Bishop ChrisCHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much Mr Speaker. The crocodile tears being cried by the Government are ludicrous and shameful. Grant Robertson spent five minutes of his contribution on this shameful episode—tawdry episode—in New Zealand's constitutional and political history going on about how it was wrong for the National Party to mention in question time staff members in the then Prime Minister's office who made in his words a mistake. He said—I can't believe he actually said this but this is what he said—that it was the worst thing he's ever heard in Parliament. Well Grant Robertson should look in a mirror because when he was in Opposition sitting as he said where I am sitting today as a senior member of the Labour Opposition it was him and his mates in Opposition who repeatedly over and over again named members of the National Government staff from 2008 to 2017. I'm not going to make the mistakes that he did at that time which was to trawl through the various senior advisers and chief advisers to Ministers but a cursory glance at Hansard will reveal that on more than one occasion—in fact repeated occasions—Grant Robertson and other members of the Opposition named staff members in Parliament over and over again. In fact in relation to the chief of staff of the then Prime Minister he was dragged to the Privileges Committee by Labour for questioning. So not only was he named in Parliament but he was dragged to the Privileges Committee.I remember being a junior staff member—and I'm loathe to bring myself into it but I may as well given we're here—working for the Hon Gerry Brownlee looking up at question time one day and being shocked to discover Charles Chauvel—the departure of whom from this House we do not lament; both Labour and National I suspect—making mention of something that I had put on Facebook on my personal Facebook account. Charles Chauvel got up in Parliament and asked the Hon Gerry Brownlee about something that I had put on my personal Facebook account and held him to account for that. And then he issued a press release about something that I had done as a junior 23-year-old staff member on my personal Facebook account. So Labour can come down here and say to the National Party Oh you can't ask questions about what senior staff in the Prime Minister's office do."—to quote Grant Robertson it's the worst thing he's ever seen in Parliament. Well that is just ludicrous. The reason it's ludicrous is firstly the only people who named the relevant people that we're talking about were the Government. We've never mentioned their names; it was the chief press secretary—who you might note I'm not naming—to the Prime Minister who voluntarily came down and disclosed that information on the tiles or at least a bit earlier before on the way to the House. We've never named them. But is it legitimate to ask questions about what happened in relation to these matters? Of course it is—of course it is—because we are dealing with serious matters here. We're not naming their names but it is important to get to the bottom of what happened. Ministers are responsible for their staff in the exercise of their ministerial responsibilities; that is important and it goes to culture. We're not dealing with junior staff here; we're talking about the deputy chief of staff to the Prime Minister—the deputy chief of staff—and it goes to the culture that is created in the prime ministerial office—the former Prime Minister: in this case the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern. So these questions are well within scope—they are well within scope.What was also in scope was the email that was not released and I think we all agree on that. And there's a bit of a question that we need to get to the bottom of and there needs to be an inquiry into as to why it was not released because here's what happened—and it's worth recounting the facts. Stuart Nash sits in Cabinet and Cabinet makes decisions in relation to commercial rent relief and other members have canvassed exactly what happened there and David Parker's just referred to it. Controversial issue interesting issue being dealt with at the time. Stuart Nash then emails a blow-by-blow account of what happened in Cabinet to someone outside of Cabinet. Now that's bad in and of itself—that is a gross breach of the Cabinet Manual I think everyone agrees on that. What makes it worse is that the people he emailed were donors to him and to the Labour Party. Double error double mistake and that is ultimately why he has been sacked as a Minister. What has been revealed in the last 24 hours or so is that the Prime Minister's office (PMO) knew about that email. And the reason they knew about that email is because when an Official Information Act request came in from Newsroom a year or so later specifically naming the donors—it wasn't a kind of fishing expedition a bit of a trawl with huge quantities of information—it was quite specific quite a specific request from Newsroom. It comes in and Stuart Nash's office sits down there and goes "Righty-o what have we got here?" And at some point this email gets identified and at some point they decide better check with the PMO about this. First red flag. And not only did they consult the PMO once not twice but thrice—three times there was consultation. This is all on the record. This has all been voluntarily disclosed by the Prime Minister's office. Three times they consult the Prime Minister's office and in the end the email is not released.Now is it within the scope of the request? Well I've seen the request now and I've seen the email and it says basically: all correspondence from Minister Nash with donors to Mr Nash and then names the 19 people. Now—Chris Penk: Couldn't be clearer.CHRIS BISHOP: It could not be clearer—that's right Mr Penk—it could not be clearer. Mr Nash's email to his donors specifically says "Here's what happened in Cabinet." The only way he could know about that is because he was a Cabinet Minister. So the idea that he did this in his parliamentary capacity is frankly laughable. It is a ludicrous proposition. And what we now know again—this is all voluntarily disclosed by the Prime Minister's office. Well done. Bit late but well done. What we now know is that the Ombudsman's office only saw a redacted copy of the email—so it was redacted. So presumably it was sent to the Ombudsman—because the complaint was made—who is the sort of arbiter of this and presumably they said that the information was actually redacted and I have enough respect for the Ombudsmen's office to know that if in fact Mr Boshier and his staff had seen that they would have said "Um no hang on a minute; excuse me office of Mr Nash—unnamed public servant." An email to a donor that goes through a blow-by-blow account of what specific Ministers said in Cabinet that only you and the 19 other members of the Cabinet—plus the Cabinet secretary I guess so the 21 people in the room—could know about; that is ministerial correspondence. It doesn't get much clearer. You know it is harder to think of an example of something done in your ministerial capacity than information that you relay to someone outside the Cabinet that only you know about because you're a Minister. It's a slam dunk. It's an open and shut case. And that information was redacted. And so the Ombudsman presumably said "Oh well it's out of scope. All good fair enough move on." Now we get to the nub of the issue. What went on between Mr Nash's office and the Prime Minister's office? And it goes to culture because the staff that saw the email must have known that it was within scope and they must have known that it should have been disclosed and they must have known it had a stench about it. And they should have gone up the food chain and said "Hang on a minute something's going on here—something is going on here." So there is an ethical hole at the heart of this Government. There's been a breach of the Cabinet Manual. There has been a potential breach of the Official Information Act 1982 and there has certainly been a breach of the precepts of good government. That is just absolutely fundamental. And frankly we in the National Opposition would far rather be talking about things like education and infrastructure and the cost of living. We would. No one actually comes to Parliament to prosecute issues like we are talking about today. But at some level you have to make a stand. Like we did on the entrenchment stuff at the end of last year; at some level you have to stand up for good government in this country. This is a debating chamber which holds the executive to account. We want to talk about policy. We want to talk about the things we want to do to take New Zealand forward. But actually when push comes to shove you have to stand up for principle. You have to stand up for what matters. You have to stand up for good government and the rule of law and ministerial accountability. Stuart Nash should have gone as a Minister and he has gone. But there are unanswered questions about exactly what went on here and we are not going to let this drop."