Robertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRobertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 13 June 2013. Volume:691;Page:11123. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]3.GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour)to thePrime Minister: On what date did his Chief of Staff inform him that “there were issues of Ministers having to comply” with regard to the Henry Report and did his Chief of Staff tell him that the Minister in question was Hon Peter Dunne?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House)on behalf of thePrime Minister: The Prime Minister’s chief of staff had a brief conversation with him on Wednesday 29 May in which he told the Prime Minister he planned to reiterate on the Prime Minister’s behalf an expectation that Ministers comply with Mr Henry’s inquiry. He also told the Prime Minister that there was an issue around Mr Dunne making some emails available to the inquiry.Grant Robertson: Why then did he tell the House on 5 June that he had no details about the inquiry when the chief of staff had been informing him about it a week earlier?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The Prime Minister had no details of the inquiry. He had a briefing from his chief of staff who of course had also had discussions with Mr Dunne’s chief of staff and was therefore aware of the issue.Grant Robertson: Why at that point having received that briefing on 29 May did the Prime Minister not directly ask Mr Dunne to comply with the inquiry?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The Prime Minister does not consider a conversation held briefly with his chief of staff to be a briefing. It was a notification. It was—[Interruption ]Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the Minister please finish his answer.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The Prime Minister’s chief of staff notified him of his intention to reiterate with all Ministers that there was an expectation they would comply with the requirements of the inquiry.Grant Robertson: When his chief of staff told him that one of his Ministers—and named that Minister Peter Dunne—was not complying with an inquiry into the leak of a highly sensitive document why did he not directly ask Mr Dunne to comply with the inquiry?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The Prime Minister was notified that there was an issue around some emails and he agreed with the chief of staff that he should reiterate with all Ministers that they should comply with the inquiry.Grant Robertson: Is it not the case that the reason he did not ask Mr Dunne to comply with the inquiry is that he did not want the inquiry to find that one of his Ministers directly leaked the report?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: No because the inquiry was under way. There was no point in trying to pre-empt what a result of the inquiry should be. It was appropriate that all Ministers were re-informed that the expectation was they would comply. It was not until the report was made that it was evident that Mr Dunne had not complied.Grant Robertson: Why in numerous interviews and in questions in this House did the Prime Minister not give MPs or members of the public the full story about what he knew about his Minister Peter Dunne not complying with the inquiry?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Because it was not evident until the inquiry document was released that there had been a lack of compliance. When the Prime Minister was told by his chief of staff he agreed with his chief of staff that he should reiterate the expectation that all Ministers should comply. But the non-compliance was not known until the report was released.Grant Robertson: How can that answer be correct when his chief of staff told him on 29 May that Peter Dunne was not complying with the inquiry?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: It is not reasonable for that member to take the words I used—in saying there was some issue around the release of emails with Mr Dunne—as meaning that the Prime Minister knew he was not releasing emails. It is quite untrue.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why is the Prime Minister prepared to put out a report that Sir Bruce Ferguson says was sanitised that did not contain all the information he saw and further where the classified information that was highly sensitive was removed out of the original report then put into the appendices and then never released? Why is the Prime Minister prepared to tolerate that if he is not engaged in a cover-up?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Because the report in question was prepared for public release. It did not carry classified information and neither should it.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is very clear that my question refers to the original report that Sir Bruce Ferguson saw he being the formerhead of the Government Communications Security Bureau and a man of serious significance in this matter. It is that original report that I am talking about and the Minister speaking for the Prime Minister is seeking to duck the question.Mr SPEAKER: No on this occasion the Minster answering on behalf of the Prime Minister has addressed the question adequately in my opinion.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Again I raise with you this idea of a subjective judgment where you depart from the standard practice of saying that you believe the Minister has answered the question. That may be at variance with other people’s views but we have to accept that because you are the Speaker. But when you start putting a subjective judgment on it like “very adequately” or “adequately” when demonstrably it is not then you are going to get disorder in this House and rightly so.Mr SPEAKER: No. The trouble with the potential for disorder in the House is the member’s persistence in raising points of order when he does not get an answer that satisfies the member. My job here is to determine whether the Minister—in this case the Minister answering on behalf of the Prime Minister—has adequately addressed the question in my opinion. That is my job and I have so ruled. If the member continues to raise points of order questioning a decision I have made that in itself then leads to disorder in this House.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Will the Government be holding an investigation into first the Government Communications Security Bureau morale review leak; second the Government Communications Security Bureau personnel appointment leak; and third the Intelligence and Security Committee proceedings leak; if not why not?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I am not able to answer that question.Grant Robertson: Did his chief of staff have any further conversations with him after 29 May and before 5 June about progress with the Henry report?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Depending on the day on which the report was received by the Prime Minister which was 5 June then the answer would be no.