Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumePeters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 11 June 2013. Volume:691;Page:10912. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]11.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First)to thePrime Minister: Did he discuss with David Henry the requirement for Mr Henry to see the full unedited electronic record connected with the Kitteridge report leak; if not why not?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):And there I was thinking he was going to table the emails. No I did not speak with Mr Henry during the proceedings of the inquiry.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I know he wants to see them.Mr SPEAKER: Is the member asking a supplementary question?Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My point of order is very clear. Could he possibly just answer the question rather than act like a giggly schoolboy?Mr SPEAKER: That is a very acceptable point of order. Would the Prime Minister please address the question.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Why didn’t you do something about it without being called to account?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I did not speak—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am sorry to interrupt. Would the member the Hon Clayton Cosgrove stand withdraw and apologise.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I withdraw and apologise.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Sorry. For the third time I did not speak with—Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Could you advise me under the Standing Orders when a Minister begins a question that is outside the Standing Orders is it incumbent upon the questioner or another member to raise that breach or is it incumbent upon you to act in your own right to call the Minister to account.Mr SPEAKER: That depends on the circumstances. In this case because we now have such a disjunction between the question being asked and the answer I am going to ask the right honourable Prime Minister to start the question again. [Interruption ] I apologise again.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Many a true word said in jest.Mr SPEAKER: Order! We will return to some normality. The right honourable Prime Minister—[Interruption ] The right honourable Winston Peters has been called to ask question No. 11.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Did he discuss with David Henry the requirement for Mr Henry to see the full unedited electronic record connected with the Kitteridge report leak; if not why not?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I did not speak with Mr Henry during the proceedings of the inquiry.Rt Hon Winston Peters: If that is the case why was Mr Henry able to say that in respect of this inquiry he was acting with “the support of the Prime Minister”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because we set the terms of inquiry.Rt Hon Winston Peters: When the Prime Minister set up this inquiry did he intend for it to get to the whole truth?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: That was certainly my aim and I think what the inquiry has demonstrated is that a Minister has paid a very high price by resigning from his portfolio.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was very clear. It asked the Prime Minister whether when he set the inquiry up he intended to get to the whole truth not the ramifications of what—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Prime Minister very adequately addressed the question. Does the member have further supplementary questions?Rt Hon Winston Peters: I most certainly do yes.Mr SPEAKER: Well the member can ask them.Rt Hon Winston Peters: What was the Prime Minister’s response to Mr Henry when Mr Henry informed him—as he surely did either in person or by that report—that Mr Dunne would not cooperate in releasing all of his electronic records?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: For the purposes of clarification at no stage have I had a discussion with Mr Henry. I have seen his report as the member noted. Clearly I wanted to ensure that all people who were subject to the inquiry engaged fully and thatwas why my chief of staff sent out an email to senior private secretaries ensuring that they and other people around them complied with the inquiry. That is why Mr Kibblewhite sent a report to everybody who was subject to the inquiry instructing them to comply.Rt Hon Winston Peters: If Mr Henry felt confident that he would have had the appropriate powers from the State Services Commissioner why did he not give Mr Henry the appropriate powers as the Prime Minister?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Could the member repeat the question?Rt Hon Winston Peters: If Mr Henry an investigator appointed by the Prime Minister refers specifically on page 2 at point 7 to the confidence that he had the appropriate powers if he had wanted them from the State Services Commissioner why did the Prime Minister—because he was dealing with Ministers—not give this investigator the appropriate powers to get to the full truth?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because the Minister firstly was a support party Minister but it would be the same actually probably for any Minister. It is not my practice to go through their emails any more than it would be my practice to go through the emails of a journalist like Andrea Vance. What I do expect them to do though is comply with the inquiry and that was why the instruction to comply was made quite clear. If a Minister did not comply then that speaks for itself. But in reality Mr Peters does not need this. Mr Peters has the emails—so he tells us. He can just read them out.Hon Dr Nick Smith: He’s bluffing.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why did the Prime Minister—oh it is going so good now is it not?Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can the member just ask the supplementary question.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well you know “Nancy” over there said I was bluffing.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the member please ask his question. I would be grateful if there were not the interjections coming from the right-hand side of the House.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question—Hon Member: The emails are in the wine box.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yes. Why did the Prime Minister not give Mr Henry—[Interruption ] Mr Speaker I cannot actually ask this question with all this hysterical laughing down the back nervous as it is.Mr SPEAKER: I think that Mr Peters and I would both appreciate it if there was less interjection coming from the right-hand side of the House so that we can have this supplementary question asked.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why did the Prime Minister not give Mr Henry the power to access all of Mr Dunne’s electronic records when it became necessary for Mr Henry to access those records to get to the truth knowing as he did that it was the records that the inquirer needed not publication after he had got the information?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Quite simply because Mr Henry did not ask for more powers. At the end of the day I think everyone can see for themselves that if a Minister fails to comply with an inquiry then that has serious ramifications. It has had serious ramifications—Grant Robertson: Well we still don’t know who leaked do we John?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well Mr Peters knows because he has got all the emails remember? And he can read them.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Why are you allowing the Prime Minister to behave like that? [Interruption ]Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is meant to be a point of order and therefore it will be heard in silence but I do not yet know what the point of order is.Rt Hon Winston Peters: To constantly demand of a member of Parliament that he fulfil the duties that the Prime Minister is responsible for. It is not within the Standing Orders.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question for me to ascertain is whether the question asked by the member the Rt Hon Winston Peters was adequately addressed and I believe it was. The member may have further supplementary questions. Has he?Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why is the Prime Minister standing in this House and saying that he is falling short of finding out the truth the whole truth which he said at the start he wanted when he set the inquiry up or is it that he is just embarrassed by what is in all five sets of electronic records and it points out his incompetence?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly the inquiry was set up in such a way for expediency to make sure that it was quick and that we could get a result. We actually know that where an inquiry has gone to positions of oath for instance and the like it has taken a long time it is before the courts—and actually the Opposition has criticised it remember? So basically this was a document that was not distributed to that many people—about 30-odd in total. My view was that Mr Henry had wide-ranging powers. In fact a Minister has resigned because he has failed to comply with those so—Grant Robertson: So did he leak the report did he? Did he leak the report?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well he has failed to comply and that as I have said publicly many times says something about Mr Dunne. But in the end it is for him to comply.