King Annette: Urgent Debates — Release of Report—Telecommunications Stocktake Review 
King Annette: Urgent Debates — Release of Report—Telecommunications Stocktake Review 
[Volume:631;Page:3141] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 I recall last week that the National Party raised a point of order about Winston Peters being given a supplementary question by the Government. Gerry Brownlee got to his feet in his usual fashion and huffed and puffed about how terrible it was that Winston Peters had been given a supplementary question by Labour. I point out— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Following on from the comments made by the Hon Mark Burton the Deputy Leader of the House a few minutes ago about members’ speeches being relevant to the bill I seek leave to table the letter supplied to the Speaker today in order that the Hon Annette King may understand what the debate is about this afternoon. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is quite entitled to seek leave to table that. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. I just say leeway is given in replying to a speech. I refer members to Speakers’ ruling 44/3. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was a deliberate attempt to break up my speech. I would like to be given the opportunity and the time to start my speech again. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I say to the member that I will certainly take that into consideration but I have said to Mr Brownlee that you have leeway in replying to the speech. Frivolous interjections of course are out of order and can actually lead to disorder. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Of course Gerry Brownlee wanted to interrupt my speech because it showed a big dose of hypocrisy. He raised the issue of Winston Peters being given a speaking spot by Labour this week but did not own up to the fact that National had received a speaking spot from ACT this week. So it was OK for National to receive a speaking spot from ACT but it was not OK for Labour to give one to New Zealand First. 
I say it is quite all right to give speaking spots to whomever one wants to. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is not appropriate for members to refer to one another by the “h” word which we are not allowed to use. I want to make it clear that National has not done a deal with the ACT party; it simply took a spot that was going. If the Labour members assume that the National members have done a deal with ACT it is too bad for them. They should have more of their own speakers here in the Chamber. Debates are not something they want to participate in. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I do not consider that to be a point of order; it is a debatable issue. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Labour members are entitled to two speeches and we are taking our two speeches. What Gerry Brownlee did not like was the fact that last week there was an act of hypocrisy in this House when National members raised that issue. I want to point that out. I do not care a hoot whom they get their speaking spots from; that is called cooperation in Parliament. But when those sorts of issues are raised in Parliament and issues like this so-called urgent debate are raised it makes this place a laughing stock. The public are not stupid; they hear what is said one week and changed the next week. They hear about the urgency of this debate requested in the letter and then find the leak is not discussed at all in the debate. I think the public will be very disappointed with this debate today. 
Let us look at the contributions. I have a right to go through some of the points that have been made. First of all why was this urgent debate not led off by Don Brash? He is the leader of the National Party. When there is an issue that is very urgent and important one would normally put one’s leader up to lead off the urgent debate. That is certainly what Helen Clark did while in Opposition but Don Brash does not do that. I cannot remember many urgent debates that he has led off in this Parliament since National has been in Opposition. I know why Don Brash did not lead off the debate. First of all he is embarrassed to lead off a debate on a leak. He could not lead off a debate on a leak because the biggest leak in this Parliament came out of his office. When did that happen? It happened in about August last year. About 7 or 8 months ago there was a leak from the Leader of the Opposition’s office. Someone got into his emails and sent them around the country particularly to Winston Peters. He would not have solicited them but he did receive them and there was not one email but several of them. 
So about 8 months ago the biggest leak out of a member of Parliament’s office took place from the Leader of the Opposition’s office. Did we hear about that leak being resolved? It is not resolved today. National members still do not know who is responsible for that leak—or do they? Let us ask that question. One has to ask oneself whether the reason they have not pursued that leak out of the Leader of the Opposition’s office could well be that they know it was Gerry Brownlee Bill English or John Key who leaked those emails. Why do they want to cover that up? Because it means what everybody in New Zealand knows: there is a plan to get rid of their leader. So National would not want people to know about its inquiries into that leak. I do not blame National members for leaking the emails; I would want to get rid of Don Brash too. 
However let us be honest about why National wanted to have this debate today. It is not about the leak at all. The National members wanted to have this debate because they do not want to debate the real issue that this incident came out of. They do not want to debate this Government’s approach to telecommunications. They failed to address the issue of telecommunications in their 9 long years in Government; they did not have the internal fortitude to address that issue. So what did they do? They wanted to have a debate on the leak and then they did not talk about the leak. Gerry Brownlee got up. He was full of puffery and blatherskite. I agree with you Mr Speaker; this is a robust debate. It is a robust debate all right from the National members signifying absolutely nothing. 
Gerry Brownlee attacked Mark Prebble the State Services Commissioner. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: No I didn’t. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Oh yes he did. He attacked Mark Prebble but forgot one important point: Mark Prebble was the head of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet under the National Government when the same rules that apply today applied to the messengers who worked for National. Of course the procedures and rules that applied when National members were in Government which apply today were all right then but suddenly this issue is all the Government’s fault and the Prime Minister’s fault. National spreads the blame wherever it can. It is very interesting that National has suddenly decided it does not like the rules. Why did National not search the messengers when it was in Government? Why did it not body-frisk people as they left the Beehive which is something Gerry Brownlee has just promoted? He said that everybody who leaves the Beehive ought to be checked. Well of course Gerry Brownlee would spend a fair bit of time being checked because he spends a lot of time in the Beehive in Bellamy’s. Bellamy’s is in the Beehive so if we are to check everybody who leaves there we ought to check the people who come in and out of the building or who pass through it or who go up or down it. 
Bill English’s contribution was really interesting. He has tried to turn the debate from the leak—which was so urgent that we needed to discuss it—to the impact of the regulatory package on Telecom’s potential future earnings. That is what he wanted to talk about. Then he wanted to blame David Cunliffe for somehow having inside knowledge that has affected Telecom’s share price. I can tell the Opposition members that David Cunliffe clarified his position before the market opened and Telecom clarified it yesterday. That is the truth although those members do not like it. The Minister had no inside information from Telecom. He had no idea about its future dividend policy and to say otherwise is nothing more than to tell large porkies in this Parliament. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No no. The member cannot say “porkies”. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I want to look at what the inquiry was all about. I think it would do the members of the Opposition good if they actually read the State Services Commission report on the leak. 
Let us look at some of the issues. These are the findings of the State Services Commissioner. First of all he stated the Cabinet document relating to the Telecom stocktake review was deliberately taken from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet by Mr Michael Ryan a messenger employed by that department and given to a Telecom employee. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: We knew that. It was pretty hard to work that out! 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Good—they knew that. Secondly the commissioner found Mr Ryan took the document from within a work area at the department on Tuesday 2 May and passed it to a Telecom employee who was a personal friend. He returned the paper on 3 May. [ 
Interruption 
] So we knew that. Mr Ryan had legitimate access to the document and was responsible for delivering it to the destruction bin where it was to go. The Telecom employee and ultimately Telecom were passive recipients of the document having taken no action to seek it from Mr Ryan. Mr Ryan was a very good friend of a Telecom employee and the commissioner decided that neither the employee nor Telecom was at fault regarding the acquisition of the document. 
The systems operated by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet were appropriate and were followed by every person other than Mr Ryan an individual within that organisation. He joined the organisation in October last year. He was fully informed of his responsibility and of the confidentiality of Cabinet documents just as every messenger had been under a Tory Government. Not even the great Tory party would have been able to stop an individual who took it upon himself to leak information to somebody else. Those were the major findings from the— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Stop making excuses. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: They are not excuses; they are the facts. Let us have the facts not the blatherskite not the puffery and not the useless debate on which we have just wasted 1 hour of taxpayers’ time because the National Party said the leak was so important. National members said we needed to debate the leak but they then debated absolutely everything else. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.