Brownlee Gerry: Urgent Debates — Hon Peter Dunne—Report on Investigation of Review of Compliance Leak and Resignation as MinisterText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBrownlee Gerry: 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:10926. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery):Can I say at the outset of my comments that I have known Peter Dunne for the better part of almost 50 years. I know him to be an honourable person and I accept that when he says that he has had an inexplicable moment or moments in his life that have led to this he does so from a genuine perspective. It gives me no particular pleasure to speak in this debate but I think when you listen to the speech that we just heard from Winston Peters and listen to the speech of the speaker from the Green Party Metiria Turei and for that matter the small bits that I picked up from the leader of the Labour Party there seems to be a desire here to suggest that there is something out there that the public has not been told about.I want to make it very clear very clear to this House that there was absolutely nothing—absolutely nothing—in the speech by Winston Peters today that is not already in the public arena. In the 1980s that sort of speech would have been a sensation because the reach of the media and the reach of the public to information were so muchlimited. But now of course all of that out there brought in to New Zealand First as if it was some pile of special information delivered to Winston Peters because he is the only man in Parliament who can make something of it is actually quite plain and quite normal and quite well known by everyone.I say to Winston Peters’ party members that the leader of their party might like to say that New Zealand First members make a habit in this House of keeping the place honest but they also make a habit of not sticking around too long. In the time that New Zealand First has been here it has burnt off almost as many MPs as any other party in here during that time and there is no reason to believe that the situation next year will be any different.A couple of things here I think are pretty relevant. Firstly when Mr Henry’s report was released last week the last paragraph in that report really says it all. He makes the point that he could not continue the investigation because Mr Dunne did not release all of the email traffic that he would have liked to look at. But he certainly leaves it very very clear that there is nothing else to investigate.So what this comes down to is a very very simple matter. Firstly Mr Dunne has resigned because the Prime Minister made it clear that if he did not release those emails there was no choice but for him to resign. So then this mad case being pursued by the Greens that he should have remained on the Intelligence and Security Committee falls apart because when one has lost the confidence of the Prime Minister there is certainly no place on the country’s most important security committee.The issue then becomes when do the emails between Mr Dunne and the reporter become public and indeed should they become public? The question for the Labour Party is whether the Labour Party will insist should there be a Privileges Committee hearing—and I think there is a big doubt about whether there should be in the first place—that Miss Vance’s emails are released to the committee and become part of the record of the committee. If that is the case then the rules for operation in this House and the long-held desire by all members to keep private communications between them as elected members and constituents and other people who come with information is long gone.There is no doubt about it: the only way that Mr Shearer escaped the axe earlier this year over his failure to disclose his very substantial secret bank account was the fact that he was able to simply take a position knowing that no one could investigate any information that he might have had or been in possession of that would have meant he had made a very very big mistake. I simply think we need to understand that there is a lot more at stake here than just the situation relating to a Minister who got himself into bad circumstances and has had to resign as a consequence.