Urgent Debates — Release of Report—Telecommunications Stocktake Review

I have received a letter from Gerry Brownlee seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the release of a report on an investigation into the disclosure of a classified telecommunications stocktake review. The release of the report is a particular case of recent occurrence and I accept that it does require the immediate attention of the House. I therefore call on Mr Brownlee to move the motion.

I move, That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance. If members have ever wondered where Jim, Beryl, John, Hugh, the boss, Wally, and the lovely Raewyn went—the characters from Gliding On—they are all alive and well on the eighth floor of the Beehive in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. This is an outfit that this report shows is extremely cobwebbed and burdened down by the dust of bureaucracy in a way that shows absolutely no respect for very big decisions being made by the Government and the consequences they can have on New Zealanders. It is the inefficiency of that outfit that has led to some $2 billion being written off the value of New Zealand’s largest public company. If people want to know what $2 billion can buy in Government, well, firstly, it is 200 years’ worth of Saturday night’s Lotto prize. Secondly, it is 20 percent of the annual increase in the health budget, a 30 percent annual increase in an education budget, more than 100 percent of what we could spend on defence, and it would give students in New Zealand up to 5 years of totally free tertiary education. So no one should diminish the consequences of this leak. The only questions that remain to be answered now are what was the motivation behind Michael Ryan’s decision to steal and then pass on the document, and who was the hapless official in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet who carelessly tossed the document into the “for shredding” basket for all who passed by to see and read.

We need to know the answers to those questions, because the Government spin out there is that this action was somehow a mistake, and that Mr Ryan was just a lowly person working in the office who was not in any particularly important job, but was only a messenger who happened upon a document, sort of by mistake, and thought that it might be of some interest to his friend. The question is, how does a messenger inside the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet get to see a document like that? Copies of the document were delivered to all Ministers in envelopes, which were sealed and marked “commercially sensitive”, and numbered so that everyone knew who had them. But somehow one was carelessly tossed into a basket so that a messenger could come along, have a bit of a look, and think that his friend Mr Garty might be interested in reading it.

I think that it is interesting to look at the sequence of events the investigator managed to uncover. He first said that on Monday, 26 December, Mr Ryan saw an agenda for either a Cabinet meeting that day or for a policy committee meeting to be held the following Wednesday. I want to know why the investigator does not know which agenda that man saw. I ask why Mr Wevers and all the other clever people in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet cannot tell the investigator which document the messenger saw—and how Mr Ryan was able to go out of the building, meet with his friend Mr Garty that evening and indicate there was a possibility that Mr Garty might receive some secret Government document for his own use, and mention to Mr Garty during the course of that conversation that Cabinet was to discuss a telecommunications stocktake at some point in the next couple of days.

That is a very serious matter. It is no good for the Prime Minister just to say that that person has acted dishonestly. We all know that. He did sign those documents of confidentiality and he did agree to the various other requirements of someone who works in that position, but the real question is, why is it that if a Minister receives something in a sealed envelope and has to treat it with a great deal of sensitivity, a messenger can just see it lying in a basket somewhere and decide to take it away? When Mr Ryan saw the telecommunications stocktake document, he simply picked it up, took it down to the messengers’ room, stuffed it in his bag, and took it out of the building. Well, I would have thought that the Prime Minister’s department might have had better security than that. I would have thought that it would be almost impossible for someone to leave that building with a confidential document hidden in his or her bag, so I want to know why there is some failure in the system.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I do it every day.

Mr Mallard says that he does it every day. Well, I say to Mr Mallard that we know he is a messenger for the Government, and, therefore, expendable, but he is a Minister and we would expect a Minister to be able to do that. We do not expect messengers to be able to secretly take a document with enormous commercial sensitivity attached to it and quietly cart it home, have a discussion with their mates about the possibility of getting a bit of free carpet, and then hand over a document to their mates and say: “This is for your eyes only. Please do not photocopy it. Please do not spread it about.”—which raises the question as to why Mr Ryan gave the document to his friend in the first place.

The issues around the way in which the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet operates are, I think, quite considerable. When I said before that there is a sort of Gliding On attitude up there, that attitude is all the way through this report. When we go further into the report, we find that the investigator was interested to discuss a policy inside the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet about the handling of classified documentation. It states: “ ‘Policy and privacy’ information, for which compromise does not threaten the security of the nation, but rather the security or interests of individuals, groups, commercial entities, government business and the community.” This was such a document. The question then is, how was it to be handled? We find a little bit of an indication in the report to civil servants—which is why we want to know who the brains trust was who just tossed that document into the basket so that everybody could see it. We work to the “ ‘Need to retain” principle. Only retain classified documents, especially circulated drafts, while they are in use. Once a classified document or draft is no longer needed, either return it to the originator or destroy it. ‘Need to retain’ principle should include: Keeping all holdings of loose classified material to a minimum; Annual reviews of holdings of loose classified material; How to return or dispose of unneeded classified material.” So the department has processes; it just does not follow them.

The messenger up there has certainly been dishonest, but he is getting an overdue kicking when others up there have behaved in an equally sloppy manner. The department has a clear desk, clear screen, clear whiteboard policy. When a workstation is unattended, the desk must be clear of any classified information, and the computer must be accessible only through password entry. At the end of the business day all classified hard copies should be stored in locked storage. What we have now is a clear desk, clear screen, clear whiteboard, but full shredding tray, policy inside the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.

What is amazing is that it was Dr Prebble’s agent who undertook this particular inquiry. I will divert for a minute and acquaint everyone with who Dr Prebble is. He is the man who was head of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet at the time the Prime Minister got herself in the cart over “corngate”. Members may recall the various obfuscations that went on at that time, and the months and months it took before we were able to find out the truth that related to that particular issue. Is it now surprising that we have the same Dr Prebble out there saying that we have got the little scrote who did it, and it will not happen again? I do not think so. I cannot help thinking that there is something bigger afoot here.

Members should imagine this messenger inside the department, having the time to wander round and have a casual read of the agenda for Cabinet the following day and of the policy committee meeting the following night. He might have spotted a bit on Telecom so decided to keep an eye on that for a day or two, then thought he could duck out of the office, go to the cycle club meeting that night and ask his mate Pete what he thinks of this Telecom stocktake and what it might be about, and if he is interested he will shoot back tomorrow and flog it and hand it over to him. It was quite easy and simple and no checks whatsoever were involved.

Those claims by Mr Prebble and Mr Wevers and others that they are completely innocent and that it was nothing to do with them, and their view that if someone is trying to be dishonest, what can one do, do not give us an acceptable answer. Where is the reasonable programme to tighten up security inside that department?

Underlying all this, of course, is that Labour members just do not care about the business community. It does not bother them. Dr Cullen is laughing, as he always laughs at the business community. It just does not bother them. Thousands of mum and dad investors in Telecom had their equity written off to a huge extent because of this leak. Dr Cullen said it would have happened anyway—as if that is some sort of an excuse. The reality is that if Dr Cullen had released this in his Budget he would not have had the other threatening material in there. I doubt very much that he would have stood up in this House and said that the Government was about to split New Zealand’s largest public company in two. I do not think he would have done that. When he tells us tomorrow that the energy companies will have the axe taken to them, that is fair enough. If that is what Dr Cullen wants to tell the House tomorrow, I think he now has an obligation to tell the House today.

The reality is that Parliament has a right to expect that an executive will conduct his or her business in a professional and caring manner. But there is no care for those investors out there who put small amounts of money on a weekly basis into managed funds and various other superannuation vehicles. The Government’s answer is that those people should not worry about that but leave it all to the Government, which will do it for them. Can members guess what one of the biggest sellers of Telecom shares has been in recent days? It is the Government’s superannuation fund. Members should tell me that there is not a bit of Chinese whispering going on between the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Minister of Finance’s office, and the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation. If they are wrong, Dr Cullen should stand up and say so. The evidence is very clear when we look at the trading that goes on in the stock market.

So the question comes back to the guy who has so far not been named, and has so far apparently been exonerated. Members should think about this man, who receives a highly sensitive document in an envelope that has a number on it. He initials it, opens the seal, gets out the document, does his high-powered analysis of it, and then says: “OK, fair enough, I’ll get rid of that. I’ll biff it over here.” There are passers-by coming through as in a bus station, having a quick flick through and seeing whether any of their mates want to see it. But the man is exonerated. The State Services Commission has stated: “I wish to make it clear that this recommendation should not be seen as in any way a criticism of the actions of the relevant Advisor…”. Who is the relevant advisor? The commission should just give us his name. The commission continues: “… in placing the document in his confidential ‘shredding tray’ for disposal without enveloping it. It was clear from the evidence” that the investigator received that this advisor “was perhaps more acutely aware than anyone as to the sensitivity of this document …”. So if this advisor is so acutely aware of the sensitivity of the document, and still tossed it into a bin for all to see, what the heck are the rest of them doing? The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet comes out of this situation looking very shaky and shoddy, and we need some answers about how its security is being tidied up.

A number of significant facts have emerged in this debate. The first is that the debate was not led by Dr Don T Brash, who was missing in action again during the supposed big king-hit on the Government. Dr Brash knows that every time he comes into this House and gives a speech, he dies a little. Of course, every time he goes out of the House he dies a lot. We know that only too well. The real issue today is why Mr Brownlee was put up to mount the massive king-hit on the Government. I think he answered that question. Today, with that speech, Don Brash ensured that Gerry Brownlee killed his chances of becoming the Leader of the Opposition. One of my colleagues asked why Dr Brash did not give that speech. The answer is that even Dr Brash is not as stupid as that.

The only significant thing that Mr Brownlee said in that speech was that he could not help thinking. We have to give him high marks for trying, but not for thinking, during that speech. I was waiting for the big king-hit question of whether the tray was plastic or metal, and for the request for the Government to come clean and tell members the truth about that. The truth, of course, is that the Government has done much better at finding its leak than National has done at finding its leaks, which are going on all over place—and, I am told, there are more to come in the very near future.

Mr Brownlee’s speech did show that the Opposition has nothing to say on this issue. Mr Brownlee ran out of material in the first 4 minutes of his speech, and kept going round and round in circles—a bit like Rodney Hide before he lost weight. The National members thought they should apply for a debate, but having applied for it and got it, they did not know what to say during the debate. Mr Brownlee had nothing to say in that speech. Mr Brownlee’s one and only suggestion related to how somebody could get out of the building with a document. He said that surely there should be security to stop people from getting out of the Beehive with, potentially, a document on their person. In other words, every time somebody other than a Minister goes in and out of the Beehive, he or she should be searched. Well, that would include members of almost every minor party in the House, because they go through the Beehive to get to this Chamber. It would include every ministerial staffer, and it would include parliamentary messengers and members of the press gallery. I know that Mr Brownlee lusts after being able to search one or two members of the press gallery himself—and why not—but the fact is that we cannot search everybody who goes in and out of that building every time they go in and out.

Goodness me, that suggestion comes from the party that complains about compliance costs! Well, what a compliance cost it would be on the Government if it had to search everybody who goes in and out of the building, including Mr Brownlee. The truth is that we could not find anybody who would volunteer to do a body search on Mr Brownlee—or, indeed, anybody who is big enough to do a body search on Mr Brownlee, should we have to do that. That is the reality. That is all that National members could suggest.

What are the facts? The facts are actually simple. One employee who was in a position of trust committed, despite having gone through psychological vetting and police vetting, a breach of that trust. Mr Brownlee asked what the employee’s motivation was. His motivation is not terribly relevant. Apparently, he was trying to help a friend, and, apparently, the friend was rather embarrassed by the help, as, no doubt, any of us would be in a similar situation. The friend, on the evening, had drunk rather too much wine to be able to read the document. Once he did read it, he knew there was a problem and promptly took the appropriate action in respect of that problem. That is it. That is the story from start to finish.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: No!

Dr Lockwood Smith says: “No!”. He thinks there must be, if I can use such a phrase, a deep, dark secret here that people have not yet learnt about. I tell Dr Smith that no, that is it in this case. That is all there is to go on.

💬 Hon Judith Tizard: Lockwood wants the body search.

Lockwood wants the body search? No, no, no, that is not true. That is not fair to Dr Lockwood Smith.

What else do we have? The issue is that the procedures that were followed are those that have been followed for many, many years. The alternative, presumably, is that we have big green waste bins in our offices that are locked and have little holes in the top so that we can stick everything in, as some people do. The problem is that we still have to take the documents out at some point and put them in the shredder. Whoever does that job is the potential point of weakness. As Mr Brownlee ought to know, it is not possible to completely stop somebody from leaking. Some people have been inclined to suggest that Mr Brownlee has been the source of some of the leaks within the National Party over recent months. The fact is that those leaks seem to incriminate Dr Brash, and certainly seem to incriminate Mr Key—or some of the ones that will come out a bit later will—but do not incriminate Mr Brownlee. So one can perhaps see some support for that particular thesis.

The fact is that one person in a position of trust, who had worked for the Government for 30 years with no problems at all in all of that previous employment, seems to have suffered a mad rush of blood to the head and dishonestly decided to help a mate—a mate who could not even have been helped in that case, because as an employee of Telecom he was actually debarred from selling his shares at that point, because Telecom’s annual report was due and this incident occurred during the time period when he could not take any action. That is the entire story. That is the urgent matter of public importance on which Mr Brownlee thinks he can pull down the Government. All he did was to pull down himself. The way is now clear for Mr Key and Mr English to have it out in the fight for life within the National Party.

It appears in this particular case that the Opposition doth protest too much. One of the points that Opposition members have been making is that because of this leak $1.8 billion was wiped off Telecom’s share value. In fact, the $1.8 billion would have been wiped off the moment that Dr Cullen announced on Thursday exactly the same Government policy. All that shows is that Telecom is overvalued by $1.8 billion. The question has to be asked as to why it is overvalued by $1.8 billion. It is because Telecom is—or has been up until this point in time—a monopoly.

The real scandal in this whole saga surrounds, in fact, a certain Roderick Deane, who was one of the architects of the so-called market economy, which was to go through not only business but also State services and State delivery of services. That architect took over a State monopoly and turned it into a private monopoly, and then that particular company behaved in a way, purely and simply, so as to retain its monopoly. The whole raison d’ệtre of Telecom was to retain its monopoly. Someone described Telecom as a legal company with a telecommunications company attached to it. On the way, Mr Deane picked up $2 million a year and received bonus shares, etc.

Let us have a look at the series of events, because it is quite clear from the report that this leak came about as a result of misplaced friendship. I think we need to go through the series of events. Mr Ryan has admitted to the fact that he was carrying out his duties as a messenger with the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. On Monday, 1 May his role involved assisting in the Cabinet Office with the distribution of the necessary mail and papers, and he happened to see an agenda, which was either for the Cabinet meeting that day or for the policy committee meeting to be held on Wednesday. He noticed that on the agenda was a consideration of the telecommunications review.

Obviously, as the report shows, that evening, after Mr Ryan went back home, he happened to go to his friend’s place to look at some carpet. His friend was not there when he first arrived. Mr Garty came later, and Mr Ryan happened to mention to Mr Garty that he had seen that item on the agenda. The very next day, Mr Ryan, once again undertaking his normal duties, was making deliveries of documentation. One of those duties included removing confidential documents intended for shredding from trays designated for that purpose.

We want to follow through the course of events from here. Mr Ryan saw the telecommunications stocktake document in a tray in an office shared by three policy advisory group advisers on the eighth floor of the Beehive. He took the document to the messengers’ room. I think we need to reflect on this. In the messengers’ room is the shredder. In the very room where the messengers keep their bags there is also the shredder. The report does recommend that we need to look at the systems. We certainly would ask whether it makes any sense to put the shredder in the room where the messengers have all their bags and their gear. In this particular case, of course, Mr Ryan put the document into his bag and took it home, and later that evening gave it to Mr Garty.

The report states: “The employee”—that is, Mr Garty—“and ultimately Telecom were passive recipients of the document, having taken no action to seek it or to encourage Mr Ryan to provide it.” That is true. Mr Garty made photocopies of the document at his own home, then delivered the document back to Mr Ryan the next day so that it could be brought back into the Beehive. One might ask whether Mr Garty’s behaviour at that particular stage met the integrity test. In this particular case the report made the comment—I think accurately—that from the moment Mr Garty saw the document he was in fact compromised. The photocopying could be justified in the sense that he immediately took it to Telecom’s legal advisers and said: “Listen, this is what I’ve been shown. What do you make of it?”. In fairness to Telecom, it immediately made contact with Mr Cunliffe’s office and said—[Interruption] I am actually saying, in fairness to Telecom, that it immediately made contact with the executive, said it had the papers, and asked what it was supposed to do about them.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: And what did they say?

The executive probably said: “We’ve got some urgent messages. We’d better run across and see Winston Peters, because we’ve got to make this announcement some time today.”

I want to make a personal comment. As telecommunications spokesperson for New Zealand First I was rung the next day by someone who asked, given that the confidence and supply agreement states everything should be shared, whether we had seen the paper. Thank God I was able to say that I had never seen sight nor sign of that particular paper, so it was not me who had leaked it.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: It was posted on the Internet that day.

I did not get it until the next day—I did not have it.

As I said, the report recommends that some of the systems need to be looked at. One of the things that has not yet been spoken about is that during the whole review process people tried to gather up all the copies of that particular document. It is noted in the report: “on 11 May 2006 I was advised that a further copy of this paper had been located behind a photocopier located in Hon. Mr Cunliffe’s office.” The report goes on to state: “It is clear to me that this additional copy found fell behind the photocopier by accident during the rush to provide the media with copies on that date.”—on 3 May. But that remark raises some very serious questions about the security of vital documents, if they can fall behind photocopiers in such a manner in a Minister’s office. Certainly, there are some disturbing features of this particular matter, and lessons have to be learnt from it. There is no doubt that it was a very serious leak and a very serious security breach. However, I believe that the report has got it accurately—the leak stemmed from misplaced loyalty rather than from any criminal intent to try to beat the stock market.

In terms of some of the other systems, the report goes into, for example, the employment processes that are carried out by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Certainly, there is absolutely thorough scrutiny of the employees there, and that includes a psychological report. So that particular area is certainly tied up, as are the requirements under employment law, etc., to make sure employees’ contracts include the requirements to maintain the confidentiality of all the documents they see. As the report states, at that level there is certainly robustness. Some systematic problems need to be looked at in order to ensure that there are not repeats of this particular leak. Everyone would recognise that the situation is very, very serious, but it is wrong to protest and say it demonstrates serious malfunctioning on the eighth and ninth floors; the report shows that the problem was one of misplaced friendship involving a person who had passed all the tests and jumped all the hurdles to get a job as a messenger in that particular department. In fact, in this case, the person himself knows he made an extremely foolish mistake by taking the action he did.

This debate has focused, so far, on the matters that were investigated by the State Services Commission. But, of course, the debate has raised some much wider issues. I want to ask the Government today why Minister Cunliffe, who is at the centre of these goings on—and of policy decisions—still holds his job. The measure for whether Mr Cunliffe should still be in his job is the way the Government dealt with David Parker—his bench mate. Why is David Cunliffe still sitting in his seat, with his warrants, when, by this stage of a similar set of proceedings, David Parker was not?

Let us look at the circumstances that David Cunliffe has got himself into. He did an interview yesterday—a wide-ranging interview, we are told, and a long one—in which he made comments regarding Telecom’s dividend and investment policy. Those comments were broadcast on the Bloomberg News wire, which is a subscriber-only wholesale news service for participants in the money market. As a result of those comments, the volume of Telecom shares being traded went way up, and the price went down. Members should ask themselves why that happened. It happened because David Cunliffe is the ultimate insider. He is the Minister who has held over Telecom the threat that he will break that business up into wholesale and retail components, if it does not meet the Government’s objectives. So when the person who has that power says to the market that Telecom should change its dividend policy, of course the market will take notice. The Securities Commission has taken that seriously, and, certainly, market participants have, because it said today that it had received a referral from the New Zealand Exchange—not from some mum and dad shareholder of no particular legal account—relating to comments reportedly made by the Minister of Communications, David Cunliffe. The commission is considering the referral.

Let us just remind ourselves what has happened here. Someone who was certainly an insider has made comments that may break the law. Those comments have been referred by one statutory body, the New Zealand Exchange, which has regulatory experience, to another statutory body, the Securities Commission. The Securities Commission is considering whether to investigate. In my view, it has no choice. It investigated comments made by Helen Clark in 2001 regarding Air New Zealand shares. Of course, it had to do so, particularly because the case involved a Government Minister who was privy to all sorts of information that no other shareholder could get. As my colleague has pointed out, this situation is much more serious than the comments that were made about Air New Zealand. There was a significant drop in Telecom’s share price, and there is ongoing controversy about the bumbling way the Government has handled the whole debacle of the leak in the announcement of its unbundling policy.

Let us line up that seriousness alongside David Parker’s case. David Parker was stood down because allegations had been made that he had committed minor breaches of the Companies Act. He stood down. He admitted at the time that he believed he might have breached the Companies Act—because no one else was sure—

💬 Simon Power: It was pretty honourable.

It was pretty honourable. He said he had done the deed that he was alleged to have done. In David Cunliffe’s case there is absolutely no doubt that he did the deed. He has confirmed he made the statements. In David Parker’s case it is unclear whether the Companies Office had announced an investigation before he resigned. I believe he resigned before the investigation was publicly announced. Here we have another Minister, who has breached a much more serious law in a much more public and serious way, and who has much greater responsibility. David Parker had a responsibility to his shareholders and, as an individual, to keep the law. But it was not his responsibility as a Minister that he breached. David Cunliffe has used his ministerial position, knowledge, power, and influence and made a statement, which may break the law—and he is still sitting in his seat. It will be subject to investigation by the Securities Commission.

So Helen Clark needs to tell us why that is the case. If David Parker went, for a less serious offence related to his behaviour as a private individual, why is David Cunliffe keeping his job, for a much more serious potential breach of the law, which he committed in his capacity as a Minister? How can Parliament and Telecom shareholders be reassured that he will not go out tomorrow and do it again? He lost a copy of the paper, behind the photocopier. And now he has made a statement that is being investigated by the Securities Commission. That is a serious matter. What protection does the financial market have against that man?

💬 Hon Members: None!

None, because he is still in his job, still getting all the insider information, of which he has shown himself to be an unreliable custodian. Yet the Government is still giving it to him. He may be getting information right now—before he came into the House for question time, perhaps—that the Government is going to split Telecom up.

💬 Simon Power: Who knows?

Who knows? Well, everyone may know, because David Cunliffe might go and tell everyone. He cannot be trusted. His breach is as bad as the breach by the messenger. It is as bad. David Cunliffe is the custodian of confidential information, and he has broken the trust put in him. Is that not what the messenger did, and look what happened to him? David Parker was not a custodian of public or commercially sensitive information—not at all. Yet he stood down, because the trust in him was seen to be broken, and he could not be restored to his position until he had been investigated.

💬 Simon Power: He lost his position.

In fact, he did not go back to be Attorney-General. He never went back. That is the threshold Helen Clark set. David Parker was found to be not guilty, but he was not put back into the position where he had to be trusted to keep the law. That is the standard, and I might say to Mr Cunliffe that it is a high standard and you have breached that standard.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

We are asking Helen Clark to explain why she is not applying—

💬 Hon Mark Burton: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That senior member opposite is getting carried away, but he cannot accuse you of anything, let alone what he just accused you of. He should withdraw and apologise.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you. I had drawn that to his attention when I called “Order!”.

I withdraw and apologise. David Cunliffe is the custodian of some of the most commercially sensitive, explosive information that the Government has. We know because, regardless of the leak, the decision made by him and Cabinet has wiped $2.5 billion off the Telecom share price. That is how sensitive the information is. And he has gone and used that position to give information and a point of view to the market, which it has to take notice of because he is the Minister who is the primary decision maker. Now, thousands of New Zealand mum and dad shareholders, and hundreds of thousands of people who have their retirement savings in shares in Telecom, have to wait and hope that that man will keep his mouth shut. Helen Clark says it is OK that we wait and hope that David Cunliffe can keep his mouth shut. Well, he cannot. He has shown that and he should go. David Parker went. David Cunliffe must go.

In the limited time I have available to me, I want to cover three broad areas of the case—in ascending order of importance, in my view. The first relates to Mr Ryan and his behaviour, which can be described only as incalculably dishonest, foolish, and displaying an appalling lack of judgment. There is no way that his continued employment, in those circumstances, can be justified. The report of the State Services Commissioner states all it needs to on that matter. That is the easiest part of the case.

The second issue I want to deal with relates to the practices and procedures within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, and the questions that in my mind remain unanswered as to how Mr Ryan had such free access to the documents, and how he was able to act in the way he did. That matter, in my judgment, requires further investigation by both the State Services Commissioner and the chief executive of the department, in the first instance, and, if need be, at some point in the future, it may well require the attention of the House. But due process has to be followed, and then we can make that decision at a subsequent stage.

Mr English has touched on what I regard as being the most important aspect of the case, and that is the fact that nearly $2 billion of shareholders’ investments in Telecom was wiped by the premature release of the announcement, and associated circumstances. Many, many investors in this country are reeling from that shock. I might interpolate that those investors may well have faced a similar situation anyway, had the original plan proceeded and the measures simply been announced on Budget night. But that interpolation is speculative, at this stage.

The question that requires the proper attention of the Securities Commission relates to the circumstances of the leak and the impact it had on the market, and also the questions that have arisen in the last 24 hours. I appreciate the temptation to play politics with this issue, and that is understandable in the circumstances. But given that the well-being and good judgment of many New Zealand shareholders have been seriously put at risk by this action, I think it is time to set aside the political differences and concentrate on getting to the bottom of how it happened, what actions caused it to happen, and, then, where the accountability and responsibility must lie.

So it seems to me that we have the following path ahead of us. Firstly, in terms of Mr Ryan, the future is clear—he does not have one. He is gone, or is about to go. Secondly, in terms of the practices and procedures that gave rise to the circumstances of his behaviour, there is, clearly, further investigative work to be done by both the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the State Services Commission, to ensure that procedures are put in place to make sure there can be no repetition of the action. Thirdly, there needs to be some form of investigation by the Securities Commission of the wider issues involved, to ensure that the shock to the New Zealand economy that this measure has induced can at least be mitigated and, hopefully, prevented from occurring again in the future.

The suggestion that we should, at this point, embark upon a parliamentary inquiry is not one I am attracted to, for the simple reason that it would cut across procedures that are already under way. It is a perfectly appropriate call for Parliament to determine that it wishes to inquire into the case, if, at the end of that procedure of inquiry, it remains unsatisfied. But to step in arbitrarily at this point would be premature. I believe that pressure needs to be placed on the agencies I have identified, to carry out their work in a timely manner, and to report to Parliament accordingly. Then we can make considered and rational decisions that are in the interests of all New Zealanders.

This case has been a most unfortunate development. I think it is without precedent in our modern history. It is not something we ought to encourage or laud, and, frankly, there are some unanswered questions on both sides of the issue that further inquiry, in the manner I have outlined, would help to address. But to rush in now, in the way that some members are suggesting, simply reminds me of the old proverb about fools.

A number of points need to be made on this issue. The first one, which struck me as quite amazing, was the comment by the Prime Minister that it has been like this for a long time. I point out to the Prime Minister that when she left office in 1990 and I became a Minister, technologies did not exist that now exist that enable people to smuggle documents. For example, people can now take a photo of a document with a cellphone as they walk down a corridor and email it off. So even if someone was searched for the physical document as he or she left the building—even if a full body cavity search was done—with today’s technology the document could already have been sent out. For the Prime Minister to say that it has always been like this is a nonsense.

As those new technologies evolve—as cellphones come with cameras on board, as wireless Bluetooth communications can fire it off to a computer in the building next door and so on, or as Wi-Fi networks can image a document through a scanner then fire it off around a network—to say that it is the way it has always been with the paper envelope, and the way one opens the envelope and leaves it in the in-tray, is wrong. It is just a nonsense. The Prime Minister had better get up to date with the way the new world functions and put some proper mechanisms in place.

In this case it was a very old-technology steal of some property. It was done by a dishonest messenger. But if it can sit around in a tray, if it can go into a room for shredding where the messengers keep their bags, let me tell the House that it could easily have gone out and been flying on the Internet within seconds with today’s technology. It will not do any more to say: “Oh, but 15 years ago that’s how it used to be, so that’s how it should still be.”

We could take a leaf out of the book of a particular person—I refer to the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Oh, yes.

My colleague Dr Lockwood Smith, who served in Cabinet with Winston Peters, will know that he had a mechanism for keeping Cabinet papers so confidential and secret that it worked a treat. I suggest Ministers take a leaf out of Mr Peters’ book. His mechanism was never to open his own Cabinet papers and read them. That is what he did. He used to come to Cabinet with the envelopes still sealed. He used to show up regular as clockwork with them still sealed. A lot of people would say: “What, did he read them while he was at Cabinet?”. No, he used to sleep while he was at Cabinet. On a regular basis Jim Bolger would have to give him a shake and wake him up. But Mr Peters had confidentiality absolutely nailed.

The one thing I used to get in trouble for with my wife on a Sunday was when she would come into the living room at some stage and go berko about those little wee plastic tails that come off the zipper of little plastic envelopes. They form into a little pig’s tail curl when they are ripped off, and I was untidy enough to drop a few around the living room. She would always go crook about them and say: “Can you please be a bit tidier when you do the zipper on your little plastic envelope.” But we never had that problem with Mr Winston Peters. The little pig’s tail curl was still in place even when the Cabinet meeting was over and declared finished. I suggest that is a very good precedent for other Ministers. David Cunliffe should take a note out of Winston Peters’ book on that.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: What about the fake emails?

What about the fake emails he now has, that he has created? However, I want to get into another area in relation to the Prime Minister.

💬 Jill Pettis: Is that the best the member can do?

No, it’s not the best I can do.

💬 Hon Mark Burton: Is the member suggesting the email is fake?

No, I am suggesting that some of the emails may be fake. We can soon get a forensic person to look at them if Mr Peters is prepared to expose their electronic image, but he will not do that.

I want to go back to the Prime Minister because she has said some really interesting things in recent months. When there was the David Benson-Pope issue about the tennis ball and the prima facie case, and when there was the David Parker incident, the Prime Minister came to this House and said publicly on a number of occasions that she was appalled at what politics had become. She said that it had become a personal attack, a vendetta against people, especially Ministers, and that the dreadful Opposition was now dragging in the gutter and taking out people because of personal animosities or for cheap political point-scoring. Oh, really? Is that how politics has become?

I want to recount a particular example that happened to me. It was fully investigated by the State Services Commission, and I want to give the answer to that. As a Minister I once flew back from the United States on a Boeing 747 and as we landed at Auckland the hostess tapped me on the shoulder and said: “Excuse me, Mr Williamson, we have had an electronic communication to the pilot. They want you to be at the Cabinet meeting in Wellington on time because you have got papers. So we would ask you to come to the door of the plane first and we will take you off the plane first and take you downstairs to a security car that will take you across the tarmac to a domestic flight and that will get you there.” The plane was late in; we were supposed to be in at 6 o’clock in the morning and it was getting towards 8 o’clock. I said: “Well is that OK?”, and they said: “Yes, that’s fine.” I asked about my immigration and passport and they said I needed to leave all that, and my bags, with my staff and that just I should go with them. This all came out in the inquiry, and it is verbatim.

So when the plane pulled up at the door I did exactly what I was asked. I stood up, the hostess said: “Come this way.”, they opened the door, I went through the door, downstairs with the men in their little bobby socks and their shorts, we raced across the tarmac, I jumped on the 8 o’clock Ansett flight on time, flew to Wellington, and I got to Cabinet. At 11 o’clock my press secretary was outside Cabinet saying: “You had better come out, you are in huge trouble. Jim Sutton has called for your resignation and Helen Clark has done the same.” It was all on. If members do not believe me they should come up to my office right now and they will see a cartoon from the paper. It is of Helen Clark with a big spray can and me walking across the tarmac, and she is going to get me.

What was the accusation? It was that I had somehow refused to be sprayed while everyone else had to be, and that I had demanded to be taken off the plane early. I said to my press secretary: “Well, that’s just a nonsense, they don’t spray the planes any more. So that is just ridiculous.” It turned out that there had been a problem, but I was unaware of it. It turned out that when the little men in their bobby socks checked the documentation for the United Airlines plane I was on, they found that the bombs that sit in the air conditioning had expired and they needed to close the door, call some people up with some spray cans, and walk up and down the aisle and spray it. I did not know that. They did not know that at the time.

But what did Helen Clark do? Day after day she said that the Minister of Transport should be sacked, it was an outrage, and his behaviour was appalling. A State Services Commission inquiry was finally called for; Jim Bolger had no option but to call for it. The State Services Commission interviewed the people at the airport and they said: “No, we made the decision to call the pilot and get Mr Williamson off early. No, we asked him to come off. No, he did what he said. Yes, he came to Wellington.”

💬 Jill Pettis: What’s all this got to do with it?

I am saying this because the Prime Minister says how ugly and how dreadful politics has become when the Opposition raises matters in relation to poor Ministers like David Benson-Pope—“Captain Tennis Ball”, who shoves stuff in kids’ gobs—we are being grubby; we are in the gutter. When we raise stuff about breaches of the Companies Act by David Parker, she says we are being grubby and awful. When we raise stuff about Mr Cunliffe knocking $200 million off the Telecom share price, we are being grubby. But, oh no, members opposite can—

💬 Hon Mark Burton: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I listened with care when the Speaker read out the letter that caused this debate. I even went to the Table to reread it to make sure I had heard it right. I have sat through one member opposite going on and on about things that have nothing to do with that letter, and now we have another one. I really, really invite you, Mr Assistant Speaker, to ask the member to say something vaguely related to the letter that caused the debate to happen.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the member for his contribution. It is a rather robust debate and I have heard exchanges from both sides. But I ask the member to speak to the letter.

I am happy to answer Mr Burton on that. This is about ministerial behaviour and accountability. I do not feel good about bringing up something from my past, even though the State Services Commission completely exonerated me. The reason I bring it up is that as soon as we start raising anything about Ministers’ behaviour in this Government, the Prime Minister is on the front foot, saying: “This is the disgraceful Opposition. All they want to do is politicise these issues.” But she never hesitated. She tried to take people out. I have the newspaper clippings from that incident if Annette King does not remember it. Helen Clark said that the Minister of Transport should resign for leaving his plane early and refusing to be sprayed. She said that my behaviour was reprehensible. Actually it turned out that I had done nothing wrong and was completely cleared.

But in this case David Cunliffe’s behaviour is reprehensible. It is appalling. His statement about trade-offs—the dividends versus capital expenditure of a private company—is absolutely beneath contempt, yet he is still in his job. Helen Clark will not be calling for his resignation. I am listening—but I still cannot hear her doing it. Someone innocently gets off a plane when asked, and has to resign. But when someone takes $2 billion off a company with his stupid Cabinet paper and the management of it, and then decides that was not enough and takes another $200 million off the value by going out and making a reckless statement about dividends versus the capital expenditure programme, I say this whole House should be listening for Helen Clark to call for his resignation. I cannot hear it. What I can hear is the fluttering of the wings as the chickens come home to roost for this Government; that is what I can hear.

I recall last week that the National Party raised a point of order about Winston Peters being given a supplementary question by the Government. Gerry Brownlee got to his feet in his usual fashion, and huffed and puffed about how terrible it was that Winston Peters had been given a supplementary question by Labour. I point out—

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Following on from the comments made by the Hon Mark Burton, the Deputy Leader of the House, a few minutes ago about members’ speeches being relevant to the bill, I seek leave to table the letter supplied to the Speaker today in order that the Hon Annette King may understand what the debate is about this afternoon.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member is quite entitled to seek leave to table that. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. I just say leeway is given in replying to a speech. I refer members to Speakers’ ruling 44/3.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a deliberate attempt to break up my speech. I would like to be given the opportunity and the time to start my speech again.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I say to the member that I will certainly take that into consideration, but I have said to Mr Brownlee that you have leeway in replying to the speech. Frivolous interjections, of course, are out of order and can actually lead to disorder.

Of course, Gerry Brownlee wanted to interrupt my speech because it showed a big dose of hypocrisy. He raised the issue of Winston Peters being given a speaking spot by Labour this week, but did not own up to the fact that National had received a speaking spot from ACT this week. So it was OK for National to receive a speaking spot from ACT, but it was not OK for Labour to give one to New Zealand First.

I say it is quite all right to give speaking spots to whomever one wants to.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is not appropriate for members to refer to one another by the “h” word, which we are not allowed to use. I want to make it clear that National has not done a deal with the ACT party; it simply took a spot that was going. If the Labour members assume that the National members have done a deal with ACT, it is too bad for them. They should have more of their own speakers here in the Chamber. Debates are not something they want to participate in.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I do not consider that to be a point of order; it is a debatable issue.

Labour members are entitled to two speeches, and we are taking our two speeches. What Gerry Brownlee did not like was the fact that last week there was an act of hypocrisy in this House when National members raised that issue. I want to point that out. I do not care a hoot whom they get their speaking spots from; that is called cooperation in Parliament. But when those sorts of issues are raised in Parliament, and issues like this so-called urgent debate are raised, it makes this place a laughing stock. The public are not stupid; they hear what is said one week and changed the next week. They hear about the urgency of this debate requested in the letter, and then find the leak is not discussed at all in the debate. I think the public will be very disappointed with this debate today.

Let us look at the contributions. I have a right to go through some of the points that have been made. First of all, why was this urgent debate not led off by Don Brash? He is the leader of the National Party. When there is an issue that is very urgent and important, one would normally put one’s leader up to lead off the urgent debate. That is certainly what Helen Clark did while in Opposition, but Don Brash does not do that. I cannot remember many urgent debates that he has led off in this Parliament since National has been in Opposition. I know why Don Brash did not lead off the debate. First of all, he is embarrassed to lead off a debate on a leak. He could not lead off a debate on a leak, because the biggest leak in this Parliament came out of his office. When did that happen? It happened in about August last year. About 7 or 8 months ago there was a leak from the Leader of the Opposition’s office. Someone got into his emails and sent them around the country, particularly to Winston Peters. He would not have solicited them, but he did receive them, and there was not one email but several of them.

So about 8 months ago, the biggest leak out of a member of Parliament’s office took place from the Leader of the Opposition’s office. Did we hear about that leak being resolved? It is not resolved today. National members still do not know who is responsible for that leak—or do they? Let us ask that question. One has to ask oneself whether the reason they have not pursued that leak out of the Leader of the Opposition’s office could well be that they know it was Gerry Brownlee, Bill English, or John Key who leaked those emails. Why do they want to cover that up? Because it means what everybody in New Zealand knows: there is a plan to get rid of their leader. So National would not want people to know about its inquiries into that leak. I do not blame National members for leaking the emails; I would want to get rid of Don Brash too.

However, let us be honest about why National wanted to have this debate today. It is not about the leak at all. The National members wanted to have this debate because they do not want to debate the real issue that this incident came out of. They do not want to debate this Government’s approach to telecommunications. They failed to address the issue of telecommunications in their 9 long years in Government; they did not have the internal fortitude to address that issue. So what did they do? They wanted to have a debate on the leak, and then they did not talk about the leak. Gerry Brownlee got up. He was full of puffery and blatherskite. I agree with you, Mr Speaker; this is a robust debate. It is a robust debate all right from the National members, signifying absolutely nothing.

Gerry Brownlee attacked Mark Prebble, the State Services Commissioner.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: No, I didn’t.

Oh, yes, he did. He attacked Mark Prebble, but forgot one important point: Mark Prebble was the head of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet under the National Government, when the same rules that apply today applied to the messengers who worked for National. Of course, the procedures and rules that applied when National members were in Government, which apply today, were all right then, but suddenly this issue is all the Government’s fault and the Prime Minister’s fault. National spreads the blame wherever it can. It is very interesting that National has suddenly decided it does not like the rules. Why did National not search the messengers when it was in Government? Why did it not body-frisk people as they left the Beehive, which is something Gerry Brownlee has just promoted? He said that everybody who leaves the Beehive ought to be checked. Well, of course, Gerry Brownlee would spend a fair bit of time being checked, because he spends a lot of time in the Beehive, in Bellamy’s. Bellamy’s is in the Beehive, so if we are to check everybody who leaves there, we ought to check the people who come in and out of the building, or who pass through it, or who go up or down it.

Bill English’s contribution was really interesting. He has tried to turn the debate from the leak—which was so urgent that we needed to discuss it—to the impact of the regulatory package on Telecom’s potential future earnings. That is what he wanted to talk about. Then he wanted to blame David Cunliffe for somehow having inside knowledge that has affected Telecom’s share price. I can tell the Opposition members that David Cunliffe clarified his position before the market opened, and Telecom clarified it yesterday. That is the truth, although those members do not like it. The Minister had no inside information from Telecom. He had no idea about its future dividend policy, and to say otherwise is nothing more than to tell large porkies in this Parliament.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, no. The member cannot say “porkies”.

I want to look at what the inquiry was all about. I think it would do the members of the Opposition good if they actually read the State Services Commission report on the leak.

Let us look at some of the issues. These are the findings of the State Services Commissioner. First of all, he stated the Cabinet document relating to the Telecom stocktake review was deliberately taken from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet by Mr Michael Ryan, a messenger employed by that department, and given to a Telecom employee.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: We knew that. It was pretty hard to work that out!

Good—they knew that. Secondly, the commissioner found Mr Ryan took the document from within a work area at the department on Tuesday, 2 May and passed it to a Telecom employee who was a personal friend. He returned the paper on 3 May. [Interruption] So we knew that. Mr Ryan had legitimate access to the document and was responsible for delivering it to the destruction bin where it was to go. The Telecom employee, and ultimately Telecom, were passive recipients of the document, having taken no action to seek it from Mr Ryan. Mr Ryan was a very good friend of a Telecom employee, and the commissioner decided that neither the employee nor Telecom was at fault regarding the acquisition of the document.

The systems operated by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet were appropriate and were followed by every person other than Mr Ryan, an individual within that organisation. He joined the organisation in October last year. He was fully informed of his responsibility and of the confidentiality of Cabinet documents, just as every messenger had been under a Tory Government. Not even the great Tory party would have been able to stop an individual who took it upon himself to leak information to somebody else. Those were the major findings from the—

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Stop making excuses.

They are not excuses; they are the facts. Let us have the facts, not the blatherskite, not the puffery, and not the useless debate on which we have just wasted 1 hour of taxpayers’ time because the National Party said the leak was so important. National members said we needed to debate the leak, but they then debated absolutely everything else.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.