10. Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) Link to this
to the Minister of Foreign Affairs
How many reports from the Combined Threat Assessment Group have been received by his office since his appointment as Minister of Foreign Affairs, and how have those reports been dealt with?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs) Link to this
Since December 2005, 374 Combined Threat Assessment Group reports have been generated. Combined Threat Assessment Group reports are dealt with in the same way as the literally thousands of cables, emails, and other voluminous reports are dealt with. My staff methodically vet the huge amount of material that comes through my office. The material ranges from being extremely sensitive and complex to the more mundane. My staff ensure that the material they deem important and relevant is passed to me. But, equally, they ensure that other, less critical, matters are handled at the appropriate level.
Hon Murray McCully Link to this
Why did the Minister answer a question from me on 16 August as to whether any official from his ministry had communicated with him or his office in any form over the Air New Zealand charters by stating: “To the best of everyone’s recollections, there were no communications to the Minister of Foreign Affairs or to his office.” when emails released yesterday make it clear that such a report was received and receipted by his office?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS Link to this
Mr McCully is on record as saying that I am technically correct. That means I am totally correct. He asked a question and I gave him the right answer, as did Dr Cullen. As the media reported on 17 August, there is not one new fact. No amount of botoxing will give it any life.
Ron MarkI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I know you have given a number of warnings—[ Interruption] This is a point of order, is it not?
Madam SPEAKERIt is a point of order. The member who intervened will leave the Chamber. Members have had so many warnings today.
You heard Dr Nick Smith say across the Chamber that the Minister is telling porkies, which is tantamount to calling him a liar. Is that a parliamentary statement or an unparliamentary statement? Is he to remain in the Chamber?
It is not you who takes objection. By this stage, you must know what the Standing Orders are, Mr Mark. If Mr Peters does not take objection then the matter lies there.
Hon Murray McCully Link to this
Can the Minister now confirm to the House that according to emails released by his office just this morning, the Combined Threat Assessment Group report received by his office was in fact sent there by none other than the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, as part of an internal Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade distribution list; and how does he possibly reconcile that with his earlier denial of receiving any communication from the ministry in any form?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS Link to this
In the same way that Mr McCully was forced to admit on radio last night and this morning that I was technically correct. Now, either one is correct or one is not. But seeing as he has put the issues of honesty, truth, and veracity on the line here, who had the company on the last of the 3½ pages of the bad-debt Adbro deal where the taxpayer bailed out over $1 million to a certain company? Who owned that?
Hon Murray McCully Link to this
Is the Minister seriously asking the House to accept that a report forwarded to him by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, as part of a Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade distribution list, does not constitute a communication in any form from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade; if so, why?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS Link to this
As Dr Cullen has pointed out, the problem was that there was not any communication with the Ministers—neither the Prime Minister, nor him, nor Mr Goff, nor me. That is the fact. That is what he said was “technically correct”. But, then again, seeing that the issue of honesty is in question here, why did someone fail to get admitted to the Bar following law school? What was the reason for that—tell us, Mr McCully; come on?
Hon Murray McCully Link to this
Can the Minister confirm revelations from the emails he released this morning that on 15 August, at approximately 5 p.m., a day before the Minister assured the House that his office had not received any communication from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade in any form, ministry officials delivered a second copy of the Combined Threat Assessment Group report to his office so that the document and the distribution list could be verified by his office, and can he explain why he was still, a day later, denying that he had received any communications from the ministry, when the report had then been delivered twice to the office by the ministry?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS Link to this
As I explained in my personal explanation, on 15 August a Combined Threat Assessment Group report comes in. My official writes back to its origin and says: “Was this ever sent to this office? I want it checked out.” The external office came back with the reply “Yes, in May”, but neither in May nor on the 15th was the document shown to me, until later on, on the 16th, when Mr Murdoch made the explanation that was given to this House. That is the chronology of events. Those are the facts.
Hon Murray McCully Link to this
Does he stand by his statement on Radio New Zealand this morning that a staff member in his office had read the Combined Threat Assessment Group report; if so, how does he reconcile that assertion with the statement in Mr Murdoch’s email, released yesterday, that the report was “ ‘receipted’—ie signed off but not read.”?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS Link to this
Because the staff member, like all the rest of them, read the top of the Combined Threat Assessment Group report and did not read the substance. He thought he would be alerted by the headline of the report. It is a pretty ordinary explanation. That is exactly what happened.
Keith LockeWhat is the Government doing to rectify the abysmal understanding of the Government policy against the war in Iraq, when the emails and documents disclosed show that so many officials gave the green light to our national flag carrier ferrying troops to Iraq—at least 12 officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, officials from the police, from the Security Intelligence Service, from the Defence Force, officials in the offices of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Minister of Defence, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs—and they all got it wrong; what is the Minister doing about it?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS Link to this
The simple fact is that Mr Fyfe of Air New Zealand called Simon Murdoch, the head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, in January and he said he would get back to him because there would be more information. But he got back not to Mr Murdoch but to someone else. I believe the human error and disconnect happened there. To err is human; to forgive divine.
Hon Murray McCully Link to this
I seek the leave of the House to table two documents. First, I seek leave to table a letter signed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr Peters, and received by the Opposition this morning containing the distribution list from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade for the Combined Threat Assessment Group report—
Hon Murray McCully Link to this
Secondly, I seek the leave of the House to table an email that refers to the request for a second copy of the Combined Threat Assessment Group report to go to the office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs—