Norman Russel: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeNorman Russel: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 31 July 2013. Volume:692;Page:12107. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]4.Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green)to thePrime Minister: Does he take responsibility for the actions of the David Henry inquiry?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):The inquiry reported to the chief executive of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Director of the Government Communications Security Bureau. I had no involvement in it while it was under way which is entirely appropriate. However I did ask for the inquiry to be set up and agreed the terms of reference so I do take responsibility for the inquiry.Dr Russel Norman: Does the Prime Minister then take responsibility for the fact that his inquiry acting under his mandate asked for and received Fairfax journalist Andrea Vance’s building access records?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think we have made it quite clear that in no way was the inquiry set up on a basis to access the records of a journalist.Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was whether he takes responsibility for it. I think that is a pretty straightforward question.Mr SPEAKER: Would the member please repeat the question for the benefit of the Prime Minister.Dr Russel Norman: Does the Prime Minister take responsibility for the fact that his inquiry acting under his mandate asked for and received Fairfax journalist Andrea Vance’s building access records?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No and the reason for that is that the inquiry at no point asked for a journalist’s records either access records or phone records.Grant Robertson: Yes they did.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No it did not. And what has been made quite clear is not only did it not ask for it—because those terms of reference were in the public domain so every member of this House every journalist and every member of the public had the right to see and did see if they chose to what those terms of reference were—but when inappropriate information was sent to the inquiry what ultimately happened of course was that the inquiry itself fully understood its mandate and never accessed that emailed information; in fact it attempted to reject it.Dr Russel Norman: Is the Prime Minister aware that in the answer he just gave he said that the Henry inquiry did not access Andrea Vance’s building access records and does he wish to correct that answer?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: That is not right. What I am saying is that that was not part of the mandate and when I was made aware of that I made it quite clear how strongly I felt in opposition to that.Dr Russel Norman: Given that it was his inquiry established under his authority—and regardless of how he may view the actions of Mr Henry none the less it was under his authority—and that under that inquiry this journalist had her activities monitored her movements around the building monitored will he apologise to Andrea Vance?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have made it quite clear that I find the actions that took place with regard to this totally inappropriate. I made that clear quite some weeks ago. But I also make it quite clear that at no point did the terms of reference indicate that a journalist’s activities were part of this and if they were then the member himself would have said something about it and members of the media would have said something about it. Nobody understood it to include journalists; neither did the inquiry itself because when inappropriate information was sent to it it said “We did not request the second report you attached here i.e. the one showing all calls from the numbers of interest. We are not interested in looking at it.” I am advised that the administrator who got that information never accessed it so it was never accessed by anybody.Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The nub of my question—which I do not believe the Prime Minister addressed—was whether he would apologise for the fact that the Henry inquiry accessed the journalist’s building access records. That is the question.Mr SPEAKER: I accept the point that the member is raising in that the Prime Minister did not directly address whether he would apologise but he gave a very substantial answer as to why he felt because the building access was not part of the terms of reference that he did not have to. I think the member’s question has been adequately addressed.Dr Russel Norman: In light of the email that the Prime Minister has read to us earlier today which described the request from the Henry inquiry which was of a form that it was requesting the telephone records that showed the contact between AndreaVance and Peter Dunne does he therefore take responsibility for the fact that Henry ended up with Vance’s phone logs?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I made it quite clear that there is no way that those phone records should have been sent. Our office was not aware that they had been sent until we saw the information on Friday. In relation to the logs of people moving around the buildings if you go back to looking at the terms of the inquiry it says it “will include reviewing communications and copying equipment and records log books and any other material considered relevant of the persons” or their offices who were likely to have access to the compliance review report. That was read by Mr Henry as likely to be Andrea Vance and so on that basis he did request that. I have made it clear that I think that that is wrong. I do not think he should have asked for that information.David Shearer: Does he take responsibility for the email that he has just tabled?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I take responsibility for establishing the inquiry. I think it was quite important that we got to the bottom of the information. I think it was clear to the inquiry through setting up the mandate of what was part of the rules and what was not. What I do not take responsibility for is that someone in Parliamentary Service decided to send information to the administrator because the administrator of the inquiry never asked for that information. When it was received they did not want to receive it. They made it quite clear. The email proves that quite specifically.Dr Russel Norman: Does the Prime Minister accept—[Interruption ]Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member can start his question.Dr Russel Norman: Does the Prime Minister accept that for a reasonable person receiving the email that he has just tabled and described to us—and accepting his word as an accurate description of that email—and requesting basically information on the contact between Vance and Dunne a reasonable response would be that what the inquiry was after were the phone logs on both sides?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No. What I accept is that this was looking at Ministers or their staff and the contact between those numbers. That is not the point at issue. What was released was that log and that log was completely empty. What was also released and should not have been released to the inquiry was all of the contact made by Andrea Vance’s phone records. That was never requested and should not have been requested.Dr Russel Norman: So will the Prime Minister accept any responsibility for what has been a significant snafu in anyone’s vocabulary and that part of the reason this happened was because the terms of reference that he wrote up were interpreted according to him by Henry as giving Henry the authority to go after Vance both in terms of her building access records—he went after Vance—and then a contractor at Parliamentary Service received an email from the Henry inquiry that they misinterpreted according to the Prime Minister as asking for both sets of logs? That inquiry was established by the Prime Minister—is the Prime Minister not responsible for those actions?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Notwithstanding that that was a speech not a question let me give this answer. No; and the reason for that is quite clear. I think the terms of reference are clear. They are about the activities of Ministers who received the report and their staff. That is quite clear. There is absolutely no question from this email log that it shows that not only did we understand that but the people undertaking the inquiry understood that because they rejected that information. Thirdly if it was so ambiguous if it was so unclear well the member rates himself as the so-called unofficial Leader of the Opposition so why did he not pick it up? If it was so unclear why did every journalist in the building who saw the terms of reference not pick it up? The answer is that it was clear to everyone what we were looking at—Ministers and their staff—and that would be the expectation of any good inquiry.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could the Prime Minister share with the country when exactly he had this glorious though belated epiphany of conscience that suggests that MPs’ and journalists’ phone records have a certain sanctity of privacy as was not the case in September 2007 when he and Mr Dunne demanded I give all of my telephone records over to their jacked-up inquiry?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: You know I do not remember demanding that but I do remember being interested in getting the answers and from memory we are still waiting.David Shearer: Is the Prime Minister seriously saying that contact between Ministers and Andrea Vance includes the Ministers’ calls but not Andrea Vance’s calls?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The email says: “We are interested”—this is actually from the inquiry administrator—“in any contact between the Ministers’ personal landlines and these numbers.” There is nothing in those areas there. That log as it quite clearly shows is empty. The point at question is all the other phone calls that were made.