The former head of Parliamentary Service does not believe he is a scapegoat by resigning from his position in the wake of the inquiry into the failings of the GCSB leak investigation.
Geoff Thorn was questioned by ministers in the Privileges Committee this morning over the handling of the David Henry-led inquiry into who leaked a report into the spy agency to a Fairfax journalist.
He did not want to say whether he was forced to resign.
The committee began the hearing yesterday at which Mr Henry, the Prime Minster’s chief of staff Wayne Eagleson and head of the Department for Prime Minister and Cabinet Andrew Kibblewhite spoke.
Parliamentary Service “mistakenly” handed over the email correspondence between United Future leader Peter Dunne and journalist Andrea Vance. Ms Vance’s phone and swipe card logs were also handed over during the inquiry.
Mr Thorn told the committee his resignation was a result of his own failings in not putting processes in place to deal with Mr Henry’s requests for information and the inability to answer parliamentary questions fully and correctly.
“There had been some errors in those answers [to parliamentary questions]. I found out those facts were incorrect and was having difficulty establishing the facts.”
Subsequent reviews of Parliamentary Service processes undertaken by KPMG revealed to him the extensive and ongoing communication between Mr Henry’s inquiry team and his “third tier” staff, he says. He had never met Mr Henry.
“I did not put in the processes I should have put in place - for whatever reason that information was provided. I could have picked up phone and spoke to Mr Henry, but I didn’t do that.”
Mr Thorn says he was working under the assumed authorisation of Mr Eagleson to release the information of ministers to the inquiry, but didn’t have a “high level of comfort” about handing it over.
However, when a request was made for the content of United Future leader Peter Dunne’s emails he decided that was “one step too far”.
“I closed the door on providing information myself and it was up to the inquiry to get it another way.”
The normal process was to go directly to the minister involved to gain their permission to release the information requested, he says.
He was not sure where Mr Henry was going with his inquiry, but he did not want to second-guess the requests that were made during the investigation.
3 News
source: newshub archive
