English Bill: Urgent Debates — Hon Peter Dunne—Report on Investigation of Review of Compliance Leak and Resignation as MinisterText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeEnglish Bill: Urgent Debates — Hon Peter Dunne—Report on Investigation of Review of Compliance Leak and Resignation as Minister[Sitting date: 11 June 2013. Volume:691;Page:10920. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister):Last week it was Labour being led by the nose by the Greens and this week it is Labour being led by the nose by New Zealand First. There is no doubt about that.The previous speech by David Shearer would be much more credible if the Leader of the Opposition showed the same enthusiasm for the investigation into the leak of Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade material to Phil Goff. I did not hear him say that Prime Minister John Key has to get to the bottom of what happened with the leak of Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade material to Phil Goff. I did not hear him say that Prime Minister John Key should be going through the emails and the phone records of Phil Goff to find out how a leak to him from a public servant occurred. I did not hear the Leader of the Opposition pleading with the Government to get to the bottom of that investigation which of course those members characterised at the time as a witch-hunt against those who want to bring transparency to the Government. Well of course when they give that speech then I will believe it.The other reason we would find that speech credible would be if the Leader of the Opposition had addressed most of it to the leader of New Zealand First and said something like this: “We want to get to the bottom of this Mr Peters. Give us the emails.” After all Labour is in full-on courting mode so why did David Shearer not take this opportunity in the House to ask Winston Peters for the emails that Winston Peters says he holds?The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Order! Mr English is making a hard-hitting speech and some interjection can be expected but not so much that it drowns out the speaker. The Speaker will not allow that.Hon BILL ENGLISH: None of the interjections were a satisfactory answer to that question. Why does Winston Peters not give the Labour Party the emails so that David Shearer then knows what happened? Mr Peters might take the opportunity to table them when he speaks in this debate. He said he has got them—Hon Member: He’s got them.Hon Member: Look at the envelope.Hon BILL ENGLISH: He is opening the envelope as we speak. He is opening the envelope; the emails are coming. Would that not be a fine thing?What is going on in the Opposition is the manoeuvring between New Zealand First and the Greens. That is really what is going on. The Labour Party is sitting there with the Greens being a much more effective Opposition. They bared their teeth and it was a snarl not a smile. We now know the true nature of what the Greens would be like in any kind of Government. Mr Peters has spied this growing relationship and he has realised that he needs to reposition so that he could be a potential partner in 2024 for the incoming Labour Government. So he has decided that the way to reposition for 2024—Hon John Banks: 2024?Hon BILL ENGLISH: —he will be only 85—is to look tough on security. And actually he is being tougher on security much more so than what used to be the mainstream Labour Party. Winston Peters has addressed the Government Communications Security Bureau legislation in a much more serious and consideredmanner than the Labour Party has. The Labour Party members have just decided that whatever it is it is a Government bill so it will vote against it. Even a bitter partisan like Helen Clark did not do that in Opposition. Labour considered national security issues seriously. This Labour Party is incapable of doing so. But that is a bit of a side issue that will play itself out over the next 6 months.Mr Peters has decided on the basis of a whim last week to pretend that he knows what happened with the Henry inquiry and that he has the emails but he cannot produce them. Now he has pushed the Labour Party into putting in a privileges letter. Well is the Labour Party willing to answer the question the media are now asking? Does it really want a committee of Parliament to fashion a legal or parliamentary procedure that would allow anyone who leaks on the Government including MPs to have their whole phone and email correspondence wide open to public inquiry? I think Labour Party members this week are trying to get off the hook. They rushed at it on Sunday led by the nose by Winston got the privileges letter in and now they are going to find that their friends in the media are turning on them because the media do not want the emails of the Fairfax journalist in front of the Privileges Committee. They have made it absolutely clear that they will use every legal means possible to protect their sources and their journalist and we would not expect anything else.You would think that a media-savvy Labour Party would know that being led by the nose by Mr Peters takes it to the same place as him. He is always at loggerheads with the media. That is his business. That is his brand. But the Labour Party members are just realising this afternoon after reading theDominion Post editorial that they are headed for a titanic clash with the media.The next issue is this: is the Labour Party in Opposition indicating that when in Government it would have the legal or parliamentary procedure to inquire into the personal communications of every member of Parliament if they are under suspicion of a leak? I invite—Grant Robertson: What about a Minister?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well he is no longer a Minister—that is the point. He is no longer a Minister.Hon Phil Goff: He was when he leaked it.Hon BILL ENGLISH: Peter Dunne is a member of Parliament. OK. So this is the proposition of the Labour Party to the media now: any journalist who corresponds with any Minister in any Labour Government needs to know that their emails and voice messages will be open to scrutiny by the Prime Minister whenever they feel like it. That is the Labour Party proposition to the media. Well let us just watch over the next couple of weeks. Those members might shout it in here but out there they are going to be working very hard to get off that hook because their relationship with the media is now at stake and when you are in Opposition you need to be able to communicate with the media. You need to have free flow of information. You do in Government too actually.Hon John Banks: You need to do a lot of leaking.Hon BILL ENGLISH: You need to do a lot of leaking to be in Opposition. The Opposition members are now saying they want a parliamentary legal procedure so that if they get some leak and make it to the media the Prime Minister must get to the bottom of it. He must get their emails—from Trevor Mallard from Chris Hipkins from Kris Faafoi—Hon Phil Goff: You don’t have to do that. You put Peter Dunne on oath.Hon BILL ENGLISH: —from Phil Goff—Hon Phil Goff: You put MFAT on oath. You won’t put Peter Dunne on oath.Hon BILL ENGLISH: Mr Goff could save the Government and the taxpayer a lot of time and money by handing over—Hon Phil Goff: Double standards. Put Peter Dunne on oath.Hon BILL ENGLISH: Here is a challenge for Mr Goff. Mr Goff hand over your emails and your phone records so that we can get to the bottom of the leak from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to the Labour Party. I invite Labour to get up in this debate and table in the House Phil Goff’s emails Phil Goff’s phone records—Hon John Banks: And the bank account from New York.Hon BILL ENGLISH: —and the bank account from New York. Let us get to the bottom of that. What a great idea. [Interruption ] That is a very good idea.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Can I just remind members that interjections are to be relevant and reasonable but a running commentary is out of order. If members want to speak they can do so when the opportunity arises.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I appreciate that. I guess that on this side of the House our feeling is that if Mr English is simply going to make things up continually through his speech it is very difficult for us to be able to restrain ourselves.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Understood.Hon BILL ENGLISH: Here is the opportunity for the Labour Party to back up the credibility of its leader: one ask Winston Peters for the emails; two table Phil Goff’s emails and phone records from the period during which he received leaks from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade; and three table David Shearer’s bank account because we want to get to the bottom of what was actually a substantial undeclared asset. It is of parliamentary interest. It is of parliamentary interest. These are the three things we want the Labour Party to do: ask Winston for the emails table the emails and phone records from Phil Goff and table David Shearer’s bank account. Those are all items of personal information relevant to this leak or another leak or a breach of parliamentary requirements about the members’ register of interests.That all sounds pretty simple to me and we look forward to those things happening this afternoon. Otherwise we would have to come to the conclusion that Labour was stampeded into its privileges complaint by Winston Peters and by the kind of shallow advice that Grant Robertson gives his leader which is undermining his leader and which is pitching him at his worst not his best. That kind of shallow advice has led the Labour Party to now be on the hook as the people who are threatening Parliament and the media with powers of intervention into the personal communications of MPs that we have simply never had before.The facts are pretty simple. There was an inquiry into a leak and a Minister subject to that inquiry has resigned. The Prime Minister has done his job and now we look forward to the Labour Party doing its job and producing the documents that we have invited it to table.