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: 30 July 2013. Volume:692;Page:12020. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]2.Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green)to thePrime Minister: Did his Chief of Staff Wayne Eagleson advise Parliamentary Service that United Future Leader Hon Peter Dunne had agreed to cooperate with the Henry inquiry and had consented to releasing his electronic phone logs; if so why?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):I am advised that the answer is no.Dr Russel Norman: Why then did the Speaker advise me in an answer to a written question—Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no ministerial responsibility for any answer given by the Speaker of this Parliament.Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question is not about your answer; it is about the David Henry inquiry and Wayne Eagleson.Mr SPEAKER: I accept that. Word it in such a way that the Speaker is not brought into the debate.Dr Russel Norman: Is the Prime Minister aware that his chief of staff wrote an email to Parliamentary Service authorising the release of email data amongst other data from Peter Dunne; if so what authority did his chief of staff have to authorise such a release?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have not actually seen the email but I will accept the member’s word that my chief of staff did that. The authority was the one that was set up when I set up the terms of the inquiry which all Ministers and support staff of the Government would have seen. The terms of the inquiry were quite clear that phone logs and records would be accessed—as actually I am sure that member of Parliament would expect of me when we set up an inquiry; that we actually get to the bottom of the issues. If we do not do that in fact that member is the first person to claim it is a whitewash.Dr Russel Norman: Is the Prime Minister aware that Mr Dunne was in receipt of the report as the leader of the United Future party not as a Minister and that the email logs concerned were for his parliamentary email account not his ministerial email account?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am aware that he was in receipt of the report and I think it was quite clear that anybody who was in receipt of the report would be subject to the terms set up by the inquiry. I will make the point that no particular person—no one indeed at all—ever came to me and argued that the terms of reference were incorrectly set.Dr Russel Norman: Was he aware that his chief of staff was in contact with Parliamentary Service in order to let us say pressure Parliamentary Service to release the information about Mr Dunne?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think the premise of that question is quite incorrect. The terms and conditions of the inquiry were set out. They were very clear and anyone in receipt of that information would need to release that information that was released.Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was whether the Prime Minister was aware of it.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well—Mr SPEAKER: Do you want to say that you are speaking to the point of order?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am happy to give an answer. I feel as if I can give an answer to it.Mr SPEAKER: Would the Prime Minister please elaborate on his answer.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I cannot say that I was absolutely aware but the chief of staff acts on my instructions. It would be my expectation that he would have done that.Dr Russel Norman: So—just for the purpose of clarity—was the Prime Minister aware that his chief of staff was in contact with Parliamentary Service in order to facilitate the release of Peter Dunne’s parliamentary email log?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I would have to check but to the best of my knowledge no I was not absolutely aware that he was doing that. But I was aware that I had set up the terms of the inquiry. It would be my expectation that in carrying out those terms of inquiry as established by me my chief of staff would have facilitated that taking place.Dr Russel Norman: Can the Prime Minister tell us whether his chief of staff was aware that the Henry inquiry was accessing information about a journalist?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not have that information with me but I think it is important to understand that as has been corrected today in fact by the Speaker on behalf of Parliamentary Service the Henry inquiry did not ask for that information; that information was incorrectly sent by Parliamentary Service. In my view they got it wrong. That was recognised by the Henry inquiry and that information was never accessed.Dr Russel Norman: Was his chief of staff aware that the Henry inquiry was accessing a journalist’s building movement records?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not have that information with me.Dr Russel Norman: Is the Prime Minister entirely comfortable that his chief of staff was effectively leaning on Parliamentary Service to release information—what we are aware of is information about Peter Dunne but potentially also information about a journalist’s movements?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I completely reject the premise of the question.Grant Robertson: In light of that answer does the Prime Minister stand by his answer to written question No. 8179 when he was asked whether his office had directly asked Parliamentary Service for the metadata about Peter Dunne’s emails and he responded “My office directly asked Parliamentary Services …”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes I stand by it.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Prime Minister saying that there is precedent such as when a Privileges Committee in 2008 demanded of a member of Parliament his full telephone records which were happily given over and that demand was made by fivepolitical parties including United Future which all of a sudden now finds this information totally sacrosanct?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes there potentially is precedent. What I am saying quite clearly is that I do not believe that the release of information about a journalist or their records is appropriate. I do not believe it was part of the terms of the inquiry. In fact that was backed up by the fact that the information when it was inadvertently given by Parliamentary Service was actually never opened and rejected.