The SIS Document

August 4th, 2011 at 6:22 pm by David Farrar

SIS-OIA

Embedded above is the OIA response from the . The documents:

  1. notes the Investigation into Israeli Nationals in Christchurch was an issue to be discussed with Goff on 14 March
  2. says that Goff asked “What do we know?”
  3. notes it was “discussed at length”
  4. again notes the briefing on 14 March on the agenda for 6 April
  5. has a copy of the actual investigation paper dated 8 March
  6. notes it was discussed with Goff
  7. also notes that Goff read the investigation paper

And look at all that, and then be reminded by Whale that Goff time and time again claimed in different media he had never been briefed – that in fact the first he heard of the Israelis was when the Southland Times ran their story

Tags: , ,

116 Responses to “The SIS Document”

  1. Steve (4,592 comments) says:

    But Goff just can’t recall these discussions. What is the big deal? He forgets many things.
    He also wants to Govern NZ! Hahahahaha!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Not even his family care what he has to say anymore,

    “They Shoot Horses Don’t They”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. queenstfarmer (782 comments) says:

    This is such an own-goal for Goff. Honestly Phil, when things are this bad there is no harm in just fessing up – you might just redeem a bit of yourself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. DrDr (114 comments) says:

    Phil Goff surely must be a goneburger. This may just be the tipping point that gives Phil his marching orders from his caucus. Not content with smearing the PM, he is now picking on senior public servants while knowing Dr Tucker can’t come out and defend himself. Surely Labour’s poll results will be heading further south and there will be many incumbent Labour MPs that will be worried about their future after 26 November. If they roll Goff now they may have some chance of winning a few back.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. RF (1,454 comments) says:

    After reading this I will laugh myself to sleep tonight. Goof should have been a Japanese Devine Wind pilot in the second world war in the Pacific. At least he would have known what his brief future held for him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Elaycee (4,410 comments) says:

    Haha haha…

    Liar, liar, pants on fire. :P

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Johnboy (17,018 comments) says:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1eUIK9CihA&feature=related

    Substitute Key for Mr. Big.

    KAOS for running a Labour Government.

    Agent 57 for Cactus Kate and you have the scenario.

    :) :) :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Chris2 (770 comments) says:

    From these documents, there seems no doubt Goff was briefed by Tucker.

    But what I find disturbing is the SIS Director’s perfunctory style of recording a meeting with a politician.

    Where is the Record of Conversation that good management surely dictates he write after such a meeting?

    Frankly, I don’t think it acceptable for a highly-paid civil servant to simply scribble “Read by/ discussed with Mr Goff 14/11″ in the margin of a document. He should be writing up a proper summary of the meeting and recording what was discussed, especially when it was apparently “at length”.

    If Tucker had written a Record of Conversation after the meeting (something I imagine he requires of his own staff), then that would utterly refute Goof’s claims for good because it would have included detail. But you can be sure that even with the release of these documents some will still support Goff over Tucker.

    Whether Tucker is stupid or just lazy, he should be writing up a record of conversation after every meeting he has in his official capacity as head of the country’s Intelligence service. For a man in his position, this sloppiness is quite unacceptable in senior public servant.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. mikenmild (11,777 comments) says:

    Surely there must be some form of official inquiry now, Either Goff is lying or Dr Tucker is deliberately misleading. As Dr Tucker cannot defend himself publicly, there must be some investigation. This cannot be allowed to stand. It is difficult to see how Dr Tucker could remain in his position unless he is publicly cleared of the implication that he has fiddled this story. It is equally untenable for Mr Goff to be in a position to become (I know it’s unlikely) Prime Minister without being cleared of the suspicion that he is making this up.

    From one point of view this is a little affair. From another, it goes to the heart of how we rely on trust for government to function at all. We need to have confidence that senior public servants will act with integrity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. RF (1,454 comments) says:

    Roll on 26th November and roll over Goof

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. joe bloggs (126 comments) says:

    From one point of view this is a little affair. From another, it goes to the heart of how we rely on trust for government to function at all. We need to have confidence that senior public servants will act with integrity.

    Um, we also need to have confidence in politicians who aspire to lead the country – and Phil has utterly, completely and systematically destroyed his own credibility.

    Parker and Cunliffe must be creaming themselves at the opportunity this presents come Nov 27th

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. joe bloggs (126 comments) says:

    Meanwhile Brown-Noser-in-Chief Claire Curren reminds us:
    Phil is a man of great honesty and integrity. He holds the relationships with public servants and agencies in high regard and would never make public comments of this sort lightly.

    WTF? A big day on Kronic, Claire?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. mikenmild (11,777 comments) says:

    joe

    I don’t worry too much about confidence in politicians. I don’t have much confidence in them; do you? But they cross a line when directly questioning the integrity of a senior public servant in such circumstances. Goff has directly charged Tucker with misleading him, and the public. This has to be resolved. I firmly believe that a formal inquiry is required. Such assertions against someone holding such a position of trust as SIS director cannot simply lie unexamined and unchallenged.

    Until today I was prepared to believe that there was a misunderstanding, or faulty recollection. I now believe that this is such a serious allegation that either Dr Tucker or Mr Goff are unfit to hold the offices they do. That conflict needs to be resolved.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. questlove (242 comments) says:

    notes it was “discussed at length”

    And Tucker claimed he “flicked the issue past him” while Goff claimed “Briefed is not a descrip­tion that I would give”.

    Investigation please.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. gravedodger (1,573 comments) says:

    I am in no way comparing , aligning or in any way placing Phil Goff with Herr Hitler but his headlong descent into electoral defeat has a disturbing facet of “they dont deserve me” syndrome as they all head for the cliff.
    The alternative leaders seem content to just charge ten abreast to the abyss.

    I seriously think they would rise in the poles if the entire caucus went to Raratonga for a month.
    Or three.
    Dont even come back to vote the way the polls are running I wonder if they will all vote Labour.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. kiwi in america (2,511 comments) says:

    Chris2
    The significant amount of redacting of the briefing notes obscures the level of detail of Tuckers notes so your little telling off may be way off beam. For all we know under the blacked out portions are notes that give plenty of detail of the matters discussed. I was once interviewed by an SIS agent as a background check of a close friend who was being interviewed to be a diplomat for MFAT and the level of detail of the questions and the pages of notes the agent took about my friends every life detail was very impressive. The Director’s statutory obligations to consult with the Leader of the Opposition would oblige by long tradition that notes of the meetings would cover all matters of substance.

    Furthermore Chris, the matter of SIS briefings had for decades (until Foreign Minister Goff himself leaked the “gone by lunchtime” comment by Brash to the American Ambassador) been steeped in a strictly adhered to bi partisan tradition of impartiality and confidentiality over matters of national security. No prior Director had ever had a need to effectively almost record his conversation verbatim with a LOP to cover his butt in the event of a highly public stoush over the subject matter of a briefing because this is the first time a Leader of the Opposition, to my knowledge, has ever come right out and blatantly contradicted what was discussed in these private briefings.

    Aside from impugning the reputation of a neutral civil servant, Goff has tarnished and demeaned for purely political purposes the entire essentially non-partisan traditions of such briefings. He always was unsuited to be PM, by this action he has rendered himself unworthy of the office that he aspires to hold.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,924 comments) says:

    Chris 2, are you really such a dumb arse?

    His commentary was redacted, as it should be, from the version released under the OIA.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. bhudson (4,741 comments) says:

    An investigation? A simple clarification would be enough. Was Tucker alone when the document was discussed with Goff? If not, ask that person(s) for their recollection.

    If it tallies with Tucker then Goff most certainly should be.

    Not a long winded inquiry that takes an eternity (read, beyond the election) to resolve the matter. A simple check and then out the culprit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. mikenmild (11,777 comments) says:

    Chris2

    I’m prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt, as you may not be aware that it would be highly unusual for senior public servants to feel that the full details of the conversations with politicians need to be recorded. Aside from hampering the flow of what is presumably a one-on-one conversation, taking detailed notes impedes the atmosphere of confidence that needs to be nurtured and maintained.

    The more I think about this, the angrier I get. I cannot recall such a direct attack by a politician on a senior public servant. One of them has to go!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. joe bloggs (126 comments) says:

    Mikenmild, the matter will be resolved come Nov 26th. (and again on 27th Nov when the Lab caucus deals to him)

    Goff’s been on shifting sands ever since he tried pwning Key a couple of weeks ago. He went big on this and has fallen flat on his face.

    He should count himself very fortunate that this has taken some of the heat off the revelations that his rush to get HMNZS Canterbury into service contributed to the loss of a crew member.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. alwyn (438 comments) says:

    Questlove @ 7.17pm
    You’ve missed out a couple of words haven’t you?
    When you say “Tucker claimed he ‘flicked the issue past him'”, what you meant to say was “Goff claimed that Tucker said he ‘flicked the issue past him'” didn’t you?
    Have you any evidence at all, apart from Goff’s self-serving statement, that Tucker said anything of the kind?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. flipper (4,232 comments) says:

    On Wednesday I wrote as follows in relation to the House of Reps question time :

    Goff posed a question re the gap between rich and poor which saw JK batting PG over the fence.
    There were then two supplementary questions and each time Goff lost. The 3rd supplementary again referred to the NBR rich list report and JK replied:
    “I am surprised that the Ldr of Oppn had time to read the NBR report because he obviously did not have time to read a report about Mossad Agents that were not in New Zealand”.

    Zinngggg !! Silence from Oppn…….laughter from Govt benches.

    That just sums it up!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Chris2 (770 comments) says:

    “kiwi in america” & “Adolf Fiinkensein”: you have obviously never worked in Government and have no idea how relationships between politicans and Government departments are condicted.

    The documents that have been redacted are Briefing notes prepared IN ADVANCE, which Tucker has taken along with him to his meeting with Goff. When Tucker has returned to his office he appears to have simply hand written a comment on them to the effect that he discussed the content of the briefing note with him

    The documents released are not a report of the meeting with Goff after the event. If they were, Tucker would not have hand written his comment, it would have been typed up in the body of the report.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Put it away (2,880 comments) says:

    And there you have it ladies and gentlemen: meltdown.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. slightlyrighty (2,475 comments) says:

    Chris2.

    We have no idea what documents were prepared as a result of the briefing of Goff by Tucker, but I would hazard a guess that any such documents, if they exist, would not have been part of Slater’s OIA request and would not have been supplied to him to be reproduced here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,924 comments) says:

    Chris2, you are pushing a huge pile of shit uphill here.

    “The documents released are not a report of the meeting with Goff after the event.”

    For your assertion to be correct, the head of the SIS would need to have written in advance the questions the LOOP asked.

    And no, I have never worked ‘in government,’ thank the Lord.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. joe bloggs (126 comments) says:

    I’ll give the Goffice credit for one thing – he’s managed to unite the country to a greater extent than any other Labour leader in recent years

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Chris2 (770 comments) says:

    mikenmild – It is not necessary for notes to be written during a meeting as you suggest, but a record of conversation can nonetheless be compiled from memory if it is done shortly afterwards.

    Do you imagine for one minute that when Key met Obama alone in the White House last week that no write-up was made of what was discussed? Of course not. Neither man was sitting there taking notes but both would surely have discussed with their officials what was talked about and reports would have been written.

    If you are the CEO of the Dept. of Statistics or the head of the Dept. of Conservation it may not always be necessary to write up a Record of Conversation with an opposition politician, but when you are the head of the SIS, an agency whose whole existence is collecting INFORMATION and RECORDING it, then it is entirely reasonable to expect the SIS Director to write up a Minute of his meeting. I bet if one of his underlings did the briefing Tucker would expect a report!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. mikenmild (11,777 comments) says:

    There would be no subsequent notes of such a meeting. I can’t recall any circumstances in which a senior public servant would feel the need to take such notes.

    This is all about trust. the SIS Director is required to brief the Leader of the Opposition o current security matters for very sound reasons. Such a challenge by Goff goes to the heart of the conventions that need to be maintained for the government to function properly. How could a Minister or senior politician operate with any confidence with a senior public servant on the basis of ‘we need to have an agreed record of this meeting in case one of us wants to lie in the future’?

    Chris, I would repeat that this was a one-on-one meeting. You can’t maintain trust on the basis of having to record it all. Surely we can expect the SIS Director’s notation to be taken as accurate? One of them must go.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    I can’t recall any circumstances in which a senior public servant would feel the need to take such notes.
    What?

    Perhaps they just you knew were an unemployed fucktard and didn’t bother telling you.

    Meeting notes:

    Just briefed a political non- entity out of manners, more a sympathy fuck than anything.

    Addendum: I better bullshit even these notes as I know that he will deny our meeting as an attempt to gain some traction and this will enable mental defectives to start a conspiracy theory and could possibly lead to the down fall of the National lead Government and the end of western civilization……………………snore fucking snore

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. East Wellington Superhero (1,151 comments) says:

    This reminds me of when Bill English was Opposition Leader. Controversy around the NZ troops being deployed in middle east. From memory English was lied to by Helen Clark, and then had to wear his misinformed comments in public. I think Phil Goff just learned from his leader.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Chris2 (770 comments) says:

    mikenmild – Of course we can believe Tucker. Goff is a disgrace and outright liar.

    The point I have been trying to make is that Tucker heads what has been for more than 50 years, the most controversial Government department, where things can go pear-shaped (remember Tariana Turia believing the SIS had bugged her ‘phone, or some such thing?).

    With this type of controversy and misrepresentation it defies belief that the head of the SIS would not write a Minute of his meeting with a politician afterwards. If he had, he would have been able to pass it to the PM who could have immediatly confirmed the briefing with the Opposition Leader, thereby squashing Goff.

    Instead, Key has left it to Tucker to defend himself (Tucker would not have released the information to Whaleoil without telling Key first). This is a political stoush, and Key needs to come in and defend his Public servant.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Paul Marsden (999 comments) says:

    Goff is really only following in the foot steps of his predecessor Clark. The master-mistress of deception, gobbly-gook and pathological lying. Why are we surprised? In fact, I would not be at all surprised if Goff is suffering from some psychiatric abnormality. He certainly appears to be exhibiting some traits. Perhaps someone should ask him if believes that the sky is blue and the grass is green?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. slightlyrighty (2,475 comments) says:

    Chris2.

    Key knows better than to get involved in this. English has spoken in defence of Tucker, but for the majority of NZ’ers. Tucker needs no defending.

    You said it yourself. Of course we can believe Tucker

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. fooman (40 comments) says:

    David,

    The SIS documents you have posted have the following:

    14 March notes have 6 items, one of which is the Mossad thing, as well as the items from the previous meeting in November. The comments “What do we know?” and “discussed at length” could apply to any of those 6 items or the previous meeting.

    Similarly, the April 6 notes has one item, plus the 6 from March. The comments (“What do we know?” and “discussed at length” – which may simply be Dr Tuckers standard headings for the chat) could be any of those 7 items.

    The handwritten notes could be read as “read by *and/or* discussed” – the disagreement appears to be the level of said “discussion”.

    Pretty good trawling by Cameron Slater, and some political point scoring, but it is not the damning evidence that some would presume it to be.

    It is nice to see that the SIS has the nouse to redact it then scan it, rather than lazily change the background colour, and send a vector/text as happened quite often (e.g. http://www.techspot.com/news/43364-pdf-redaction-fail-uks-nuclear-submarine-secrets-unveiled.html )

    FM

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. metcalph (1,436 comments) says:

    The point I have been trying to make is that Tucker heads what has been for more than 50 years, the most controversial Government department, where things can go pear-shaped (remember Tariana Turia believing the SIS had bugged her ‘phone, or some such thing?).

    Operation Leaf. Subsequently found to be bollocks repeated by a gullible Hagar.

    With this type of controversy and misrepresentation it defies belief that the head of the SIS would not write a Minute of his meeting with a politician afterwards.

    But it was not controversial at the time. It only became controversial when Phil Goff denied receiving a briefing a few months later.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    he would have been able to pass it to the PM who could have immediatly confirmed the briefing with the Opposition Leader, thereby squashing Goff.

    He is head of a Govt. agency and is required to be bi-partisan. He can’t be seen to be supplying information to a opposition political party that would score huge points in an election year.

    Goff is a dork, a liar and a goner the only people who don’t realise this havn’t been born yet. There will be plenty of information noting this meeting and will be available to those that matter, not saying The Whale isn’t important enough but The Whale is not important enough

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. mikenmild (11,777 comments) says:

    Chris

    I think the point is that such a sensitive relationship has to be one of absolute trust and discretion. The SIS Director should not be placed in a position where he feels he needs to record what transpired. Even if he did; what would stop a politician from claiming that minute had been manufactured?

    I think we broadly agree – Goff needs to be vindicated completely or go.

    On what Key should do – all he could do is order a formal inquiry. Just backing the SIS Director would be insufficient, as it leaves Dr Tucker in the middle of the ‘I said, he said’ business.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. expat (4,050 comments) says:

    Fooman, probably a lack of hitech nouse rather than anything else. If the moustache wearers from the SIS are anything like I remember them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Manolo (14,082 comments) says:

    And this lame, pathetic Goff aspires to become Prime Minister? The poor bugger is a joke!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Paul Marsden (999 comments) says:

    Goff is a deadman walking. For this little escapade, he needs to by-pass trot and break into full gallop.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. fatboy slim (77 comments) says:

    How long can hard-working New Zealanders afford to pay for moronic lifestyle politicians? No wonder we borrow SO much money to stage the sad bureaucratic socialist charade. SIS documentation is toilet paper.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Chris2 (770 comments) says:

    mikenmild – when there is conflict about who said what, the Courts will generally accept what a Police Officer says over what the other person says. The reason for this is that the Cop has a notebook and Police Regulations require that he record what happened. If one party has notes after the event (no matter how brief) which they can produce, and the other party has none, who are you more likely to believe?

    If only Tucker had written up some notes afterwards he could have called Goff and put him right, and even offered to shown him (instead of Whaleoil).

    But ultimately Goff’s outrageous behaviour in mouthing off to the media instead of contacting Tucker first to clarify the matter is sufficient to say he is totally unworthy of being a politician.

    The shame is he will do a “Helen Clark” after the election and cause an expensive By-Election.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. the deity formerly known as nigel6888 (852 comments) says:

    Hmm. My reading:

    The first comment by Dr Tucker – that he “flicked” the issue past Mr Goff, was clearly a senior public servant trying to give Mr G some wriggle room to escape his first set of bullshit allegations.

    Goff, demonstrating once again his high standard of personal integrity doubled down on his crap, believing that the conventions of secrecy meant that he would never be caught out, because Dr T could not respond.

    Sadly Dr T is smarter that Mr G, and has convincingly PWNED him (I believe this is the technical term).

    So once again, Goff has demonstrated he isn’t ready to play in the big league. Sad really, cos Phil the person is a nice bloke, but Phil the senior politician is really just a bit of a … Shitting on bureacrats to cover their own traces was one of the less attractive features of the Clark regime, shame her successors would continue the tradition.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. mikenmild (11,777 comments) says:

    Yes, but I’m afraid to say that any such notes would be dismissed by Goff as a fabrication. After all, once you’ve accused someone of lying, accusing them of making false records would be nothing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. the deity formerly known as nigel6888 (852 comments) says:

    Chris 2. The second note is Dr T’s filenote write up of the meeting with Mr Goff.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. the deity formerly known as nigel6888 (852 comments) says:

    True Mike, but to accuse the Director of the SIS of lying is a constitutional matter, is Mr Goff saying he has no confidence in Dr Tucker’s ability to perform his duties. That is a most serious claim, that I expect the GG would have to take very seriously and investigate.

    Of course Mr Goff isnt saying that is he? Because if he was, he would be committing perjury. Is lying an impeachable offence in NZ I wonder?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Paul Marsden (999 comments) says:

    the deity formerly known as nigel6888 (790) Says:

    August 4th, 2011 at 8:43 pm
    Hmm. My reading:

    The first comment by Dr Tucker – that he “flicked” the issue past Mr Goff, was clearly a senior public servant trying to give Mr G some wriggle room to escape his first set of bullshit allegations”

    Exactly the way I read it, and what I would have done had I been Tucker. Very diplomatic, but Goff missed his cue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. RF (1,454 comments) says:

    If goof was a horse with a broken leg I would not be spending money on vet fees.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Inventory2 (10,443 comments) says:

    Credit where it’s due; this is Cameron Slater’s Greatest Hit!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. fatboy slim (77 comments) says:

    ‘Is lying an impeachable offence in NZ I wonder?’

    Every NZ politician tells lies that are always without consequences. It’s the mandate of the socialist gravy train that ALL that work in the dishonest govt inertia are above the law, just ask Miss Clark,Turncoat Key, etc…etc…etc…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Paul Marsden (999 comments) says:

    Actually, the only way out now for Goff if he wants to salvage a vestibule of respect, is to resign as leader and as a politician, on medical grounds. That way at least, he will garner some public sympathy and leave parliament with some reputation in tact.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Pete George (23,687 comments) says:

    The first comment by Dr Tucker – that he “flicked” the issue past Mr Goff, was clearly a senior public servant trying to give Mr G some wriggle room to escape his first set of bullshit allegations”

    Exactly the way I read it, and what I would have done had I been Tucker. Very diplomatic, but Goff missed his cue.

    That’s how it always looked to me too, either Goff didn’t recognise the cue (with his political experience?) or he chose to play his own game, which has backfired. Except not much overall has changed except Labour may have lost a few more poll points.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. mikenmild (11,777 comments) says:

    nigel

    These are Goff’s reported comments:
    “I was not shown that document. I never read that document. Warren Tucker is wrong.”

    “He may have brought the document to the meeting but he never showed it to me. Mr Tucker acknowledges that I was never briefed on or shown two other documents the SIS compiled on the issue of the Israeli backpackers.

    “He has since shown me the first document and I know I have never seen it before. He has also told me in writing that the NZ SIS does not hold any acknowledgement from me as having read or received the document.

    “I was never ‘briefed’ by the SIS. When asked to explain, Warren Tucker says he ‘flicked’ over the issue during a regular meeting with me but ‘didn’t dwell on it’. He says he probably suggested to me that it was not significant. That is not a briefing or a discussion.

    “As Minister of Foreign Affairs during the Mossad incident in 2004, I would have had a keen interest in any new allegations and remembered any briefing clearly.

    “I will not stand by and have my credibility questioned over this issue.”

    He has also said he will no longer meet Tucker without an independent person being present. That will be difficult, given the SIS’s statutory obligation to brief the Leader of the Opposition.

    Goff’s meaning could not be clearer. There is no sanction available to punish Goff if he is indeed lying – it’s not perjury and he holds no office that can be impeached.

    Heaven knows what Dr Tucker would have to say to his Minister. It’s not inconceivable that he would feel compelled to resign, as he is now in an impossible position.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. bhudson (4,741 comments) says:

    “Actually, the only way out now for Goff if he wants to salvage a vestibule of respect, is to resign as leader and as a politician, on medical grounds.”

    Wasn’t there a case in recent history where a NZ politician wrote a letter, placed it in parliamentary press gallery pigeon holes, denied authorship, got outed, then went on leave on “medical grounds”

    Does the wheel turn full circle for someone?

    Goodbye pork pie?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Pete George (23,687 comments) says:

    Yeah Paul, that would be the best solution but Labour haven’t been getting their solutions right for a while, least of all Goff. I think he’s probably seriously stressed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. simo (151 comments) says:

    I think you need to read between the lines here. Phil Goff is strutting around with a couple of hand grenades in his jacket with the pins half pulled. His intention is to be heard above all else, which means he doesn’t care what the consequences of his actions are. That can only be the behaviour of dead man walking – he wants to take as many of the other numpties with him from the constituent and list seats when he pulls the pin on November. “If ya want me gone, it’s going to cost ya”. It will be a blood bath and probably the worse result in Labour’s history. The 70’s generation’s final act of revenge, Clark will be back at Xmas to finish him off.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. bhudson (4,741 comments) says:

    mikey,

    Does Grant pay you for this acute analysis, or do you just personally believe he would make a better leader?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Johnboy (17,018 comments) says:

    “I want you to listen to me. I’m going to say this again: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never. These allegations are false. And I need to go back to work for the American people.”

    All the same socialists really. Lie through their teeth!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. valeriusterminus (243 comments) says:

    So Tucker’s self validation is meant to be credible?
    And Fairfax was denied similar OIA??
    Just becomes more compelling in reason that Fairfax’s “unprecedented system failure” is just a question of STUXNET type retribution.

    Self validation is the New Right – Yeah!

    Isn’t Tucker the prefered domain of dogs?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. reid (16,634 comments) says:

    Pretty good trawling by Cameron Slater, and some political point scoring, but it is not the damning evidence that some would presume it to be.

    I’m afraid it is, fooman. Whether or not the media cover this, Goff just lost a few more thinking lefties who’ve just headed off to the Greens.

    Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.

    And all he did was not apologise when he discovered he’d shot his mouth off. Why is that, why did he do that or rather, not do that, apologise and withdraw, that is when he was discovered.

    That’s the point the thinking person picks up on, what sort of character has this PM candidate got, that he doesn’t do that, even when he had the chance?

    What does that say about his innate sense of strategy and skill in an arena he’s been in, all his working life? What precisely, did he think was going to happen? Why did he think that the notes he knew existed on it for he’d read them, wouldn’t surface one way or the other? What was this PM candidate thinking, when he determined he wouldn’t back down, he couldn’t admit he was wrong, he never has before and he’s not going to start now.

    He’s not even fit to mow my lawns. I fear he’d somehow injure himself so personally, I wouldn’t even hire him to do that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Pete George (23,687 comments) says:

    valeriusterminus – canine canapes are more on Goff’s menu politically.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Elaycee (4,410 comments) says:

    “Heaven knows what Dr Tucker would have to say to his Minister. It’s not inconceivable that he would feel compelled to resign, as he is now in an impossible position.”

    What bollocks. Tucker has to only have the confidence of the one person that counts – the PM. Tucker hasn’t lied – but it is patently obvious that Goff has [or his memory is stuffed]. If anyone should resign it is Goff. In fact, based on this alone, Tucker has been totally vindicated.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. mikenmild (11,777 comments) says:

    Elaycee

    You misunderstand the point. I’m not suggesting Tucker has done anything wrong. If Tucker is not swiftly backed to the hilt, he is in an impossible position. He can’t defend himself and he can have no relationship with the Leader of the Opposition, whom he is obliged by law to brief. I think Goff is ion the wrong, but this needs a swift public resolution. Probably an inquiry is the only way out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Johnboy (17,018 comments) says:

    You would think that thirty years of politics would be enough for someone to realise that he is a dead man walking.

    The sense of entitlement is obviously stronger than the force of reason.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. valeriusterminus (243 comments) says:

    And Phil shook the hand of Yasser (PBUH) – so where does that put M. Goff in the scale of derision of Herr Tucker?
    “Flick over” – To the Left or Right – Yeah! Not just the hairstyle.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Inventory2 (10,443 comments) says:

    @ Johnboy (9.08pm) – so what Phil Goff is saying then is this:

    I did not have sexual relations with that briefing paper

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Johnboy (17,018 comments) says:

    Not only that IV2 but he never even met the briefing paper in question and if he did he never read it, well not intimately anyway! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. ross (1,437 comments) says:

    Tucker’s covering letter to Slater says that the SIS “does not hold any acknowledgement by the Leader of the Opposition having read or received the documents”. That ties up broadly with what Goff said. Where are the handwritten notes of the meeting? When, in 2001, the then Justice Minister, Phil Goff, met Sir Thomas Eichelbaum to discuss the ministerial inquiry into the Peter Ellis case, Justice Ministry officials wrote up notes of that meeting. But no notes here? That’s surprising.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Paul Marsden (999 comments) says:

    All Hail-the-Whale. An intelligent, true compatriot… Fearless protector of democracy…. Advocate for the underdog…Vestibule of common sense (mostly). NZ is a far better place for people like him in it. Good on ya mate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Chris2 (770 comments) says:

    mikenmild at 9:02pm – your quotes from Goff are interesting. In particular his claim he never saw a briefing note.

    What could lend support to his claim is that when you look at pages 3 & 4, which relate to Tuckers two meetings with Goff, there are several redacted (obliterated) lines that end in “briefing note”. But when it comes to the Israeli investigation, the term “briefing note” does not appear alongside.

    Whilst we known from page 5 is that there existed a briefing note pre-dating these two meetings, is it possible this note was never shown to Goff?

    How else to account for the missing term “Briefing note” when it appeared alongside other (obliterated) topics of discussion, but does not appear alongside the Israeli topic of discussion ???

    Also, by way of a digression, it is interesting that the words before “investigation into Israeli nationals in Christchurch” have been hidden, twice. What could those words be?? One can not help wonder that the hidden words relate to an investigation NOT conducted by the SIS, but rather by some other (foreign?)agency. Why else hide the words if they were something like “SIS investigation into Israeli nationals in Christchurch”, or Police investigation …. ???? Whose investigation was this?????

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Elaycee (4,410 comments) says:

    milkmilo: Goff should resign. His credibility is zero.

    Tucker (who was appointed by dear leader) has no reason at all to fib – why should he? What would he have to gain?

    Nothing.

    Goff has been caught with his pants down and his arse has been spanked by the Whale.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. valeriusterminus (243 comments) says:

    Yeah sorry PeteG – it was a cheap and obvious one

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Andrei (2,668 comments) says:

    Ross says

    But no notes here? That’s surprising.

    These are those notes plus a briefing paper. What the statement you are misreading says is that Phil Goff has not signed them acknowledging that he has read them.

    But to believe that he has not read them means you have to believe that Mr Tucker is deliberately lying, which you a free to do but most people do not

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. ross (1,437 comments) says:

    Andrei,

    There are no handwritten notes despite the fact that some should’ve been taken.

    “you have to believe Mr Tucker is deliberately lying.” Well, you’ seem to be assuming that Goff is deliberately lying. Why would he do so when this issue was dead and buried? I think someone is mistaken, not deliberately lying.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. ross (1,437 comments) says:

    > Tucker (who was appointed by dear leader) has no reason at all to fib

    That may or may not be correct, but it ignores the possibility that he has his facts wrong. Public servants do make mistakes…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. RightNow (7,013 comments) says:

    Goff seems to be going all in. But it’s not impossible that he is actually making a clever play to bring down Key through Tucker.
    Improbable though.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Nookin (3,471 comments) says:

    The scene – a sound proof dungeon 30 metres below the beehive

    Dr Tucker: Mr Goof, this is top secret, it concerns events following the Christchurch earthquake…
    Fill Goof: Earthquake? There’s been an earthquake? Why wasn’t I told? I have just about had it with John Key. He tells me nothing!

    Enter Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones with memory erasing weaponry…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. valeriusterminus (243 comments) says:

    Self Validation – is not SalVation

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. the deity formerly known as nigel6888 (852 comments) says:

    hmm

    Ok Mike, so who do you want to trust, a career specialist like Dr Tucker who has the confidence of everyone he has ever worked with, or Phil Goff who has history of misusing confidential briefings for political ends (the US briefing notes that Wikileaks demonstrated he had lied about)?

    Not a terrlbly difficult call really is it?

    Like you however, I am disappointed in Mr Goff’s performance, it makes Dr Tucker’s role very difficult having the Leader of her Majesty’s loyal opposition publically denigrating a senior public servant because he (the leader) is unable to admit he got it wrong (again).

    Fortunately the upcoming election gives us all the opportunity to demonstrate our confidence in Mr Goff’s leadership abilities, or at least it will until he gets rolled sometime in the next fortnight.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. valeriusterminus (243 comments) says:

    So why would Tucker “Flick over” this issue when as a resquitely informed and intelligent man he would know that Phil Goff has a pertinent and historical interest in such matters?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Nookin (3,471 comments) says:

    Public servants do make mistakes..””

    A mistake is excusable. A detailed record of a briefing that allegedly did not take place is not a mistake. Goff he left no room for doubt. Although he denies saying that Tucker is lying (just “wrong”) he directly contradicts a number of statements made by Tucker and then says he wont attend another briefing without a corroborative witness. Goff is accusing Tucker of dishonesty. End of story.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. bhudson (4,741 comments) says:

    “So why would Tucker “Flick over” this issue when as a resquitely informed and intelligent man he would know that Phil Goff has a pertinent and historical interest in such matters?”

    valeriusterminus,

    Why would a leader of the opposition claim that an intelligent man would “flick over” pertinent matters with historical interest (particularly when the annotations show those matters were conveyed to said ‘leader’)?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. the deity formerly known as nigel6888 (852 comments) says:

    Hence my point Nookin, the leader of Her Majesty’s loyal opposition has announce that he no longer has confidence in the integrity of the Director of the SIS. This is now a Constitutional matter, and if Mr Goff is lying, he deserves to be accountable.

    Given that Dr T has no particular axe to grind, gains nothing from lying, and has now released ample evidence that Mr Goff was in fact appropriately briefed, it is time for Mr Goff to make a formal complaint or to grovel.

    Doubling down, changing the subject, STFU or running away (traditional political responsese to being caught pants down) are no longer appropriate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. the deity formerly known as nigel6888 (852 comments) says:

    bhudson, perhaps because a Gentleman provides his political masters with an escape route from a mistaken memory?

    Of course why the aforementioned political leader would fail to take the cue, is entirely their judgement. Perhaps Mr Goff was busy dyeing his hair that day and missed the signficance of the briefing? or of the subsequent two further briefings…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Paul Marsden (999 comments) says:

    Isn’t Tucker constitutionally bound by what he can say and the documents he can put in the public domain? (similar constraints to a Judge perhaps?) I think Tucker is only releasing a morsel of info, just enough so that he can at least defend himself the best he can, since Goff has very seriously impugned his integrity. As a very senior bureaucrat, the situation is untenable and something in this saga will have to give. Goff or Tucker?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. ross (1,437 comments) says:

    > (particularly when the annotations show those matters were conveyed to said ‘leader’)

    So you agree they could’ve been flicked over? But where are the handwritten notes that presumably were taken?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Chris2 (770 comments) says:

    Paul Marsden – the SIS Director is not legally constrained in any way about what he can release. The PM is Minister IN CHARGE of the SIS, not Minister OF the SIS.

    The SIS Act is quite explicit in saying politicians can not interfere with its investigations.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. ross (1,437 comments) says:

    > I think Tucker is only releasing a morsel of info…

    I suspect that is true…one wonders why he doesn’t release all the relevant info. Goff has asked him to do just that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. valeriusterminus (243 comments) says:

    That is the claimed comment from Tucker by Goff

    ”The head of the Security Intelligence Service said he flicked the issue past me and said there wasn’t much to it,” Goff said.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/5337614/Israeli-spy-claims-Goff-dismisses-PMs-excuse

    We await Tuckers denial of this comment to Goff – or did I miss it?

    The OIA document (denied Fairfax) amounts to subsequent “self validation” – not a denial of the comment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. reid (16,634 comments) says:

    the leader of Her Majesty’s loyal opposition has announce that he no longer has confidence in the integrity of the Director of the SIS. This is now a Constitutional matter

    Good point Nigel. Apparently Phil is constitutionally required to resign as LOP, a situation brought about entirely of and by, his own hand.

    I’m not sure this was a good move, for the polls.

    We await Tuckers denial of this comment to Goff – or did I miss it?

    Tucker can’t and won’t comment not only cause of security but cause he’s a civil servant. SOP.

    Luckily he was forced by legislation to release the redacted evidence.

    Which Phil would have known about.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Paul Marsden (999 comments) says:

    “Luckily he was forced by legislation to release the redacted evidence”

    I think I heard his sigh of relief.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. bhudson (4,741 comments) says:

    ross/ valerie,

    Tucker does not have to respond to Goff’s assertions at all.

    Ross, I apologise for your ignorance, but the head of the SIS does not take minutes of the briefings to the PM or leader of the opposition – that is not the nature of those meetings or discussions. There were no handwritten notes to be minuted.

    Keep digging lads. You can be safe in the knowledge that the truth will drive right over the top of you without crushing your beliefs

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. ross (1,437 comments) says:

    > Tucker can’t and won’t comment not only cause of security but cause he’s a civil servant.

    Hmmm what security? Goff is a Mossad agent? And you’re forgetting that Tucker has already publicly commented.

    > Luckily he was forced by legislation to release the redacted evidence.

    So why not release the “evidence” when asked to do so by Fairfax? Why not release all the evidence now, as Goff has asked him to do?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. reid (16,634 comments) says:

    Yes Paul, the redaction has its humour, doesn’t it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. valeriusterminus (243 comments) says:

    All Warren needs to say is “I did (or did not) make that comment to Phil” – there are no National Security issues there as the “comment” is already public.

    Reid – just to clarify – this is Warrens comment to Phil – subsequent to the briefing.

    Reid – you got any ideas why Whale was allowed the OIA and Faifax not?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. ross (1,437 comments) says:

    > the head of the SIS does not take minutes of the briefings to the PM or leader of the opposition

    Really? So we don’t know what the head of the SIS said to Goff during their meeting…so why do you pretend to know what went on?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. reid (16,634 comments) says:

    And you’re forgetting that Tucker has already publicly commented.

    ross Tucker is under the State Services Commissioner apparently they have rules re: interacting through media with their political masters: go figure.

    Tucker was required to release that material under the OIA. If you don’t like those rules, I can’t help.

    Reid – you got any ideas why Whale was allowed the OIA and Faifax not?

    Fairfax’s lawyers weren’t as bright as Cameron Slater when they worded their request?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. bhudson (4,741 comments) says:

    ross,

    I don’t. But then I am not the one who has claimed that something did not happen and then challenged the other participants in an unminuted meeting to prove the opposite.

    No. That was Phil, wasn’t it? Phil the “that didn’t happen”, “No, it didn’t happen that way”, “No, it wasn’t real”, “No, not to my satisfaction” Goff?

    That Phil?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. valeriusterminus (243 comments) says:

    Reid – you got any ideas why Whale was allowed the OIA and Faifax not?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. gravedodger (1,573 comments) says:

    @ RF 8 51, ‘If Goff was a horse with a broken Leg I wouldn’e be incurring vet fees”.

    In my book if goff was a healthy horse I would shoot it.
    Too old to breed too slow to run and feed is bloody expensive

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. valeriusterminus (243 comments) says:

    Cos the OIA hasn’t been appealed yet – so is currently only at the Dept’s self validating discretion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. niggly (831 comments) says:

    I’m concerned that Goff has said he no longer has confidence in the integrity of the Director of the SIS & that Goff will only meet with him in the future with a 3rd party witness etc.

    Remarkably this is the same modus operandi that Helen was renown for – to denigrate the credibility of the person in question and to sow the seeds in the public mind that the person in question isn’t fit for the job.

    History is repeating, sadly.

    The question then is, is Goff imitating Helen and trying desperately to bluff his way out of this?

    Or is Goff being briefed by, eg the sisterhood to undertake this modus operandi (although I doubt this, not unless they or someone is wanting to force into Goff resigning (i.e. stepping down), sooner rather than later)?

    The other question is, why is Goff taking on the head of the country’s spy service in this manner? Now to do so one would expect Goff to have a watertight case or is rather foolish. Judging by Goff’s usual political modus operandi (and his performance on TV1 news tonight – keeping to a particular line and not deviating when asked awkward questions) I’d be thinking it is the latter.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. reid (16,634 comments) says:

    Reid – you got any ideas why Whale was allowed the OIA and Faifax not?

    I just told you above:

    “Fairfax’s lawyers weren’t as bright as Cameron Slater when they worded their request?”

    Cam has posted his request verbatim. Ask for Fairfax’s and compare.

    I seriously doubt the SIS would play cheap forseeably easily exposed chicanery in the public arena or for that matter ever at all.

    If you really think there’s something in what you seem to driving toward, then, well, er,

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. valeriusterminus (243 comments) says:

    Reid
    Please endeavour to provide validation for the claim;

    “have rules re: interacting through media with their political masters”

    I’m sure he does – but what specifically prohibits such affirmation or denial on this public discourse.

    Did you really say “masters” ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. reid (16,634 comments) says:

    Apparently civil servants consider politicians their masters as in, directors.

    For some reason the senior civil servants who head and advise on a frequent basis their respective Ministers seem to believe in not blabbing everything to everyone all of the time.

    That just seems to be the way it is, for all of em.

    Did you really say “masters” ?

    Did you really say “masters?” would have been better vm. I just really hate poor typography, that’s all. Yes, I did BTW.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. tvb (4,518 comments) says:

    When Tucker said he “flicked” it past [Goff], he was offering Goff a way out. But noooo, Goff had to continue with the line he was never briefed. Goff is an idiot, he either a liar or he is too stupid to be a Prime Minister.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. valeriusterminus (243 comments) says:

    The question has more weight than the word – asserted by the “typography” !

    Show me the rule about “blabbing”
    Remember this comment (flicked) was not in the context of the briefing – but in the subsequent “please explain”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    Gone by lunch time.

    This, with Sepuloni, and the student president twat… are all Labour politicians moronic?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Pete George (23,687 comments) says:

    The Dominion Post received the reports late yesterday. An accompanying letter from Dr Tucker said: “Your request differs from Mr Slater’s in that you have also requested reports prepared for the prime minister.”

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/5392176/Goff-lashes-out-at-SIS-boss-over-Israeli-briefing

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. black paul (120 comments) says:

    Nothing visible in those documents suggests that the issues discussed with or questions raised by the LOP have any relation to the investigation of the Israeli nationals.

    Those issues discussed and questions raised could relate to ANY of the redacted items on the list. We just can’t tell.

    What we do have is a handwritten note on the file with the date changed. Not exactly helpful either way.

    This thread is a lot of wild dancing with no music.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. slightlyrighty (2,475 comments) says:

    All we seem to get from Goff is variations of “I know nothing”

    Phil Goff is Sgt. Schultz and I claim my free DVD box set of Hogan’s Heroes!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Elaycee (4,410 comments) says:

    @tvb – agree.

    Phil Goff was on NewstalkZB this morning [Mike Hosking] and was asked about the statement that Tucker had “flicked it past him”…

    Goff confirmed that he met with Tucker [Goff said it was a ‘please explain’ meeting] and that they AGREED for Goff to use this terminology in a statement. Really? So Goff has gone from a ‘never seen it’ to agreeing that it may have been ‘flicked past’ him – and yet he would still have us believe that he was never briefed on the subject?

    Each time he opens his mouth, he just digs the hole deeper and deeper.

    Time to pack the bongos and leave, Phil.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. ross (1,437 comments) says:

    LAC,

    Well, you would say that. If Key was raising the same issues, you’d no doubt be supportive of him.

    ‘Flicked past’ him is consistent with Goff not seeing any relevant documents. We don’t know how long Tucker spent on the briefing. It may have been very brief. Bearing in mind that there were several other matters included in the briefing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Manolo (14,082 comments) says:

    We can add Goff to the list of beasts harpooned by Whale Oil. Well done, Cameron.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. KevinH (1,236 comments) says:

    Not much of a file Cameron got, a lot about nothing really. Cameron would not be overly surprised that the SIS would send him the junk and not the juicy bit’s amassed in the investigation.
    Anyone with an interest in this area would know what the processes are in the investigation, who is who, where and why. Certainly there are area’s of interest, and possibilities, but that would be confidential.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote