Shearer David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeShearer David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 06 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12302. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]4.DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition)to thePrime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):Yes.David Shearer: Does he stand by his answers to this House on 31 July when he said: “… the inquiry at no point asked for a journalist’s records …” given that the emails released on Friday evening show that phone access and email records of Andrea Vance were sought by the Henry inquiry?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes I stand by that and the fully corrected answer I gave. The member cut short my quote which was: “… either access records or phone records.” I later went on and corrected my answer when I said that he did request them meaning the access records.David Shearer: When he said to the House on 31 July: “I am more than happy to show the email traffic that supports the view of the Government.” why did he not table emails from 20 May that show that the Key-Henry inquiry sought both phone and email records for Andrea Vance and Peter Dunne?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am pretty sure the member is referring to emails that I did not have. They were the emails that came out later on.David Shearer: I seek leave to table three emails that refer to the correspondence between the head of the inquiry or the administrator of the inquiry and Parliamentary Service—two on 20 May and two on 27 May—which cover emails phone logs and swipe access card logs.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The easiest way is for me to put the leave. I understand that they may well be in the public arena but I will put the leave. Is there any objection to those documents being tabled? There is objection. [Interruption ] Order!David Shearer: Why did he seek to blame a Parliamentary Service contractor for the release of email and phone records between Andrea Vance and Peter Dunne when in fact those records were actually requested by the Key-Henry inquiry?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member is confusing a number of different issues but in fact it is quite correct. They were released by Parliamentary Service’s operator.David Shearer: Does the Prime Minister expect the House to believe that with all the questions and Official Information Act requests being made his chief executive officer and his chief of staff did not inform him that the inquiry had requested and received the email and phone records of Peter Dunne and Andrea Vance?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes. In the case of my chief of staff he was not aware of that until I think last Thursday night. I was made aware of it on the Friday. In the case of my chief executive officer I have already publicly said that he knew about that a month earlier and arguably he should have put that into the public domain earlier.David Shearer: In light of the last answer did AndrewKibblewhite offer a briefing or was a briefing sought by the Prime Minister on what information was requested by the Key-Henry inquiry before last Friday?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No I did not seek a briefing and the reason for that is that I set up the terms of reference and the inquiry was run by Mr Henry.David Shearer: Can he guarantee to the House that the email correspondence between Andrea Vance and Peter Dunne was not opened by anyone in his office his department or his agency that he is responsible for?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: That is the advice that I have received. The advice I have received is that when it was sent by Parliamentary Service it was sent to an email system where it could not have been opened and it was recalled within an hour.David Shearer: Does he agree with the statement made by Steven Joyce that he accepts David Henry’s word over that of Peter Dunne that he never said he wanted access to Mr Dunne’s phone logs so as to compare them with Andrea Vance’s—Hon Steven Joyce: That’s not what I said actually. Show me the actual quote.David Shearer: That is onThe Nation  Mr Joyce.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I would need to see the full statement by Mr Joyce because as we just saw right before Mr Shearer doctored a quote from me and conveniently left a bit out.David Shearer: Is the fact that he does not know about the emails from his chief of staff or his chief executive officer a result of the fact that he did not ask or was not told or simply that he does not want to know the real questions and the real answers about the Henry inquiry?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It is relatively simple. The inquiry was established under the authority of my name and was to be independently run by Mr Henry. If I was in this House now answering some of the questions that the Leader of the Opposition wants me to answer he would be saying that my mitts were all over it and it was not an independent inquiry. Some time ago he was saying that I did not try hard enough. Then by the way the Labour members were on the Privileges Committee. They are claiming to be holier than thou but by the way they wanted Andrea Vance’s emails. It is quite remarkable if we go through all of the events in this saga.David Shearer: Given that he cannot answer something as simple as that question why should anyone trust him on his ability on behalf of New Zealanders to provide the oversight to the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB)?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It is rather interesting is it not because on Sunday I happened to watchQ+A —actually I have got to say on display was the real leader of the Labour Party. Anyway—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just answer the question.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As everyone will know the oversight of the GCSB under the proposed legislation is a lot stronger than what was put in place under a Labour Government. We all know that the reason the Leader of the Opposition is not supporting the legislation is that he is having his string pulled by themuppet that is sitting next to him—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That was quite a sufficient answer. [Interruption ] Order!Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is not becoming of the Prime Minister in respect of this serious issue to describe members of the Opposition asmuppets. I would expect you in the Chair to protect the decorum of this place by calling the Prime Minister to order.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member might want to have a look at the proceedings later on today to see that I immediately did call the Prime Minister to order. I thought that was quite sufficient. I am certainly not about to rule the word “muppet” out of order.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Point of order—[Interruption ] Order! This is a point of order from the Hon Trevor Mallard.Hon Trevor Mallard: I am standing to agree with you. You did call the Prime Minister to order—in fact before he used that word—when he headed in that direction. He ignored you and you did not reprimand him.Mr SPEAKER: Order! No I rose to my feet and tried to catch the Prime Minister’s eye. I called “point of order” to him and it would be within seconds that he ceased his answer.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Is this a fresh point of order?Hon Trevor Mallard: It is a related point of order.Mr SPEAKER: Let us hear it.Hon Trevor Mallard: You called “Order!”. He is meant to be looking at you and listening to you. He took no notice. That is different from your account.Mr SPEAKER: No. [Interruption ] Order! On many many occasions when Ministers are giving answers they often direct them to the person who asked the question. They do not necessarily spend the whole of their answer looking at the Speaker.Hon Trevor Mallard: Listen—just listen.Mr SPEAKER: If the member wants to stay in the House he had better not suggest that I be listening. I am doing my very best.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Is this a fresh point of order?Hon Trevor Mallard: Yes it is.Mr SPEAKER: If we are going to have more time-wasting that we are getting from the member then he will not get to stay in the House. I will hear a fresh point of order.Hon Trevor Mallard: I want to apologise if I gave the impression that you were not listening. You were; the Prime Minister was not.Mr SPEAKER: I am very pleased to accept that point of order.