Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumePeters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 06 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12298. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]1.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First)to thePrime Minister: Does he stand by all of the answers given on his behalf to Oral Question No. 5 on 30 May 2013?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):Now that the member asks yes.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Given that his chief of staff MrEagleson told him as Prime Minister on 29 May of email correspondence between Peter Dunne and Andrea Vance and that Mr Dunne was not complying with the inquiry why did the Prime Minister state on 30 May that “I do not how Mr Henry is conducting his inquiry.”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because that was correct.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Was his chief of staff MrEagleson telling the truth last Friday when MrEagleson said that he had subsequent to 23 May “no further role in authorising or influencing the release of any further information”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes.Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can that answer possibly be correct when it is a matter of public record that MrEagleson was in frequent contact with Mr Dunne’s office in the period 27 May to 4 June regarding the release of email correspondence—a fact that the Prime Minister has confirmed?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: What is clear is that whether the emails were released by Mr Dunne’s office was a matter for Mr Dunne and a matter for his chief of staff. What my chief of staff made clear was that my expectations were that all Ministers would comply with the inquiry.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That last question challenged the answer to the previous question as to its correctness. The previous question was related to MrEagleson’s claim of having no further role in authorising or influencing the release of any further information. That is the gist of it and that is what I am asking. How can you reconcile what he said with the prime ministerial information released to the public of the 27 May to 4 June contact and role and involvement? Hisanswer has no connection to that though it would superficially seem like he had given some answer.Mr SPEAKER: The essence of the question is how that answer can be correct given some further information the member asked. Does the Prime Minister have anything further to add to the answer?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: At the start of the inquiry MrEagleson wrote on my behalf to all Ministers and staff advising that the expectation was that they would comply. That position never changed. If MrEagleson did that he did that some time before when the member is asking about.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We are allowed in our system of government and constitution to ask questions to seek to get at the truth. You have the chief of staff saying he had no role at all after 23 May and the Prime Minister on record saying that between 27 May to 4 June all this involvement was participated in by his chief of staff. One of those statements cannot be true and the Prime Minister is making no attempt to tell us which one is true.Mr SPEAKER: On this occasion I do not agree with the final point that the member is raising. The member’s question asked how that answer could be true. On two occasions now the Prime Minister has attempted to justify how he thinks that answer can be correct and that is for the Prime Minister’s responsibility not mine. On this occasion the member I understand has one further supplementary question left. I will give him an additional supplementary question to see whether he can tease out the answer he may require.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Thank you Mr Speaker. I do appreciate that. Does he truly expect the public to believe that the Chief Executive of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet AndrewKibblewhite was involved in Henry inquiry - related discussions to facilitate the release of phone records and email correspondence but did not tell him as Prime Minister about this for a whole month?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes.Rt Hon Winston Peters: When MrEagleson said that he had no further role in authorising or influencing the release of any further information after 23 May how was it that he got involved in the frequent contact with Mr Dunne’s office in the period 27 May to 4 June?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It is quite clear. The statement made by MrEagleson was in relation to asking Parliamentary Service to authorise the data not correspondence or the discussion between MrEagleson and MrEaddy.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You will recall that I used the phrase “authorising or influencing the release”. The Prime Minister goes straight for “authorising” and we all know it was about influencing the release that we are after. [Interruption ] Well OK—Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order.Rt Hon Winston Peters: The reality of it all is that one MrEagleson is admitting that he was authorising or influencing at a certain date—23 May—and then he says that neither authorisation or influence according to the Prime Minister affected his 27 May to 4 June relations with Mr Dunne’s office. That is just beyond credibility.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have given a good amount of time for the member to raise a point of order which was in effect a debate on the answer that has been given. I rule that the Prime Minister has adequately addressed the question that was raised.