Robertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRobertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 12 June 2013. Volume:691;Page:11035. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]1.GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour)to thePrime Minister: Is it his responsibility to “get to the bottom” of who leaked the Kitteridge report; if not why not?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):I saw it as my responsibility to attempt to determine how the report was leaked. Therefore I asked the Chief Executive of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Director of the Government Communications Security Bureau to launch an inquiry into the leaking of the compliance review. That inquiry has taken place and it has resulted in an outcome. Peter Dunne has resigned as a Minister. He did not meet the inquiry’s request for information and that inquiry is now over.Grant Robertson: Given Peter Dunne’s insistence that he did not leak the Kitteridge report why did he not give him the opportunity to go on oath and clear his name?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am sure that he could have chosen to do that if he had wanted to. That was not actually relevant. What was relevant was that he failed to comply with the inquiry.Grant Robertson: Why is he not now prepared to do what he said he would do when he called the inquiry and get to the bottom of who leaked the Kitteridge report?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly a Minister has failed to comply with the inquiry. I think in itself that speaks volumes and people can take their own conclusions from that. Secondly to take the matter further realistically would require me to reconstitute the inquiry and to demand those emails and to do that I would need to see both sets of the emails. As I have made clear I am not prepared to do that.Grant Robertson: Why is he not prepared to let Mr Dunne go on oath?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because there is no need for me to do that. The inquiry has been completed and the Minister has resigned.Grant Robertson: In light of that answer can the Prime Minister tell the House who leaked the Kitteridge report?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Conclusively no. But I think we can determine from actions or inactions of people that will speak volumes for New Zealanders to make a call on what they think is taking place. But I would remind the member that a member of his party has written to the Privileges Committee. The Speaker will have to make a determination on whether that is referred to the Privileges Committee and if it goes to the Privileges Committee then members will have to decide whether firstly they want to follow the course of action that the member has discussed and secondly whetherthey wish to subpoena the emails from both a journalist and obviously the former Minister.Grant Robertson: Did he and Mr Dunne agree on Mr Dunne’s resignation on the evening of 5 June?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No I am not quite sure I would describe it that way. What happened on the evening of 5 June was that I made quite clear to Mr Dunne my expectation that he was to comply with the inquiry. I made it quite clear to him that in the end if he failed to do that he would have to resign. He made it clear to me on that evening that he would not be complying with the inquiry. I think that spoke for itself. We finally got his letter of resignation on Friday 6 June or 2 days later whatever that date is.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Did the Prime Minister see the review of the Government Communications Security Bureau report that Sir Bruce Ferguson former head of the Government Communications Security Bureau described as not “just sensitive” and further “It was more than that.”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Did the person the Prime Minister appointed to do the Government Communications Security Bureau review the Secretary of the Cabinet Rebecca Kitteridge show the Prime Minister the report Sir Bruce Ferguson saw or another version described by Sir Bruce as—[Interruption ]Hon Dr Nick Smith: Just show us your emails.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Would you shut “Noddy” up over there?Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the member—[Interruption ] Order! Would the member just ask his question. [Interruption ] Order!Rt Hon Winston Peters: All in good time. Did the person the Prime Minister appointed to do the Government Communications Security Bureau review the Secretary of the Cabinet Rebecca Kitteridge show the Prime Minister the report Sir Bruce Ferguson saw or another version described by Sir Bruce as “a sanitised version” and where he went on to say “there was lots missing.”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have three points. No I did not see that report; secondly no I did not see any other version than the final version. It might be an unusual way of running an inquiry but under this Government we let people get on with the job and present the final reports. And the third point is “Noddy” has a point.Mr SPEAKER: And the third point is not helpful.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could the Prime Minister please explain to the House and the country why was classified information in the original report then moved into the appendices of the final report and then those appendices were withheld from final publication?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not know whether deliberately or by accident or for whatever reason the member seems to be confusing different lines of questioning but is the member talking about the inquiry into the potential leak or is he talking about the Government Communications Security Bureau report?Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am talking in this question about—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I think the difficulty I have now got is that the Prime Minister in answering has asked a question.Rt Hon Winston Peters: That is right and I am happy to answer it.Mr SPEAKER: The easiest way forward is that I am going to invite the member to re-ask his supplementary question.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Thank you Mr Speaker; it is very gracious of you. Could the Prime Minister please explain to the House and the country why was classifiedinformation in the original Government Communications Security Bureau Kitteridge report moved into the appendices of the final report and then those appendices were withheld upon publication?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have two points. The first is that I think the member is basing his question on a presumption of which I do not have any knowledge or may well not be correct. My understanding of the Government Communications Security Bureau report was—Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek to table an article that debunks the Prime Minister’s claim that I am making assumptions. It is a spokesman for the Government Communications Security Bureau who is saying this and a spokesman for the Prime Minister who is saying it—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption ] Order! What is the source of the document?Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well it is theNew Zealand Herald  page 10 today.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am not putting that leave. Has the member got a further supplementary question?Rt Hon Winston Peters: OK. If—Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the right honourable member but we do have a problem when we have the spokesperson for the Prime Minister making a statement and the Prime Minister denying the facts of that statement.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The point of order was around the tabling of a document. I have ruled that we are not tabling bits of theNew Zealand Herald .Rt Hon Winston Peters: Having regard to the report in today’sNew Zealand Heraldpage 10 under the name David Fisher it says: “A spokesman for the GSCB said the production of the final report saw it prepared for public release with classified information moved into the appendices. A spokeswoman for the Prime Minister said the only copy Mr Key ever received was released in full with classified appendices withheld.” was the report sanitised because the Secretary of the Cabinet feared there was a leak in the Intelligence and Security Committee—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Bring the question to an end; it is a very long question.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With the greatest respect the Prime Minister gets up and denies—Mr SPEAKER: Order!Rt Hon Winston Peters: —a comment from his own spokesperson—Mr SPEAKER: If the member wants to stay in the House and continue his line of questions he will not object to me when I ask him to bring his question to a conclusion. It was an excessively long supplementary question.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The reason why—and I thought it would be understood—I needed to put it on the record is that we had a denial in the prior answer of its existence and an inference that I was being confused on the issue. I am quoting from the Government Communications Security Bureau and the Prime Minister.Mr SPEAKER: I have heard quite sufficient. The difficulty the member has with this point of order is that as the Prime Minister was answering the member raised a point of order and sought to table a document. So he cannot really say the Prime Minister denied it. Is there a further point of order?Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect Mr Speaker you—Hon Gerry Brownlee: This will take us a long way. [Interruption ]Mr SPEAKER: The point of order will be heard and it will be heard in silence.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I’ll save a sausage roll for you Gerry.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member knows the rules. He objected to a point of order being heard with noise from that side and then immediately started his point of order with talk about a sausage roll. That is not helpful to the House and the member Clayton Cosgrove has to learn to behave himself in this House. Does the member still want to raise a point of order? [Interruption ] We will listen to the point of order in silence.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: My first shorter point of order—and I accept your ruling and admonishment completely—Mr SPEAKER: Would the member just get on with it.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: —is that I would just like some consistency when people are interjecting on points of order.Mr SPEAKER: That is challenging—Hon Clayton Cosgrove: My second point—Mr SPEAKER: Sit down please. That is now challenging me and suggesting that I am biased. That is a very serious offence. [Interruption ] Well the member is asking for consistency; I read it no other way. And if the member continues with those sorts of points of order he will not have the benefit of seeing out question time.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: And this is a fresh point of order?Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Indeed it is.Mr SPEAKER: I am looking forward to it.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: As am I. My second point of order is on the length of answers and I seek your advice. You have as is your right with answers to questions allowed significantly long answers and that is as it should be. I would simply ask for your ruling in terms of what length is permissible for a question. I accept that Mr Peters’ question was slightly longer but you have allowed lengthy answers from Ministers in the past.Mr SPEAKER: Can I just ask the member to look at Standing Order 377.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: I have a point of order first of all from the Rt Hon Winston Peters.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: That is the point; I have not answered your question.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have a point of order from the Rt Hon Winston Peters.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I asked a question of the Prime Minister and I am waiting for an answer.Mr SPEAKER: Yes that is true—and I presume that was the Prime Minister’s point of order so we will now hear from the Prime Minister.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The answer to the last part of the question was no. It is also important to understand that the point I was making was quite correct. My office was asked about whether we saw multiple copies of the Kitteridge report. The answer to that is absolutely no. We saw the final report only. The point the Government Communications Security Bureau spokesperson was making which the member was trying to conflate was actually about why information was moved from one part of the report to the other. I was not advised about that but the assumption I have made—and it would be self-explanatory—is that one report the report itself was going to be fully released into the public domain. There was obviously confidential and sensitive information held in the appendices which were never going to be released.Rt Hon Winston Peters: When the Prime Minister says he was not advised does that include any member of his staff who was working with him on this matter; if so when the Prime Minister spoke to Mr Dunne who reportedly said “He couldn’t explain it.” what was the “it” he could not explain?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I cannot answer for Mr Dunne. That is his quote.Rt Hon Winston Peters: You could ask him.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well that is his quote and no I cannot answer for Mr Dunne.Grant Robertson: Did any member of staff in his office or from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet update him on David Henry’s progress in completing the inquiry before 5 June?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I was not kept up to date with the inquiry from Mr Henry or Mr Kibblewhite. Mr Kibblewhite advised my chief of staff that there was an ongoing process and that things were taking some time—Grant Robertson: And he didn’t mention that to you?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well no I did not say that. I said there was an ongoing process that was going on. I did not see any final reports until the last report that came along.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question asked whether any staff member in his office or from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet updated him on David Henry’s progress. The Prime Minister did not answer that question. He described a conversation between Mr Kibblewhite and—Mr SPEAKER: Is the Prime Minister prepared to answer that question more specifically?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: What I made clear was Mr Kibblewhite kept Mr Eagleson broadly updated. Mr Eagleson made it clear to me it would take some time longer and there were issues of Ministers having to comply. I was aware of that issue and I made it clear to Mr Eagleson—Grant Robertson: But you got up in this House and you pretended nothing was wrong.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: You did not ask me when exactly that question took place.