Norman Russel: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeNorman Russel: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11412. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]4.Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green)to thePrime Minister: Does he stand by his answer to written question 07314 (2013) when he said: “The inquiry team itself did not seek permission from Peter Dunne before it obtained his email logs” and does he think it should have?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):In answer to the first part of the question yes and in answer to the second part no.Dr Russel Norman: Did the Henry inquiry get written consent from Peter Dunne before obtaining his parliamentary email logs; and for the purposes of clarity we are talking about his parliamentary email logs not his ministerial email logs?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I would need to check but to the best of my knowledge no.Dr Russel Norman: Did Mr Dunne agree to cooperate with the Henry inquiry by agreeing for it to access his parliamentary email logs and what evidence does he have of that agreement?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: What is quite clear is that Mr Dunne actually did not agree to comply with the inquiry because on numerous occasions his office or he was directly asked to release his emails and he refused to do so. In terms of the wider issue of the metadata what I can say is that the terms of reference for the inquiry on 15 April made it quite clear that they would be accessed and no Minister raised any concerns with me about this fact.Dr Russel Norman: So with regard to the letter in April in which the Prime Minister says some form of consent was obtained—it would appear from his answer—did Mr Dunne reply to the terms in this letter by agreeing to cooperate with the inquiry by allowing his parliamentary email logs to be accessed by the inquiry?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not have the details of whether or not Mr Dunne wrote back. The member could put that down in writing to my office and we would be able to give him an answer. But I go back to the original point which is that the terms of reference were quite clear and they were: “Stage 1 will include reviewing communications and copying equipment and records log books and any other material considered relevant of the persons (and/or their offices) who had or were likely to have had access to the compliance review report”. No Minister raised any concerns with me. In fact when I announced the inquiry and Dr Norman thought it was a member of National who might have leaked it he was screaming for there to be an inquiry with access to all information and to get to the bottom of it.Dr Russel Norman: So is the Prime Minister saying that the extent of the consent obtained by the Henry inquiry acting under the authority of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet was simply that the terms of the inquiry were published and there was no reply from Mr Dunne agreeing to those terms of inquiry and there was no explicit consent from Mr Dunne for Mr Henry to access Mr Dunne’s parliamentary email log?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: All of those can be checked in case there is other correspondence but I think it was quite clear if one looks at the terms of reference what was going to be accessed. As I said no Minister made it clear that they had concerns but what is becoming increasingly clear actually is that if the Greens were ever in Government with Labour they are obviously concerned that they might do such dodgy things that they want nothing—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is an unnecessary part to the answer.Dr Russel Norman: Given that Mr Dunne received the Kitteridge report as leader of the United Future party not as a Minister; given that the emails concerned were parliamentary not ministerial emails; and given that Mr Dunne never gave his consent for the Henry inquiry to access his parliamentary email account under what authority did Mr Henry access Mr Dunne’s parliamentary email log?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In my view the authority that was vested in him when I asked him to conduct the inquiry when I made it quite clear that all communications copying equipment records and log books would be looked at that no Minister raised concerns and when the member himself went on to say that not only was this a very serious matter but that if I did not know who had leaked the report I should launch an inquiryand get to the bottom of it and that fundamentally I should leave no stone unturned to get an answer.Dr Russel Norman: So is the Prime Minister saying that the authority of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet which was the sole authority that the Henry inquiry had is sufficient authority to access the parliamentary server and parliamentary emails without the consent of the member of Parliament concerned?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well I think this is going to come as a shock to the member but for very good reasons when a ministerial inquiry of this nature is established then actually there is a responsibility to try to get to the bottom of that. And in fact—as I have just tried to point out with what the member himself was saying when he thought it was a National member—he was quite happy for all information to be accessed. No Minister and no staff member at any time from the moment we actually went out there and put out the terms of reference ever came and complained or was upset by that.Dr Russel Norman: So the Prime Minister is now giving himself and his staff the authority or the Henry inquiry appointed by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet—and only with the authority of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet—the right to access the parliamentary emails and parliamentary email logs of members of Parliament without first obtaining the consent of those members of Parliament?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No the member is not correct. No emails have actually been looked at. What has been established is an inquiry the terms of reference of which made it quite clear that communications log books records and other material considered relevant would be reviewed. I think as I have said earlier the member would be—because he was already—one of the first to be off out of the blocks claiming that this was a serious matter that I needed to find out who leaked the report and that I should “get to the bottom of it” and all of those things but today all of a sudden he does not like it.Grant Robertson: Did his office request the email metadata from the Parliamentary Service that identified there were 86 emails between Peter Dunne and a journalist discussing the Kitteridge report?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No that was done by Mr Henry as he conducted the report.Grant Robertson: Is it correct that his office became aware of 86 emails between Peter Dunne and a journalist discussing the Kitteridge report on 22 May and why did he come to this House on 29 May and say he did not believe for a moment that any of his Ministers were involved in leaking the report?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In relation to the first bit that is probably correct—that is probably the right date although I do not have that with me; I would have to check it and the member is often wrong. In relation to 29 May—because that is what I believed to be correct.