Shearer David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Shearer David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 26 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8883. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
1. 
DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
David Shearer 
: How can he have confidence in a Minister who considers a breach affecting more than 80000 confidential files from Canterbury households being “similar to someone putting the wrong address on an envelope.”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: In principle if you were to post out the information that was emailed out they would both be going to an address and if the address was wrong the effect would be the same. 
David Shearer 
: In light of repeated breaches by the Ministry of Social Development ACC the Inland Revenue Department Work and Income Novopay the Department of Corrections and now the Earthquake Commission will he admit that there is a systemic failure of information management across the Government? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No. I think there is room for improvement and the chief technology officer is working with all of those departments to ensure that they follow best practice. But we live in a world where technology is heavily used where people do email and actually from time to time people make mistakes. If the member is saying that we should go and sack this member of the Earthquake Commission—who I understand just from reading the newspaper today is a highly valued member—then that is a pretty high standard and actually not one that he held himself— 
David Shearer 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The latter part of that answer was well off the question and actually it was wrong in addition to that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the question has been very adequately addressed. 
David Shearer 
: Given the number and magnitude of these breaches including the Ministry of Social Development ACC the Inland Revenue Department Work and Income Novopay the Department of Corrections and now the Earthquake Commission when will he instigate a policy across the Government to protect confidential information rather than dismissing it as he did yesterday when he said that “all of us probably in our lives have sent an email by mistake …”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: We probably all have made mistakes. I mean this member cannot remember that he has got a bank account offshore— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Supplementary question David Shearer. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! The Leader of the Opposition has every right to ask a supplementary question. 
David Shearer 
: In light of the repeated breaches by the Ministry of Social Development ACC the Inland Revenue Department Work and Income Novopay the Department of Corrections and the Earthquake Commission why has it not been made mandatory for all Government agencies to follow the advice of their very own information and communications technology agency policy to use SEEMail or Secure Electronic Environmental Mail which is specifically designed to protect data when sending attachments? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: You know very specific questions like that could be put down to the Minister but my understanding is that that is the policy. My understanding also is that the chief technology officer will be once again reiterating to those departments that that is the process that should be followed. But I say that in a modern world of modern technology people will make mistakes. 
David Shearer 
: What specific action will he take to give the public an assurance that their personal and private details are safe? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Well I am tempted to say: “Tell the Leader of the Opposition. He does not tell anyone about his private details.” 
David Shearer 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If the Prime Minister thinks that this is somehow some trivial matter that he can palm off he is wrong and I would appreciate it if he could answer the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invite—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! I invite the Leader of the Opposition to re-ask that question. 
David Shearer 
: What specific action will he take to give the public an assurance that their personal and private details are safe? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: As I have said a couple of times in answering this question today the chief technology officer is working with all of the technology teams to ensure that they follow best practice and that matter of upgrading security has been in play for quite some time. But people will make mistakes. Last week that member— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! That is not necessary to the answer today. 
David Shearer 
: Given that the leak of last week revealed that the Earthquake Commission has the information on claims at its fingertips why are Cantabrians being kept in the dark waiting for months over the status of their Earthquake Commission claims? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I do not have all the details on what was available but what I can say and what I understand is that the person who emailed out that file did so in a way—not maliciously; not with the intention to embarrass other people but they made a mistake. Last week that member made a mistake— 
David Shearer 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I find this unbelievable. This is something—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! A point of order will be heard in silence. 
David Shearer 
: This is an email with 80000 people’s confidential information being made available right across the public arena and that Prime Minister will not— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I am not sure what the point of order is. I can help the member there. The member asked about the Prime Minister’s specific action that he would take— 
David Shearer 
: No I asked about why it was that the Earthquake Commission had all the data but was not— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: —and the Prime Minister’s answer was that he did not have that detail and he then went on to elaborate. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My point of order is: why are you allowing the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings to be flouted—on this occasion four separate times—when the Prime Minister concluded his answer with an unqualified attack on someone else in the House? Each time you did precisely nothing. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No that is—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! The member will resume his seat. [ 
Interruption 
] The member will resume his seat. The member—thank you. On both occasions I rose to my feet and told the Prime Minister that his answer was well and truly completed. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think the question then is what about the other two occasions? And if it is three strikes and we lose out maybe the fourth time you could actually take some action. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: To complete what I was trying to say it was that you cannot think that just by stopping him on four occasions that that is an adequate response from the Speaker. Surely after three warnings or three stoppages you should have said that he should exit the House or is there a different set of rules for him and a different one for the rest of us? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not going to litigate your ruling but the very point I was making was that this person made an honest mistake. That is my point. That member claims he also made an honest mistake. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Thank you. That was not a point of order either. Does the member have further supplementary questions to ask? Then we—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! [ 
Interruption 
] Order! I have attempted to be very patient and make sure that no one has had to leave the House during my time as Speaker. I will continue to try to keep that patience but it will not be helped if I get a barracking from either side of the House. I am calling question No. 2— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect what would stop the barracking is that you have been asked to make a ruling. You simply did not reply to Mr Peters. You did not make a ruling on what action— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! [ 
Interruption 
] Order! I did reply to Mr Peters. I have called question No. 2—Peseta— 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I have a further point of order from Dr Russel Norman. Is it a fresh point of order? 
Dr Russel Norman 
: It is seeking clarity on your ruling. Are you ruling that the Prime Minister’s answers were in order or not? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have covered that point I think quite adequately for the rest of the House. But for the benefit of the member the Prime Minister certainly addressed the questions that were asked to my satisfaction but he added political points towards the end I think of two questions—and if Mr Peters says it was four it may have been more than two questions—that were certainly not helpful to the order of the House as has been evidenced today.