Tolley Anne: Privilege — Consideration of Interim Report of Privileges Committee Question of Privilege Regarding Use of Intrusive Powers Within the Parliamentary PrecinctText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTolley Anne: Privilege — Consideration of Interim Report of Privileges Committee Question of Privilege Regarding Use of Intrusive Powers Within the Parliamentary Precinct[Sitting date: 04 December 2013. Volume:695;Page:15261. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Police): I want to take a short call in this debate on the report of the Privileges Committee. I have to echo the comments from previous speakers that it was a very interesting process picking apart the actions of a variety of people. I echo the comments of the Hon John Banks that this was an episode that did not reflect well on this Parliament. Perhaps I have been here a bit long to talk of being naive but actually I naively in hindsight thought that a committee with the gravitas of the Privileges Committee would operate in a reasonably non-political manner to try to get at the facts in the interests of all parliamentarians. By and large I have to say that during the workings of the committee apart from the occasional sortie from various people to settle old scores actually the committee worked very well to do that. So it is quite disappointing having produced what is a pretty comprehensive report to then come to the House and find that all the politics surfaces and all the things that perhaps were not explored satisfactorily in the committee are now being aired seeking to lay blame at the feet of people like the Prime Minister like the Prime Minister’s chief of staff who actually—in the case of the chief of staff—came and gave evidence to the Privileges Committee. He was questioned and he gave very satisfactory answers.The report sets out very clearly what we were actually asked to do and—to the frustration of some of our members—what we were not asked to do and that of course was to determine who was responsible for the release of the document in the first place. Then as a committee we set out to establish the facts. I thank the people who came before us for the very constructive honest and open way in which they appeared in front of the committee. They gave us a clear indication of their view of the events. That enabled us then to put together a very good summary which appears in this report of what happened when and who was involved. So I do thank them and in particular the Clerk of the House and her office for the help that was given to the committee.Three things stood out for me during the investigation of this committee. The first was the complete lack of understanding by someone of the stature of Mr Henry. I am interested to hear the Rt Hon Winston Peters’ categorisation of him but he has a reasonably distinguished career. As I said to him in the examination for someone who has been around this place and been involved in politics for quite some time there was a complete lack of understanding of the different nature of this place that he showed in conducting this investigation. We all came to the conclusion that the first person he should have gone to see was the Speaker who is our representative who speaks for this House and who is in control of all the staff who work in this Parliament. So that complete lack of acceptance that this was a different environment set this investigation off on the wrong foot from the beginning.Secondly again for someone who has had such a long career involved in Parliament to not understand the very special nature of the media in this place and its special role in the rights if you like and the responsibilities that go with that again that was completely underestimated and completely overlooked. There was no respect at any time from Mr Henry in conducting the inquiry for the hierarchy of Parliament. So the Speaker was not involved. I think we were surprised that Mr Henry did not make early contact and maintain contact with Mr Thorn the General Manager of Parliamentary Service who was responsible for the staff who were going to be providing information. Those two critical mistakes made by Mr Henry set the scene for what became inevitable—that things would go wrong that the wrong people would be accessinginformation and that information would be made available without any regard for some of the privileges that we hold here as parliamentarians.The next thing that struck me during the investigation was the almost casual attitude shown by a variety of staff to the very complex nature of the information that they were required asked and able to access. We have heard some of that talked about by other members. What is the difference in the role of a Minister and the information that you hold as a Minister as against the information you have in your email in-box as a member of Parliament who is dealing with constituents as against an individual who happens to work here at Parliament? The complexities of that were not recognised by some third and fourth-tier people who were working for the inquiry and giving access to information at the request of people involved in the inquiry. I found that casual attitude to that complex data by people at very junior levels in the organisation and with very little oversight by management quite extraordinary.Thirdly I have to say that I was amazed at the lack of alternatives that were sought or not sought by Mr Henry in his conduct of the inquiry in order to get his information. This is a point that I think Grant Robertson raised on a number of occasions—or it might have been David Parker—that Mr Henry did have other options available to him. In fact he did indicate that he could have taken the inquiry to part 2 but decided not to when the information that Mr Dunne held was withheld. So he did not try any other alternatives. Again you would have thought that he might involve the Speaker to talk about what those alternatives might be. That was not done. Those were the three things that I can add to the debate here tonight.I would say that it is interesting to hear both the Greens and New Zealand First—as they did at the Privileges Committee in fairness—seeking to show the general manager Mr Thorn as a bit of a victim of the inquiry. There is no doubt that as a consequence of the circumstances he did resign from his job. But in actual fact when you look at the way that that inquiry rolled out at any stage with the requests that were coming to him and his clear “uncomfortableness”—is that a word—he was clearly uncomfortable about—Nicky Wagner: Discomfort.Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Discomfort thank you. There was discomfort with some of the requests for information that were being made. Again his backstop his support and his defence was the Speaker. That is no different from anyone who is a Minister and has an organisation an agency that reports to them. If there are difficulties if there are things that are concerning those agencies then any Minister would expect them to be brought to them for some discussion—at least to make them aware of some of the consequences of those requests. At no stage did Mr Thorn raise with the Speaker any of those concerns that he had. I admire the man’s work and I am very sorry to lose him from the organisation but I do not see him as a victim of the inquiry other than by the circumstances he placed himself in.It has been a very interesting exercise. Again it has shown clearly that we have more work to do to make sure that this does not happen again and that there are good procedures put in place to ensure that the data that is so sacrosanct to all of us is respected and that the processes of Parliament are respected.