Goff Phil: Privilege — Consideration of Interim Report of Privileges Committee Question of Privilege Regarding Use of Intrusive Powers Within the Parliamentary PrecinctText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGoff Phil: Privilege — Consideration of Interim Report of Privileges Committee Question of Privilege Regarding Use of Intrusive Powers Within the Parliamentary Precinct[Sitting date: 04 December 2013. Volume:695;Page:15265. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): Let me concur with the comments made by my colleague Chris Hipkins. This inquiry into the Peter Dunne affair failed on all levels. First of all it failed because the inquiry showed an absolute inability to distinguish between the role of the executive and the role of the legislature. The inquiry rode roughshod over the right of this House to control its own operations free from external interference. Parliaments over the ages have fought tooth and nail to prevent that form of interference. It failed because the inquiry sought out information that was confidential and it breached the right of parliamentarians to maintain confidentiality—confidentiality about their constituents confidentiality about their party matters and confidentiality about information that should be kept personal. The inquiry failed to acknowledge the right of members or even the Speaker to be told about what was happening.The inquiry failed on the second level because it failed to respect the role of the media and the role that the media must play as an independent watchdog in ensuring that democratic institutions behave properly. When you start tracking reporters around this building without their knowledge and when you gain access to the data that they are sending and communicating that is breaching the line between the executive and the role of the fourth estate and its right to be independent.So if this inquiry failed who do we blame? I have been listening to the National Party speakers. They blamed David Henry firstly—David Henry. Well my question is this: who appointed David Henry and who approved the terms of reference under which he operated? The answer to that question is very clear. John Key appointed David Henry John Key approved the terms of reference that he operated under and suddenly John Key as always is nowhere to be seen when it comes to accepting accountability and responsibility. But Mr Key is responsible for setting up that inquiry and for the way in which it operated.Then there was Mr Geoff Thorn. Geoff Thorn was the chief executive officer of the Parliamentary Service and he was the prime scapegoat in this case—the prime scapegoat. Geoff Thorn was sacked despite the fact that on three occasions he questioned the appropriateness of seeking that information from members—on three occasions. He was overruled. Who overruled him? He was overruled by a man called WayneEagleson who is the chief of staff of the Prime Minister John Key—the Prime Minister who says: “What I want my chief of staff will articulate and you will do his bidding.”I want to recall what WayneEagleson sent in an email to Geoff Thorn. He confirmed that the Prime Minister wanted the Parliamentary Service to make available to the inquiry team any records or “relevant material from ministerial offices.” No wonder the chief executive of the Parliamentary Service handed that material across—material that he had initially resisted giving. He had received an edict from the voice of the Prime Minister through his chief of staff WayneEagleson. So it is a bit rich for the National Party members to come into this House and say: “This is terrible. This is terrible Mr Henry Mr Thorn. How could they have got it so wrong?”. They got it wrong becausethey were acting under the instructions or the perceived instructions coming right from the top of the National Government—the Prime Minister—and that should not be forgotten.This inquiry also failed because it failed to do what it was set up to achieve and that was to find out who leaked the report. Who leaked the report?I want to make this comment. I am not a person who is incredibly sympathetic to witch-hunts about leaks. Often aleaker—I think of Edward Snowden—will be acting because they believe that the truth should come out. That is an honourable role for a whistleblower. NeilPugmire in New Zealand who led me to introduce a protected disclosures bill leaked information that the National Government of the day did not want out but he felt that the information was important because people who were dangerous to the safety and well-being of the community were being released from a mental asylum. He took the punishment for releasing that material. The whistleblower missed out because the Government punished the whistleblower.So generally I will look at a person’s motivation and say: “They have the right to make the truth known to the public. They have the right to provide information that the public is entitled to get.” but in this case there are no such motives for the leaking of theKitteridge report. We know who leaked theKitteridge report. Peter Dunne a Minister of the Crown leaked theKitteridge report.He had no fine high-blown motive for letting the truth out. In fact Mr Dunne should never be a Minister in a Government again because he broke one of the oaths that we all swear when we become Ministers—the oath to maintain the confidentiality of proceedings at the Executive Council. He broke that oath. He has no right to be a Minister. That is why he resigned. That is why it is totally improper that John Key should be talking now about bringing Peter Dunne back as a Minister.How do we know that Peter Dunne leaked it? Well we know that there was over this period something like 86 emails between Peter Dunne and Andrea Vance. I have never sent more than a couple of emails over the space of a week to anyone let alone 86 emails over a short period of time. It indicates an obsession—an obsession. Is there any doubt really from any member of this House that Peter Dunne leaked that report?Listen to what John Armstrong said in this morning’s paper and this is a quote: “You can probably count the number of people who believe Peter Dunne did not leak theKitteridge report on the fingers of one hand. The same people also believe the moon is made of cheese and you will find fairies at the bottom of your garden.” That is what one of the more experienced columnists said this morning about whether there was any doubt about Peter Dunne’s role in it.What I object to is that when there was a leakage from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade the people whom there was any suspicion of had to give their evidence on oath. Why did this inquiry not put Peter Dunne on oath so that he would have to tell the truth? The decision that the Government made was that that would not be a requirement. Double standards. When evidence was sought from the people in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade who had a genuine cause for concern and a genuine cause to speak out because their ministry which is one of the most competent ministries in this Government was being destroyed they not only had to go on oath but faced an inquisition—everything except the fingernail-pulling and the thumbscrew. That is what they faced yet the approach was softly softly on Peter Dunne.Actually John Key did not want to know that Peter Dunne had done it. He said that he accepted him at his word. Yeah tell that to Richard Worth and to Pansy Wong. What about those double standards?What I am most concerned about is that we now have a Government supported and sustained in office by a former Minister who in his ministerial role leaked ministerialinformation a Government supported by a man who faces criminal charges and a Government that wants to be supported by a man who believes that the Americans never landed on the moon and that by the way 9/11 was an American conspiracy. This is a shabby tawdry Government that is increasingly desperate to cling on to power by relying on people of those standards and those ethics. Did John Key not promise us that he would raise the bar on ministerial standards? That has become a joke. This inquiry has failed and that Government is responsible for its failure.Motion agreed to.