The SIS report
The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security has reported:
The inquiry found the NZSIS released incomplete, inaccurate and misleading information in response to Mr Slater’s request, and provided some of the same incorrect information to the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister’s Office.
“These errors resulted in misplaced criticism of the then Leader of the Opposition, Hon Phil Goff MP. Mr Goff is owed a formal apology by the Service,” said Ms Gwyn.
Ms Gwyn found no evidence of political partisanship by the NZSIS but did find that the NZSIS failed to take adequate steps to maintain political neutrality.
“Having released inaccurate information that was predictably misinterpreted, the then Director of the Service had a responsibility to take positive steps to correct the interpretation. He failed to do so,” said Ms Gwyn.
Ms Gwyn said she had also investigated allegations, made before and during the course of the inquiry, that NZSIS officers had acted in collusion with Mr Slater or under direction from the Prime Minister or the Prime Minister’s Office. Ms Gwyn said that these allegations were particularly serious and that she had made full use of her statutory powers to investigate them.
“From that thorough investigation, I do not believe that any NZSIS staff member contacted Mr Slater to instigate his OIA request. Nor have I found any collusion or direction between the NZSIS and the Prime Minister or his Office.”
Not Watergate, despite what Russel Norman claims.
Ms Gwyn went to on comment that she had, however, established that a staff member of the Prime Minister’s office had provided unclassified NZSIS information to Mr Slater. However, that information was understood by the Prime Minister’s Office to have been provided for media purposes and there was no breach of confidence towards NZSIS in that disclosure.
“That disclosure did not breach any confidentiality or security obligations owed by those staff to the NZSIS. No classified information was disclosed to Mr Slater.” Said Ms Gwyn.
Basically Jason Ede tipped Cameron Slater off that there was some information worth applying for under the OIA. I’d say parliamentary staff have been tipping people off as to things to apply for since probably the day after the OIA was passed.
It is far to say though that when it comes to material involving a security agency, even if unclassified material, it is not a good look. It would be better for the Government to have just decided themselves to release the material, rather than rely on the OIA.
Also important to stress that while I don’t have a problem with people being advised to apply for things under the OIA (and many in the media may receive such tips also), it is important that all OIA requests are treated equally under the law regardless of who applies. It seems the SIS did not correctly respond to media requests, as they did not regard them as OIA requests. But this is clearly wrong, as you do not have to cite the OIA for a request for information to be treated as an OIA request.
The full report is here.
I should pay tribute to Cheryl Gwyn for the robust nature of her report. It is very thorough and pull no punches. From time to time government institutions do make wrong calls, and what is important is we have a system that can deal with them. I said at the time that I thought her appointment was a good one, and this reports shows it was.