexican Standoff between himself and Warren Tucker.

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.

Peter Aranyi has castigated me and Cactus online, but out of that castigation has come an understanding of where our thinking lies.

He has written perhaps the best summary yet of the issues surrounding Phil Goff’s smears on Warren Tucker and my OIA request to the SIS. PLus as a bonus his thoughts on Martyn Bradbury.

While it’s common for the Official Information Act to be utilised by journalists and others in the ‘media’, it is a law designed to enable citizens to hold their government machinery accountable.

That (despite Martyn Bradbury’s and others’ hallucination/fear/loathing) is all ‘Citizen’ Slater did. That he was first off the mark, and cannily couched his request in deliberately limited terms that seemed likely to him to get a quick result (i.e. limited to papers that were probably already on the recently-smeared SIS director’s desk) just makes him an effective inquirer.

Broad OIA requests (fishing expeditions) require more bureaucratic ‘processing time’, as anyone accustomed to dealing with government agencies knows. Bradbury and others’ agitated mis-statement of the facts (e.g. describing the SIS as ‘leaking’ info to Slater) just further corrodes their credibility and, forgive me, make them look like uninformed plonkers.

and his comments on the SIS and the speed with which they issued their response to my request:

On the other, political, question: Should SIS boss Tucker have ‘expedited’ Slater’s OIA request: Duh. What was his alternative? Delay? Sit on the request? Obfuscate? (i.e. Standard operating procedure.) Would that have been ‘better’?

I’ve been told that Tucker presaged his ‘notice’ to the Prime Minister and Mr Goff of his intention to grant Slater’s OIA request by seeking Crown Law Office advice about his options. So Goff’s (reported) ‘objection’ to the release was met with words to the effect of: “Crown Law says we have to comply with the OIA and supply redacted documents.” Bureaucrat snooker.

A quick survey: Do you think Mr Tucker, faced with his integrity being used as a political football, was (a) more inclined or (b) less inclined to shield Mr Goff from any legally-compliant release that appeared to contradict Mr Goff’s assertions against him? Gee, let me think.

Better question: Do you think a career public servant like Tucker appreciates a politician making him out to be, let’s not mince words, a liar? No. (But what if it’s true?)

I studied bureaucracy at Victoria (majored in Politics and studied Public Power and Administrative Behaviour at Vic under Bob Gregory) and let me tell you this: Politicians and public servants have a prickly relationship at the best of times. A politician who publicly attacks a member of the civil service is making enemies he really can’t afford to make. They will find a way to hurt him. Members of both parties fall into this trap. This spat between Tucker and Goff can be seen as an example of bureaucratic whiplash.

But was this the politicisation of the SIS?

Some have made the point, rationally, that these events harbour the ‘politicisation’ of the Security Intelligence Service.

I’m not so sure it is political. I think it’s personal. Tucker’s (reported) actions of ‘soliciting’ OIA requests from media (if true) … and then by-anyone’s-standards clearly fast-tracking a response to the first OIA request to right wing/National Party blogger Cameron Slater can be seen as personally vindictive. I think he was trying to defend his reputation from political attack.

I don’t agree with Peter that Warren tucker over-stepped the mark, but that is one of the hallmarks of mature adults and a robust democracy. Peter and I can agree on somethings and disagree on others and still maintain a healthy respect fro our points of view.

Phil Goff is digging deeper and deeper, trying desperately to smear me. Last night on Radio Live he even raised the spectre of the Hollow Men for some inept and bizarre reason.

For some reason the left wing elements of the media, including Scoop, Barry Soper, John Pagani and to a lesser extent Chris Trotter have all tried to say that I should never have been given the documents. They all ignore the fact that I asked for the documents under the OIA and I asked for details that wouldn’t be secret, I was very specific and not only that I published the exact questions I asked.

So far none of the media have published what they asked. So far none of the media have published their timelines for when they submitted their OIA requests.

The single thing that perplexes me is why they all think that the OIA shouldn’t be used by ordinary citizens and left as the preserve of the political elites and meida?

The Official information Act is designed so that the powerful can be held to account, and hold Phil Goff to account I have. I can only assume that the whining in the media is because I ganked them. They are miffed that I thought of it first….some time before Fairfax got around to moving their expanding posteriors off the chair to write a OIA request.

Phil Goff says questions need to be asked:

Labour leader Phil Goff says questions remain over how a right-wing blogger asked the SIS for a confidential document about a briefing he had with the spy agency.

Questions also remained over why the SIS released the material with such urgency – four working days after receiving the request under the Official Information Act. Most requests are either rejected outright or take at least three weeks to action.

The simple answer to the how a right wing blogger asked the SIS is that I simply asked for it. I watched Phil Goff and then Annette King change the story about the breifing he says he never had, but documents prove that he did. i was angered that phil Goff was using the same tactics that he did when caught lying over the Daren Hughes affair, so incenced I wrote an email.

After I rote that email the law took effect. The SIS had to, by law, answer my request. The leftwing, Phil Goff, the media all need to ask themselves a very pertinent question.

Do they think that the SIS should selectively answer OIA requests based on the political views of the person asking and the political views of the opponents of the person asking?

They won’t answer that question because where it leads to is where they are trying to smear the SIS, that there is political involvement in the SIS when they know very clearly that there is not. If they were to answer in the affirmative then they support the politicization of the SIS.

By attacking me and my motives they have now opened pandora’s box on themselves. Once again they have shown themselves to be inept strategically. They clearly do not war-game every scenario through to their logical and inevitable conclusions. For if they did then Phil Goff would have retracted a long time ago and claimed he mis-spoke, forgot or some other weaselly excuse.

By going large on this he has only himself to blame for the issue being in the public domain. His actions alone are the ones that have led a non-issue being turned into three weeks worth of bad headlines and an asymmetrical war against a blogger they can’t win.

My old man has a saying about people being either chess players or draughts players. Phil Goff has shown that he is neither and that his game appears to be Chinese Checkers.