In recent days, John Key has been extensively questioned on what he or his office knew about Cameron Slater’s OIA request to the SIS. He’s steadfastly maintained that although his office was likely informed about the release of the documents to Slater, he himself wasn’t told.
New documents have today been released which muddy the water. In particular, NewstalkZB’s Felix Marwick has released correspondence from SIS Director Warren Tucker, in which Tucker refers to advising “the Prime Minister”, rather the Prime Minister’s office.
Letter from Dr Warren Tucker to Felix Marwick.
The letter states:
“I notified the Prime Minister (in accordance with my usual practice to keep the Minister informed on a “no surprises” basis) that I was going to release unredacted documents in response to the request from Mr Slater. I advised the Prime Minister that I had received legal advice that there were no grounds for withholding the information given the public disclosures already made about the existence and some of the content of the briefing. I informed the Prime Minister that I had informed Mr Goff of my decision to release the information.”
Further, another letter to Mr Marwick dated 31 October 2011, from Chief Ombudsman Dame Beverley Wakem, refers to a conversation Dame Wakem had with Tucker, in which Tucker told her “that he is prepared to release a statement regarding his discussion with the Prime Minister”.
Which sounds like it should be game, set and match. The Director of the SIS says he briefed the Prime MInister, and the Prime Minister says he didn’t. Who do you believe?
Except that it’s not game, set and match. Dr Tucker this morning then released a statement backing John Key’s version of events, essentially admitting that when he wrote “Prime Minister” he in fact meant “Prime Minister’s office”. Whether such a turn of phrase – “PM” as shorthand for “PM’s office” – is normal practice for Dr Tucker, I have no idea. Nonetheless, Tucker is in Mr Key’s camp regarding who was briefed.
Over at The Standard, Anthony R0bins posts “Key lied – The smoking gun“, based on John Key having said on Q+A on 24 July 2011:
“Phil Goff was briefed, yeah, that’s right. 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.”
To me, that’s a long way from being a smoking gun. Key seems to be referring to the fact that both he and Goff were briefed by Tucker about the Israeli spy story, not to any later briefing by Tucker regarding Goff.
Four major sets of questions remain to be cleared up, in relation to this whole issue:
- Firstly, who tipped off Cameron Slater that he should make his OIA request?
- Secondly, was Slater’s request expedited by someone in the SIS, and if so, by whom?
- Tthirdly, why was Slater’s request promptly answered, while other media outlets’ OIA requests denied or delayed? and
- Lastly, who in the Prime Minister’s office did Dr Tucker brief, and why did they not pass the information on to John Key?
The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, Cheryl Gwyn, is now investigating the SIS’s handling of Slater’s OIA request, but there’s unlikely to be an outcome prior to the election.
As to the role of John Key’s office, one thing has been cleared up. Key has confirmed today that the staff member who was briefed by Dr Tucker was not Jason Ede. Of course, that doesn’t clear up the issue of why Key wasn’t informed by the staff member that a politically sensitive OIA request was going to be actioned.
And of course there’s the question of who tipped off Slater? Although most suspicion is falling on the Prime Minister’s office, given Slater’s relationship with Ede, the tip to Slater could well have come from the SIS itself. Phil Goff had been impugning the honesty of the SIS’s director; it’s not inconceivable that someone down the chain of command took it upon themselves to exact vengeance via Slater and his Whaleoil blog.
Occasionally Erudite Publications 
It doesn’t seem likely to be the a lowly SIS member. None of the material in either the book or leaked documents so far implicates any of them with any association with Whaleoil or Cameron (and as a long time observer of the sleazeball, I’ve never seen any). Nicky Hager would have written a different book if there had been any.
I suspect that the question that the enquiry will have is who from the PM’s office talked after the briefing to Cameron.
In any case it either looks like John Key wasn’t keeping a good track of his office in relation to leaking information related to security matters OR he was complicit. In security matters both are equally reprehensible.
Makes the distinction rather moot.
Yeah, I don’t deny that it’s most likely to have been someone in the PM’s office. I’m just noting that at this stage there’s no documentary evidence to prove that, meaning that other explanations remain plausible. I’d note that, according to Slater, the hacker apparently got only about 10% of his emails, so who knows what other illicit contacts might be contained within the other 90%.
Regardless, John Key’s management of his Ministerial office looks decidedly unprofessional.