Dunne Peter: Urgent Debates — Release of Report—Telecommunications Stocktake Review 
Dunne Peter: Urgent Debates — Release of Report—Telecommunications Stocktake Review 
[Volume:631;Page:3137] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 In the limited time I have available to me I want to cover three broad areas of the case—in ascending order of importance in my view. The first relates to Mr Ryan and his behaviour which can be described only as incalculably dishonest foolish and displaying an appalling lack of judgment. There is no way that his continued employment in those circumstances can be justified. The report of the State Services Commissioner states all it needs to on that matter. That is the easiest part of the case. 
The second issue I want to deal with relates to the practices and procedures within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the questions that in my mind remain unanswered as to how Mr Ryan had such free access to the documents and how he was able to act in the way he did. That matter in my judgment requires further investigation by both the State Services Commissioner and the chief executive of the department in the first instance and if need be at some point in the future it may well require the attention of the House. But due process has to be followed and then we can make that decision at a subsequent stage. 
Mr English has touched on what I regard as being the most important aspect of the case and that is the fact that nearly $2 billion of shareholders’ investments in Telecom was wiped by the premature release of the announcement and associated circumstances. Many many investors in this country are reeling from that shock. I might interpolate that those investors may well have faced a similar situation anyway had the original plan proceeded and the measures simply been announced on Budget night. But that interpolation is speculative at this stage. 
The question that requires the proper attention of the Securities Commission relates to the circumstances of the leak and the impact it had on the market and also the questions that have arisen in the last 24 hours. I appreciate the temptation to play politics with this issue and that is understandable in the circumstances. But given that the well-being and good judgment of many New Zealand shareholders have been seriously put at risk by this action I think it is time to set aside the political differences and concentrate on getting to the bottom of how it happened what actions caused it to happen and then where the accountability and responsibility must lie. 
So it seems to me that we have the following path ahead of us. Firstly in terms of Mr Ryan the future is clear—he does not have one. He is gone or is about to go. Secondly in terms of the practices and procedures that gave rise to the circumstances of his behaviour there is clearly further investigative work to be done by both the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the State Services Commission to ensure that procedures are put in place to make sure there can be no repetition of the action. Thirdly there needs to be some form of investigation by the Securities Commission of the wider issues involved to ensure that the shock to the New Zealand economy that this measure has induced can at least be mitigated and hopefully prevented from occurring again in the future. 
The suggestion that we should at this point embark upon a parliamentary inquiry is not one I am attracted to for the simple reason that it would cut across procedures that are already under way. It is a perfectly appropriate call for Parliament to determine that it wishes to inquire into the case if at the end of that procedure of inquiry it remains unsatisfied. But to step in arbitrarily at this point would be premature. I believe that pressure needs to be placed on the agencies I have identified to carry out their work in a timely manner and to report to Parliament accordingly. Then we can make considered and rational decisions that are in the interests of all New Zealanders. 
This case has been a most unfortunate development. I think it is without precedent in our modern history. It is not something we ought to encourage or laud and frankly there are some unanswered questions on both sides of the issue that further inquiry in the manner I have outlined would help to address. But to rush in now in the way that some members are suggesting simply reminds me of the old proverb about fools.