Shearer David: Urgent Debates — Hon Peter Dunne—Report on Investigation of Review of Compliance Leak and Resignation as MinisterText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeShearer David: 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:10917. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition):I moveThat the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance . John Key must put aside his own self-interest and finish the job that he started. The public deserves an answer to the question that John Key actually asked himself: who leaked the Kitteridge report? Because frankly we still do not know. A Minister resigned last week and we do not know why yet. The stakes for John Key are very high and we need to get to the truth of the matter.The leaking of sensitive documents is serious enough but actually this goes to the heart of the Government’s stability. How much longer can this Government continue to be propped up by someone who has been accused and looks to be guilty of leaking the report and also by somebody who is currently before the courts?Hon John Banks: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Is there not a well-known Standing Order about matters that are before the courts and members who are before the courts? Otherwise we will talk about the money-laundering account in New York.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! The member will resume his seat. It is a debatable issue.Hon John Banks: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Is there not a long-held Standing Order that says that matters before the courts cannot be debated in this Parliament by members who are associated with a matter before the court?Hon Trevor Mallard: There is a longstanding Standing Order about debating matters that are before the court. There is a difference between debating a matter and going to the question of judgment involved and referring to that fact. The member shares my unfortunate—I am an unfortunate predecessor. There was plenty of reference to the McCready matter when I was appearing before the courts. The reason for not referring to it might be that it might be seen that people were moving on a question of judgment. I hate referring to Mr Terris for a ruling but in this case Speaker’s ruling 31/3 states: “There are no grounds for ruling against a member making a statement that there is a legal action in existence but the member should refrain from giving emphasis to the likely outcome.” I think that was actually the Terris drunk-driving case but I think the ruling is a good one.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the honourable member for that. It is not out of order to refer to the fact that a case is before the courts but it is out of order to refer to the details of the case.DAVID SHEARER: I acknowledge the member for bringing that to the House’s attention. [Interruption ]Hon John Banks: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! We have a point of order on the floor.Hon John Banks: It is the money-laundering—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! That is a frivolous interjection designed to break up a speech. The member has his first yellow card.DAVID SHEARER: Let us look at the facts. David Henry’s report threw up three suspects. Two of those suspects were cleared and one Peter Dunne remained. Peter Dunne resigned as a Minister. Peter Dunne has told this Parliament and the New Zealand public that he had nothing to do with the leaking of the Kitteridge report. In the Finance and Expenditure Committee Peter Dunne could not have been clearer. When he was asked directly whether he leaked the report he said categorically no.Here is the problem for Mr Key: the Prime Minister’s own investigation leaves Mr Dunne as the only suspect. That is why we need an investigation. This matter raises the most serious of questions. Did Peter Dunne leak the sensitive report? Has he lied to the New Zealand public and this House? I do not know. I do not know the answer to that; neither do the people of New Zealand. It cannot simply rest there. Mr Key cannot simply walk away from this report and not get to the bottom of what is actually going on here.Peter Dunne is the only one who had the report and who exchanged that quantity of emails with a political reporter. He did that on a ministerial computer which is subject to the Official Information Act. Peter Dunne is one of our most experienced Ministers in this Government and one of the longest-serving MPs in this House. He knows that he is covered by the Official Information Act. He knows that the emails could have been requested by any member of the public and any member of the media. I am sure that most of the media agencies have an Official Information Act request in right now to see those emails. Mr Dunne went in with his eyes wide open to this and now he claims that the emails might clear him but he will not show them certainly not to David Henry who could have seen them confidentially.He will not show them to Mr Key who is the only man in New Zealand who appears to trust Peter Dunne—or we suppose he does because yesterday the Prime Minister kicked him off the Intelligence and Security Committee. Mr Key said that that was because he needed to be a Minister. In fact that is not true. If you look at the Act that is simply not true. The real reason is that Mr Key cannot actually trust him to sit on that committee where we listen to confidential information. But he will trust him to prop up his Government—he will trust him to prop up his Government.We have a Government that is now propped up by a rorter of electoral law and by somebody who is leaking. That is a joke and New Zealand knows it. Mr Key knows it as well and it is why Mr Key has simply walked right away from that report and its investigation. His only concern is to prop up Mr Dunne and to prop up John Banks. That is where the matter stops and starts for him.If you look through that lens all of a sudden everything becomes very very clear. This is not the first time that Mr Key has done this. Can anybody remember the teapot tapes? That was when John Key desperately called in the police in the middle of the teapot tapes saga to get to the bottom of what was going on. It was because of John Key that search warrants—search warrants—were issued to search the contents of four media agencies. That is how big a defender of the media Mr Key is. He did not think twice when calling in the police to give him the sort of political protection that he needed. Back then he claimed that that was a matter of principle but where is that sense of principle today? Where is that responsibility to get to the truth? It is nowhere to be seen and it is a complete and utter double standard.The public deserves answers and this House should be left in no doubt that this is an issue that is as serious as it gets. It involves one of the Government’s support parties and one of John Key’s most senior and trusted members. The report was considered so sensitive that it was held in a highly restricted electronic system within the Government Communications Security Bureau. No electronic copies were distributed; just 35 copies of the report were circulated. The report was a matter of our national security—the most sensitive information we have. Two months ago—just 2 months ago—John Key agreed. Two months ago leaking the report was so serious it demanded an inquiry. Two months ago John Key said that these leaks “undermine the integrity of the entire Public Service.” Two months ago he said that he had a responsibility to get to the bottom of it if he could.Today all of that has mysteriously changed. Today he is trying to spin it that it is no big deal. Today he is trying to say that leaking it was nothing more than transgressing or breaking an embargo. Today he does not want to get to know about it. Today John Key will not go the extra step to finish the job. The truth behind that is very very simple: it has become a matter of political expedience. All we want is to get to the bottom of it. We do not need to go as far as the teapot tapes and bring in the police; we just want to know the truth. We want him to get to the bottom of what went on and he will not do that because his support partner now is in the gun and the stability of his Government is at stake. His own political skin is on the line. Once again we are seeing his self-interest being put above everything else.Propping up John Banks and Peter Dunne is more important than getting to the truth. For John Key when it comes to Peter Dunne and John Banks it is better the devil beast you know than the devil beast you do not know. I can tell you that we had the finger pointed at us a few weeks ago and all you need to do is look behind you to see just how stable that Government is. John Key needs Peter Dunne to prop him up. Peter Dunne has the casting vote that put Mighty River Power Meridian and Genesis on the block. John Key needs Peter Dunne to pass the Skycity deal—that sleazy deal—because all he needs is one vote and that is coming from Peter Dunne.That is not good enough. New Zealanders expect much more from their Prime Minister than that. He promised higher standards but instead we are being dragged from one scandal to another to another. He will not even look at the police report that refers to John Banks because he does not want to know. We have to ask the questions and he says he does not know because he has not read the report because he does not want to know what is actually in that report. He knows that as soon as he does he will have to fire John Banks as well.Turning a blind eye is not leadership. We saw it again in the response to the MMP review. Let us remember what happened to that review. That review was meant to be about ensuring that people who voted for MMP got a chance to improve the system but Judith Collins turned around and said: “No we don’t want to hear about that.” and absolutely cancelled it. And why? Because the Government was standing up and protecting John Banks and Peter Dunne—that is the reason why. It was not because it wanted to improve the system; it had to prop up its mates. If you want to move on to more scandal Skycity was given an even better deal—better access to Ministers than any other tenderer in that deal. That is what I call a sleazy deal. Even Stephen Franks a former National Party candidate believe it or not—he actually stood against Grant Robertson—Grant Robertson: He lost.DAVID SHEARER: —and he lost comprehensively—thinks it is wrong to sell a 35-year exemption under the law. John Key had invested so much into that deal that he had to get something out of it no matter how much it cost New Zealanders.The Government is certainly concerned only with its own survival. New Zealanders deserve much more than that from this Government and that is why we need to get to the bottom of what went on here. It is not good enough simply to walk away from it and wipe our hands of it. We need to know what happened. We need to know the truth and I am tired of John Key standing up and ignoring what he needs to face up to—absolutely ignoring it.This Government is propped up by two phoneys—two phoneys. That man needs to face up and tell New Zealanders the truth. Thank you.