Urgent Debates — Hon Peter Dunne—Report on Investigation of Review of Compliance Leak and Resignation as Minister

Honourable members, I have received letters from David Shearer and the Rt Hon Winston Peters seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the resignation of the Hon Peter Dunne and the release of the report on the inquiry into the unauthorised release of information relating to the Government Communications Security Bureau compliance review. Both letters relate to particular cases of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. The two cases are interrelated and members will be able to refer to the inquiry report in debating the resignation of the Minister. In these circumstances, the application received first by me is the one to take priority. Mr Shearer’s letter was received first, and I therefore accept his application. I call on the Leader of the Opposition to move that the House take note of an urgent matter of public importance.

I move, That 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.

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.

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.

—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.

Last week it was Labour being led by the nose by the Greens, and this week it is Labour being led by the nose by New Zealand First. There is no doubt about that.

The previous speech, by David Shearer, would be much more credible if the Leader of the Opposition showed the same enthusiasm for the investigation into the leak of Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade material to Phil Goff. I did not hear him say that Prime Minister John Key has to get to the bottom of what happened with the leak of Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade material to Phil Goff. I did not hear him say that Prime Minister John Key should be going through the emails and the phone records of Phil Goff to find out how a leak to him from a public servant occurred. I did not hear the Leader of the Opposition pleading with the Government to get to the bottom of that investigation, which, of course, those members characterised at the time as a witch-hunt against those who want to bring transparency to the Government. Well, of course, when they give that speech, then I will believe it.

The other reason we would find that speech credible would be if the Leader of the Opposition had addressed most of it to the leader of New Zealand First and said something like this: “We want to get to the bottom of this, Mr Peters. Give us the emails.” After all, Labour is in full-on courting mode, so why did David Shearer not take this opportunity in the House to ask Winston Peters for the emails that Winston Peters says he holds?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Order! Mr English is making a hard-hitting speech, and some interjection can be expected, but not so much that it drowns out the speaker. The Speaker will not allow that.

None of the interjections were a satisfactory answer to that question. Why does Winston Peters not give the Labour Party the emails so that David Shearer then knows what happened? Mr Peters might take the opportunity to table them when he speaks in this debate. He said he has got them—

💬 Hon Member: He’s got them.

💬 Hon Member: Look at the envelope.

He is opening the envelope as we speak. He is opening the envelope; the emails are coming. Would that not be a fine thing?

What is going on in the Opposition is the manoeuvring between New Zealand First and the Greens. That is really what is going on. The Labour Party is sitting there with the Greens being a much more effective Opposition. They bared their teeth and it was a snarl, not a smile. We now know the true nature of what the Greens would be like in any kind of Government. Mr Peters has spied this growing relationship, and he has realised that he needs to reposition so that he could be a potential partner in 2024 for the incoming Labour Government. So he has decided that the way to reposition for 2024—

💬 Hon John Banks: 2024?

—he will be only 85—is to look tough on security. And, actually, he is being tougher on security, much more so than what used to be the mainstream Labour Party. Winston Peters has addressed the Government Communications Security Bureau legislation in a much more serious and considered manner than the Labour Party has. The Labour Party members have just decided that whatever it is, it is a Government bill, so it will vote against it. Even a bitter partisan like Helen Clark did not do that in Opposition. Labour considered national security issues seriously. This Labour Party is incapable of doing so. But that is a bit of a side issue that will play itself out over the next 6 months.

Mr Peters has decided, on the basis of a whim last week, to pretend that he knows what happened with the Henry inquiry and that he has the emails, but he cannot produce them. Now he has pushed the Labour Party into putting in a privileges letter. Well, is the Labour Party willing to answer the question the media are now asking? Does it really want a committee of Parliament to fashion a legal or parliamentary procedure that would allow anyone who leaks on the Government, including MPs, to have their whole phone and email correspondence wide open to public inquiry? I think Labour Party members this week are trying to get off the hook. They rushed at it on Sunday, led by the nose by Winston, got the privileges letter in, and now they are going to find that their friends in the media are turning on them, because the media do not want the emails of the Fairfax journalist in front of the Privileges Committee. They have made it absolutely clear that they will use every legal means possible to protect their sources and their journalist, and we would not expect anything else.

You would think that a media-savvy Labour Party would know that being led by the nose by Mr Peters takes it to the same place as him. He is always at loggerheads with the media. That is his business. That is his brand. But the Labour Party members are just realising this afternoon, after reading the Dominion Post editorial, that they are headed for a titanic clash with the media.

The next issue is this: is the Labour Party in Opposition indicating that when in Government it would have the legal or parliamentary procedure to inquire into the personal communications of every member of Parliament if they are under suspicion of a leak? I invite—

💬 Grant Robertson: What about a Minister?

Well, he is no longer a Minister—that is the point. He is no longer a Minister.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: He was when he leaked it.

Peter Dunne is a member of Parliament. OK. So this is the proposition of the Labour Party to the media now: any journalist who corresponds with any Minister in any Labour Government needs to know that their emails and voice messages will be open to scrutiny by the Prime Minister whenever they feel like it. That is the Labour Party proposition to the media. Well, let us just watch over the next couple of weeks. Those members might shout it in here, but out there they are going to be working very hard to get off that hook, because their relationship with the media is now at stake, and when you are in Opposition you need to be able to communicate with the media. You need to have free flow of information. You do in Government too, actually.

💬 Hon John Banks: You need to do a lot of leaking.

You need to do a lot of leaking to be in Opposition. The Opposition members are now saying they want a parliamentary legal procedure so that if they get some leak and make it to the media, the Prime Minister must get to the bottom of it. He must get their emails—from Trevor Mallard, from Chris Hipkins, from Kris Faafoi—

💬 Hon Phil Goff: You don’t have to do that. You put Peter Dunne on oath.

—from Phil Goff—

💬 Hon Phil Goff: You put MFAT on oath. You won’t put Peter Dunne on oath.

Mr Goff could save the Government and the taxpayer a lot of time and money by handing over—

💬 Hon Phil Goff: Double standards. Put Peter Dunne on oath.

Here is a challenge for Mr Goff. Mr Goff, hand over your emails and your phone records so that we can get to the bottom of the leak from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to the Labour Party. I invite Labour to get up in this debate and table in the House Phil Goff’s emails, Phil Goff’s phone records—

💬 Hon John Banks: And the bank account from New York.

—and the bank account from New York. Let us get to the bottom of that. What a great idea. [Interruption] That is a very good idea.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Can I just remind members that interjections are to be relevant and reasonable, but a running commentary is out of order. If members want to speak they can do so when the opportunity arises.

💬 Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I appreciate that. I guess that on this side of the House our feeling is that if Mr English is simply going to make things up continually through his speech, it is very difficult for us to be able to restrain ourselves.

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

Here is the opportunity for the Labour Party to back up the credibility of its leader: one, ask Winston Peters for the emails; two, table Phil Goff’s emails and phone records from the period during which he received leaks from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade; and, three, table David Shearer’s bank account, because we want to get to the bottom of what was actually a substantial undeclared asset. It is of parliamentary interest. It is of parliamentary interest. These are the three things we want the Labour Party to do: ask Winston for the emails, table the emails and phone records from Phil Goff, and table David Shearer’s bank account. Those are all items of personal information relevant to this leak, or another leak, or a breach of parliamentary requirements about the members’ register of interests.

That all sounds pretty simple to me, and we look forward to those things happening this afternoon. Otherwise we would have to come to the conclusion that Labour was stampeded into its privileges complaint by Winston Peters and by the kind of shallow advice that Grant Robertson gives his leader, which is undermining his leader, and which is pitching him at his worst, not his best. That kind of shallow advice has led the Labour Party to now be on the hook as the people who are threatening Parliament and the media with powers of intervention into the personal communications of MPs that we have simply never had before.

The facts are pretty simple. There was an inquiry into a leak and a Minister subject to that inquiry has resigned. The Prime Minister has done his job, and now we look forward to the Labour Party doing its job and producing the documents that we have invited it to table.

The member called?

💬 Metiria Turei: Yes, Mr Assistant Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I could not hear, actually. There was so much noise.

That is all right, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koe. The question is, and it has been said before, how low John Key will stoop to keep this little Government cobbled together. That is what we are seeing happen with this scandal around Peter Dunne. John Key is desperate to cling on to power and to keep people inside his tent, despite the serious concerns about their integrity. This is certainly not the first example of this. It was certainly the case in the previous National Government, and it is certainly the case in this one, that John Key will do anything to cling on to power, even if it puts the public at risk and there are serious questions of integrity for his Ministers.

John Key needs Peter Dunne to keep supporting his unstable and unethical Government. He needs Peter Dunne for bills like the Skycity convention centre dirty deal. He needs Peter Dunne’s vote to get that thing through. He knows that it is unethical. He knows that the New Zealand public are opposed to it. He knows it will cause harm to hundreds of New Zealanders and to small businesses and community organisations, but he is desperate to keep alive this $400 million monument to John Key. He will do anything, including keeping Peter Dunne on side, in order to see that it proceeds. That is a Prime Minister who has no understanding of the effects of his actions on ordinary New Zealanders in their everyday lives.

John Key has said that Mr Dunne was replaced on the Intelligence and Security Committee because he is no longer a Minister. We would have seen that on television, with John Key saying that it did not really have anything to do with the issue of trust; it was to do with the issue of no longer being a Minister. That is just not the truth—that is just not the case. In fact, for membership on the Intelligence and Security Committee it is required that every person who nominates someone for membership of this committee, this particular Intelligence and Security Committee, “shall have regard to the requirements of security”—shall have regard to the requirements of security.

Peter Dunne has not been tossed off this committee because he is no longer a Minister; he has been thrown off this committee because he is not trusted by this Prime Minister. The Prime Minister’s job is to nominate someone for this committee. He has removed that nomination because Peter Dunne cannot be trusted with the security that is required for this committee. That is a clear implication from John Key, the Prime Minister, that he does not trust Peter Dunne any more. Despite that, and despite that clear statement, he will keep him on in some form in the agreement that National has with United Future, in order to be able to keep Peter Dunne’s vote—despite the fact that he no longer has any trust in Peter Dunne.

The Prime Minister has to be up front and honest with the New Zealand public. That is his job. He has primary responsibility to the well-being of the New Zealand public—not to another person in his Cabinet, not even to his own party, but primarily to the people of New Zealand—and John Key is failing in that duty.

It is interesting, actually, when you think about when that rule did change, because we have other members on that committee—the public may not know this—who are not Ministers either. So, for example, Russel Norman and David Shearer, who are not Ministers, are on that committee. They are trusted with the requirements of security, and they will continue to be members of that committee because they are trustworthy. Peter Dunne has been thrown off the committee by the Prime Minister because the Prime Minister no longer trusts him.

I want to just raise an issue that has not been discussed, actually, very widely at all in the debate around Peter Dunne and his actions and his reasons for resigning as a Minister. Peter Dunne has been very clear that he himself cannot explain his behaviour or why it is that he is still withholding information from the Henry inquiry. As a result, there has been a lot of speculation about this being a salacious issue, about this being an infatuation, as it has been described. The person who has no voice in this debate—the person who is subject to all of this rumour and innuendo—is the journalist involved. That journalist cannot talk about her sources. She is unable to defend herself against the accusations and innuendo that are being made against her. We have people like Michelle Boag, a National Party toady, making defamatory statements about the journalist on television—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: And me.

Well, Winston Peters does have a voice in this debate, so I would not consider Winston Peters to be a victim of what is going on here, but the journalist, I think, is a victim. Because the journalist is a woman and because the journalist is young, that means that there has been a deliberate inference that somehow that journalist has behaved unethically in the relationships that she has with members of this House. That accusation must be put down. It is not the case that this innuendo is accurate. This journalist has a real problem now, because her reputation is at stake and she has very little opportunity to defend herself against the accusation. I would implore the rest of the media who are dealing with this issue to bear in mind what is happening here with one of their own, and that this would not be acceptable to them if it was them or one of their own in their own media.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: What about the Privileges Committee?

Mr Brownlee talks about the Privileges Committee. The Privileges Committee is, quite rightly, investigating this issue. If there is an issue of a breach of the Standing Orders, then absolutely the Privileges Committee should be investigating it. That does not give the journalist involved in this case a genuine voice to defend herself against the salacious and defamatory comments, particularly from the National side, about her behaviour. She does not have an option here.

In essence, this is a very clear story. John Key is desperate to keep his Government going because he has all sorts of legislation that he is desperate to get through, on the basis of two votes from two MPs, who have both had their integrity questioned and who are both teetering, as I have said earlier, on the edge of political oblivion. There is John Banks, as a result of allegations that he lied about his donations return—he is currently in court over that issue—and, of course, now Peter Dunne, who has resigned as a Minister but the policy agreement that he made, in order for the Government to continue, does continue. So he will keep on supporting this Government, even though John Key has effectively said that he no longer trusts Peter Dunne with any matters of security or consideration.

This Government is unstable, it is unethical, and it relies on the votes of disgraced men. Just like the last days of the Shipley Government—for those who are here and remember those times—John Key is having to cobble together another National Party coalition of the disgraced. Thank you.

There is a sword of Damocles that hangs over the Prime Minister and the head of this Government. Those members seem to have learnt nothing. Whether it was back when we had the Māori loans affair, the BNZ, the wine-box inquiry, the tea party tapes—they sit there and scream out “Where’s your evidence?”, and when it is all over, they are the ones who have been severely damaged by their behaviour. It puts you in mind of Walter Scott’s famous quote, when he said: “O, what a tangled web we weave, When we first practise to deceive!”. It had all the marks of a whodunit. And if Dunne had not done it, who had?

Oh, how things have changed. Back just before the time he ordered the inquiry, Mr Key was the anti-politician—the fellow who could be trusted because he did not behave like the rest of us. He had standards that were high, he said. He was someone above the ruck of politics. Of course, he thought that matters like this—proven when he sent the police in after the teapot tapes—were things that were justified from a Government and from the Prime Minister of a country. Remember that? That was 2 months ago. Back then he was going to make sure that no one undermined the integrity of the entire Public Service. How laudable was that? He was going to get to the proverbial bottom of it. Now he is condemned by his own words. Now he can parachute out of the bottom of a snake and still have some room.

It looks like John Key never had any intention of finding out what really happened. There was no public servant, alas, to carry the can, like they did over Novopay. Three Ministers were responsible but, oh no, they found a civil servant. And the meat shipments left on the wharf in China—has any Minister been called to account? No.

The finger of suspicion came on Mr Dunne. The Prime Minister had a dual responsibility over this matter. He is the Minister responsible for security. He is the Minister above all Ministers responsible for the actions of those who are his Ministers. The leak of the Kitteridge report was not an isolated incident. That demonstrates how incompetent this Prime Minister is, and how irresponsible his behaviour is. This was not an isolated incident. There was the leak about morale at the Government Communications Security Bureau, there was the leak about the new head of the bureau, there were leaks about the briefing on the bureau, there was a leak about the security of the Intelligence and Security Committee itself, and there were other leaks. The secretary of the committee warned the members in writing to shut up. All five members were now under suspicion. But one was responsible. There are five sets of electronic records, Mr Key, and we want to see the complete package. There are five sets of electronic records—

💬 Hon John Banks: Well, table them—table them.

—and it is the responsibility, Mr Banks, of your Prime Minister to show the country what they mean. There are over five leaks with one department alone, the Government Communications Security Bureau. And Mr Banks has the temerity to shout out to a backbench MP: “You table them.” Well, I can see why someone who would forget 42 out of 42 texts would say that. But a rational, sane person would not say that—that the responsibility lay with a backbench MP. No, Prime Minister, the reason why you have on your CV the Prime Minister’s job is that with the job and the status and the office goes a terrible thing called responsibility, transparency, openness, and honesty.

You know, national security is the first duty of any and every MP. What are our allies thinking? The member Peter Dunne broke the terms of his warrant when he was a Minister. He leaked security matters to a journalist. This was no stand over matters of principle. This was no stand to make the world a better and safer place, or to make New Zealand a better and safer place. Maybe years of looking at the tax tables made him flip. Maybe they caused him to want to get some excitement into his life. Whatever it is—it may be a human explanation—it is not what the nation needs to know, which is what was leaked to whom and when, and it was far wider than the Kitteridge report was looking into. He is given life, though, simply because National needs his vote to sell off our assets, and he let the shonky casino deal go ahead and Mighty River Power—

💬 Hon John Banks: Ha, ha!

No, no, Mr Banks. I have seen that nervous laugh, and it gives me enormous confidence that one day I will wipe it off your face.

You know, yesterday Prime News at 5.30 carried Fairfax’s outing of Mr Dunne, with information that I knew at the time that I said in the select committee: “Mr Dunne, you’re the leak, aren’t you?”.

💬 Hon John Banks: How did you know that?

Oh, great question. My job is to be good at my job. My job, and my colleagues’ job—everybody who votes for New Zealand First knows one thing profoundly: we will keep the system honest. That is why they are coming out in their droves, because New Zealand First keeps the system honest. This is just one more example. I know that members would love to know how we know. Well, you know, I suppose we would all like to know that, but we cannot divulge the source.

💬 Hon John Banks: What about Owen Glenn’s cheque?

That was not behaving illegally. That is the difference over here. That is the difference over here.

Why did David Henry stop investigating the leak of the Kitteridge report? It is all on page 2 of his report. “I’ve got the powers in the State Services Commission.”, he says. “I’ve got the support of the Prime Minister. I’ve got a Minister out of Cabinet who is not a civil servant. I remain of the view that I need to have full access to all 86 emails.” It is all there.

What is the National Party’s devious and bound-to-fail excuse? “Oh, all of a sudden we cannot entertain any breach of privacy issues.” Mr Banks and Mr Brownlee, where in the report from Mr Henry has he disclosed the 44 emails already seen by him, highly edited as they are? There is no privacy issue. I personally am not concerned about the emails from Andrea Vance; I am concerned about the far more than 86 emails that were on this issue and others as well.

Some members here should learn how to do their research and homework. Perhaps if they knew a few people around town, they might find out what is going on downtown. Let us demolish the argument that there is a privacy issue. Mr Henry has not given over the 44 emails. There goes the excuse. Why did Mr Henry not get the powers to see all the emails and ensure a thorough and complete investigation? The Prime Minister was asked today: “When you set up the inquiry, did you want to get at the full truth?”. “Yes.”, he said. Really? Well, he is exposed by his own words, and shibboleths and deceit. Why, for example, is this reeking of double deals? Had it been a civil servant, it would have been not just demotion—not just demotion—but demotion and then dismissal instantly. But here we have got Mr Dunne—he stays on. The whole affair is smelling like a giant cover-up.

The Prime Minister goes on to tell the media yesterday at a press conference that Mr Dunne has been removed from the Intelligence and Security Committee because he is no longer a Minister. Here is the Intelligence and Security Committee Act 1996. This is section 7 of the Act, and it shows that after 24 hours the Prime Minister still cannot tell the truth. The media might fall for it, but we did not. Peter Dunne is entitled, as an MP, to be on that committee, so why did you get up in front of the press and say that, when you knew you had to be not telling what were the facts?

Every day there is more obfuscation and evasion. And let me tell you this: this is not a case of whether New Zealand First or an MP in New Zealand First should do the Prime Minister’s job, but we are going to carry on until this cover-up is totally exposed for what it is. It has one valuable asset for New Zealand, apart from correcting our national security. Do you know what it is? People are going to find over the ensuing days and weeks exactly what the Prime Minister of their country, alas, is like.

Can I say at the outset of my comments that I have known Peter Dunne for the better part of almost 50 years. I know him to be an honourable person, and I accept that when he says that he has had an inexplicable moment or moments in his life that have led to this, he does so from a genuine perspective. It gives me no particular pleasure to speak in this debate, but I think when you listen to the speech that we just heard from Winston Peters, and listen to the speech of the speaker from the Green Party, Metiria Turei, and, for that matter, the small bits that I picked up from the leader of the Labour Party, there seems to be a desire here to suggest that there is something out there that the public has not been told about.

I want to make it very clear, very clear to this House, that there was absolutely nothing—absolutely nothing—in the speech by Winston Peters today that is not already in the public arena. In the 1980s that sort of speech would have been a sensation, because the reach of the media and the reach of the public to information were so much limited. But now, of course, all of that out there, brought in to New Zealand First as if it was some pile of special information delivered to Winston Peters, because he is the only man in Parliament who can make something of it, is actually quite plain and quite normal and quite well known by everyone.

I say to Winston Peters’ party members that the leader of their party might like to say that New Zealand First members make a habit in this House of keeping the place honest, but they also make a habit of not sticking around too long. In the time that New Zealand First has been here, it has burnt off almost as many MPs as any other party in here during that time, and there is no reason to believe that the situation next year will be any different.

A couple of things here, I think, are pretty relevant. Firstly, when Mr Henry’s report was released last week, the last paragraph in that report really says it all. He makes the point that he could not continue the investigation because Mr Dunne did not release all of the email traffic that he would have liked to look at. But he certainly leaves it very, very clear that there is nothing else to investigate.

So what this comes down to is a very, very simple matter. Firstly, Mr Dunne has resigned, because the Prime Minister made it clear that if he did not release those emails, there was no choice but for him to resign. So then this mad case being pursued by the Greens, that he should have remained on the Intelligence and Security Committee, falls apart because when one has lost the confidence of the Prime Minister, there is certainly no place on the country’s most important security committee.

The issue then becomes, when do the emails between Mr Dunne and the reporter become public and, indeed, should they become public? The question for the Labour Party is whether the Labour Party will insist, should there be a Privileges Committee hearing—and I think there is a big doubt about whether there should be, in the first place—that Miss Vance’s emails are released to the committee and become part of the record of the committee. If that is the case, then the rules for operation in this House and the long-held desire by all members to keep private communications between them as elected members and constituents and other people who come with information is long gone.

There is no doubt about it: the only way that Mr Shearer escaped the axe earlier this year over his failure to disclose his very substantial secret bank account was the fact that he was able to simply take a position, knowing that no one could investigate any information that he might have had or been in possession of that would have meant he had made a very, very big mistake. I simply think we need to understand that there is a lot more at stake here than just the situation relating to a Minister who got himself into bad circumstances and has had to resign as a consequence.

I want to make a few brief comments on this matter. The first one I want to make is that we still do not know for sure who leaked this document. The next point I would like to make is that if this inquiry was properly set up, or, in fact—I want to say—if Mr Henry did his job properly, we would know. The Prime Minister could have asked the State Services Commissioner to set up this inquiry. At that point the inquirer would have effectively used the Commissions of Inquiry Act and the powers thereof in order to take evidence under oath. The Prime Minister chose not to do that. But even then, Mr Henry could have come back to the Prime Minister and asked the Prime Minister for extra powers and for it to be properly set up, so I do want to somewhat criticise Mr Henry for his approach.

The other thing that Mr Henry could have done, because these were emails to and from a Minister, is to ask Mr Dunne to release them under the Official Information Act. These documents—these electronic documents—if there is anything to do with his role as a Minister within them, are subject to the Official Information Act, and most of us are pretty sure that they will eventually come out. In fact, I would be very surprised if there were not half a dozen new agencies and a number of members of Parliament who have already asked Ministerial Services for these emails under the Official Information Act.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: All traffic?

Well, if a journalist writes to a Minister by email, then that journalist knows that that email is subject to the Official Information Act. If someone went to Miss Vance’s in-box and took an email out of there, that would be wrong. But something that is received by a Minister, and, more important, the messages that were sent by a Minister are also subject to the Official Information Act, and eventually they will come out.

I want to contrast that with the case that that Prime Minister keeps on bringing up to do with my colleague the Hon Phil Goff. Phil Goff received documents that had been leaked. They were sent or given to him. Mr Goff has made it clear that if the Prime Minister puts Dunne under oath, then Mr Goff will release all relevant emails—he will release all relevant emails—and give access to ensuring that all relevant emails are released. But what do I hear from the Prime Minister? Not a word. Not a word from the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister did not have—we are not allowed to say “balls”, are we? He did not have the—

💬 Grant Robertson: Intestinal fortitude.

—we are not allowed to say that either—spine to stand up in this debate. He did not have the spine to stand up in this debate and to try to justify his position.

💬 Hon Chester Borrows: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member used a term to describe the Prime Minister that is unparliamentary.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member made a lot of insinuations and I guess the extension of those is that they were unparliamentary, but he kind of, I think, stopped short. When we are talking about skeletal matters, if that is what the member was referring to, that has been used in this House before. I am not sure whether that makes it right or wrong. I would certainly prefer not to see it used.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Did you want to help, Mr Brownlee?

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I think you have quite rightly identified the bound between what might have been totally offensive and otherwise. I understand the case that you were speaking of before. It was where a former Prime Minister accused the Leader of the Opposition of being a spine looking for a chill to run up—

💬 Hon Members: A shiver.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: —a shiver to run up. It is the sort of description that could be offered to the current Leader of the Opposition.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Let us just park it all and say let us keep to the debate, all right?

Helen Clark, Jim Bolger, Rob Muldoon, and David Lange in this circumstance would be on their feet and defending their position, and I want to know why John Key is not defending his, but I think I do know. I think I do. It is because he will not defend the indefensible. There is a stink coming from the cross benches. There is a stink coming from over there. There is something rotten. There is Banks and there is Dunne, and they are the ones who are holding this Government together: the man who is in and out of the dock regularly for getting brown paper bags full of money during his mayoral campaign, and Peter Dunne, who will not tell the truth in these matters. This Government is being held together by a pair of individuals who stink and should not be in this Parliament.

It is not really a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I have to say I find quite detestable some of the language that has been used and the personal attacks that have occurred.

The Labour Party is really kind of indicating quite a significant turning point in terms of the access to personal information of MPs, of journalists, and of a range of people who currently have some protections. I was interested in the Green Party contribution, because the Green Party speaker was quite concerned about this journalist and the vulnerability of this particular reporter. Perhaps that speaker had not been talking to their friends in the Labour Party about exactly what this privileges complaint will lead to. There will be no protection for that vulnerable reporter—there will be absolutely no protection for that reporter—because of what the Labour Party wants to do with laying a privileges complaint. So all of a sudden we move into this completely new space because of the Labour Party’s actions.

The thing that makes it even more despicable is the fact that there are just such double standards in this House, and that is the thing that I found absolutely despicable. I want to follow up and I want to remind the House of the Hon Bill English’s words. The Hon Bill English said quite clearly that there are three things. If the Labour Party wants to get to the bottom of things, there are three very clear opportunities for what it can do. The first one was—remember—to encourage Mr Peters to table in the House all of those emails that he has.

💬 Kris Faafoi: It’s your inquiry.

You want to get to the bottom of it? He is your mate, he wants to get into bed with you guys instead of the Greens, so lay it on the Table, and that will mean we can get to the bottom of it.

The second thing is quite simple, again, with Mr Goff: if you want to release personal records and if you want to release your personal emails—oh, but that is right, there is an individual called “Person A” whom Mr Goff has an interest in protecting. You are doing all you possibly can to protect “Person A”, but you are actually quite willing to leave a reporter and hang them out to dry. It is quite interesting—double standards again from that side of the House. The third one, of course, that Mr English said quite clearly was the release of some bank statements that would also help the House get to the bottom of some other matters.

So, you know, it is about putting things on the record. It is about getting to the bottom of things. That is where this debate started at quarter past 3. Mr Shearer, as the Leader of the Opposition, was very clear about wanting to get to the bottom of things, but, actually, in this House you cannot have those sorts of double standards.

Another double standard that is being demonstrated today is what I think is actually quite a level of contempt for a very highly respected public servant. I find it quite despicable, in this House, that a public servant of David Henry’s stature is criticised to the extent that he has been in this House. I am confident that a very professional and thorough inquiry has been undertaken—it has been undertaken. Some parties in this House would actually want the Prime Minister to interfere in what is an independent inquiry. That is right—this side of the House recognises what independence is, but that side of the House is used to having a Prime Minister who interferes and has their sticky fingers on everything. I am not pleased to speak in this debate, but it is important to get some things on the record.

The so-called urgent debate from the Labour Party this afternoon has actually been pretty appalling. The leader of the Labour Party could not even devote 15 minutes to the issue. He had to—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to seek an assurance that there is a written undertaking for this member to take the call that belongs to the Hon Peter Dunne.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: This, according to my schedule, is an either/or call.

As I was saying, in this so-called urgent debate, the leader of the Labour Party could not even devote 15 minutes of his speech to the issue at hand. He had to trail off down the Skycity path, which, of course, is a path that certain Labour MPs trod on the weekend, on Saturday night, at a certain rugby match—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Oh no!

Yes, certain Labour Party MPs were treading off down the Skycity path and enjoying the hospitality of Skycity. That is actually a little like the “h” word we are not allowed to use in this Chamber, and that is what we see out of this debate with the Labour Party today. Actually, I think it would be very helpful if Labour MPs could rule themselves out as to whether they attended the Skycity box on Saturday night, because that would prove they were not being “h”—hypocritical—and they would then have the opportunity to show that they had the courage of their convictions.

But we need to have an assessment of how the relevant people involved in this particular issue have performed—the Prime Minister, first of all. The Prime Minister has once again upheld the highest standards in his ministry. There is no Taito Phillip Field issue here. There is no trying to pretend it is not happening, for months on end, as the Labour Party did—trying to pretend that Taito Phillip Field was not an issue, as the Labour Party did for months and months on end. The Prime Minister has an issue, he calls an inquiry, the inquiry reports, the Minister refuses to cooperate with the inquiry, and the Minister resigns. That is the quality of the leadership of this Prime Minister in this Parliament, which is way higher than what actually occurred under the Labour Government of the previous 9 years, which was absolutely shonky the entire time.

Then we have Mr Dunne. Mr Dunne has made mistakes—there is no doubt about that—and he has paid for those mistakes. He has paid for those mistakes and I am sure, wherever he is this week, he is contemplating those mistakes. But, of course, he has had a proud 29 years in this Parliament. He has accepted his punishment and he has resigned from the ministry. He has actually done that, and he has done it without complaint, which is appropriate in this situation.

So those two people involved in this—the Prime Minister with his high standards, and, in fact, the person who was directly involved—have actually done their jobs. So what about the rest? What about David Shearer? Well, I am sorry, David Shearer and his party have been hysterical and also completely hypocritical in terms of the way this has happened. The reality of it is that the Labour Party sat there, and, in fact, Grant Robertson said on the The Nation on the weekend that Peter Dunne should leave Parliament altogether—he should leave Parliament altogether.

Well, do not Labour members have short memories? Back in 2004 Lianne Dalziel leaked legally privileged case notes to the media about a refugee. She repeatedly denied that she had done this. And what was her punishment for this? She was sacked as a Minister. She did not leave Parliament. You did not hear Grant Robertson in the leader’s office declaring that she should resign. She actually stood in the 2005 election and was reappointed again after the election. So the problem for the Labour Party is that it is completely double standard on this—completely double standard. Of course, it is trying to quietly back away a little bit now in terms of the issue, because it does not even want to know, because it knows Phil Goff is in the gun. Phil Goff is in the gun for his leak. I could quote all the comments about Phil Goff, saying that it was ridiculous to have an inquiry into the leaks at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, which, of course, he did.

But the other one that needs to be mentioned—well, there are two. One is Winston Peters. Winston Peters—I am sorry; it is just like a rerun of everything I have watched on TV for the last 25 years. You may not have yet seen the new Sky television channel called JONES!, but I tell you what, that speech this afternoon was like being on JONES! TV. It could have slotted in between It Ain’t Half Hot Mum and Cheers. It was that relevant, it was that modern, and it was that much of a rerun of every speech he has made over the last 30 years. It was appalling, just like his performance on Campbell Live last night. Then we have Russel Norman—“Rusty”—who in his race to be the Leader of the Opposition races towards the cliff of requiring the emails of every MP to be made available to the Prime Minister of the day, and then, like a late-realising lemming, actually stops just prior to the cliff and backs away. Meanwhile, all his friends on the left are calling him illiberal and an authoritarian. The problem is that these parties have not considered what they want and have done an appalling job on this issue.

I presume that Judith Collins will be down shortly, because she knows that the National Party leadership is within her grasp after that speech from Steven Joyce. He tried to tell us that throughout this episode John Key has shown what high standards he has. His standards are so high that he still cannot say today who leaked the Kitteridge report. He set up an inquiry—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Can the member?

—to find out who leaked the Kitteridge report, and, as we stand here today—Nick Smith, who leaked the Kitteridge report?

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: You tell me.

Who leaked the Kitteridge report? I am not in the Government, Dr Smith. John Key is the Prime Minister, he set the inquiry up, and he is the person who should be able to tell New Zealanders who leaked the Kitteridge report. The obvious conclusion that New Zealanders can draw is that John Key does not really want to know. John Key does not want to know, because if he finds out, and if New Zealanders find out the truth—which they deserve to know here—that puts the stability of his Government at risk.

Political expediency is what is at play here, because John Banks and Peter Dunne are the reason that National can pass legislation like that concerning the Skycity deal and the sale of State assets. It is those two votes. John Key has a record of wilful blindness to the actions of his support parties and Ministers. He is the person who would not even read the police report on John Banks, so that he did not have to know that John Banks had lied to him. That is why he did not read the report. Now he will not actually get to the bottom of who leaked the Kitteridge report, because he does not want to see his other support party go out of Parliament.

That is what is at play here. What this is about is a Government that is tawdry, that is held together by tawdry deals, and that acts not in the interests of New Zealanders but in its own self-interest. And it is John Key’s self-interest that has fundamentally driven his approach to this. We have seen it with the Skycity deal and we have seen it with appointments like those of Jackie Blue and Susan Devoy. Process means nothing to this Government. Process means nothing to this Government, and the rule of law means nothing to this Government. This Government will drive issues through this Parliament against the interests of New Zealand and in its own vested interests. What this report and what this decision are about is that having set up an inquiry to find out who leaked the Kitteridge report, John Key cannot tell New Zealanders the answer to that today. He wants the matter to end there, and that is not good enough. That is what this is about.

I want to say what it is not about. It is not about National adopting its usual divert and diminish tactics. That is what is going on here. Phil Goff was the recipient of a leak. He did not leak—

💬 Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: You don’t have to defend him, Grant.

—Jonathan Coleman—Phil Goff was the recipient of a leak. Peter Dunne leaked the document. That is the difference. It is a very, very clear difference. As Mr Dunne said at his press conference, he still denies that he leaked the report. Jonathan Coleman cannot tell me who leaked the report. Peter Dunne still denies it. If Peter Dunne wanted to give David Henry his end of the emails to show that he did not leak the report, he could have done that. He could have done that in confidence, but he did not.

Having set this inquiry up, John Key owes it to New Zealanders to get to the truth, but, once again, John Key is letting New Zealanders down. He came into office telling New Zealanders that there would be higher standards, and telling New Zealanders that he would hold his Government to higher standards, and the opposite has happened. What we have seen from this Government is scandal after scandal and deal after deal where this Government does not have high standards. It has some of the lowest standards it is possible to see.

I will tell you what this is also not about. Bill English stood up and said that this Government and this Prime Minister take national security seriously. No, he does not, because the way the Government Communications Security Bureau and national security issues have been run under this Government is appalling. John Key is the person who having been told that there was illegal spying going on, sat on that information for months. John Key is the person who has covered up and misled around the Kim Dotcom case. And now John Key is the person who cannot be bothered getting to the truth of a national security issue—the leak of a highly sensitive document—because in all of these cases it would expose his self-interest, and it would ensure that the interests of New Zealanders went ahead of John Key’s interests. That is what we know about this Prime Minister, that the interests of New Zealanders are gone. The great promises from when he came into office are gone. John Key is now governing solely in his own interests and those of the vested interests that support him. He does this propped up by discredited members. He is propped up by John Banks, who is in court, and we have heard in Parliament the reasons why that is. The reason why that is is that he has not told the truth about donations he got. Now John Key is propped up by Peter Dunne, and that is the reason why New Zealanders currently do not know who leaked the Kitteridge report. The convenient situation John Key has created for himself is “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” If John Key actually asked the questions he is responsible for asking, then he would have his Government in trouble. He would have the loss of a coalition partner. That is what is going on here.

National likes to say that it is Winston Peters’ job to release the emails, and that Labour is doing terrible things by referring this issue to the Privileges Committee. None of that is relevant to this. John Key set the inquiry up, it is his Government, and it is the leak—it seems—by a Minister in his Government that is at issue here. He is the one who is responsible. National’s divert and diminish strategy—that the report was going to be released anyway and that it is Winston Peters’ fault—is typical of the way this Government operates: dodgily. It follows that up with a divert and diminish and then demean strategy with the personal attacks coming out from John Key. That is not good enough. That is not good enough for New Zealanders, who expect more of their Government. This Government is so out of touch with New Zealanders and so mired in scandals and deals that it is unable to govern in the interests of New Zealanders. It is left governing in its own vested interests. That is a huge letdown for those New Zealanders who put their trust and confidence in this National Government. What they are left with is a tawdry Government propped up by support party leaders who are discredited and disgraced. That is what New Zealanders are left with.

This Government and the way that it goes about its business have now become the subject of ridicule. We are here again in an urgent debate in the House, having to deal with a scandal from this Government—an incomplete report because the Prime Minister does not want to know the real answers. For all of the diversion and diminishing from this Government that will go on over the coming days, the truth is that it is the one that has to answer. John Key has to answer that critical question of who leaked the report. He set the inquiry up, and he is the person who said it was serious enough to undertake this inquiry, but when he gets to the point where it looks like it is his support party that is in the gun, he pulls up and says that there is nothing to see here any more. That is not acceptable. New Zealanders deserve the truth from this Government, they deserve to have this inquiry completed, and the only conclusion that New Zealanders are left to draw is that, once again, John Key has put his own interests and the vested interests that support him ahead of New Zealanders’ interests, their right to the truth, and their right to a transparent Government. That is the legacy of the John Key - led Government: ride roughshod over process, mislead, obfuscate, divert, diminish, and hope that it will all go away. It will not go away, because New Zealanders need to know the truth, and John Key will be held to account for this tawdry Government that he leads.

That was a very entertaining speech; the only problem was that none of it was true. Grant Robertson has just put in a very good audition for leader of the Labour Party. I do have to hand it to him. That was a lot better than his leader managed this afternoon. But, quite frankly, trying to actually put that up as debate when all it amounts to is a scurrilous attack on the Prime Minister—well, I hate to say it, but I think Grant Robertson is actually better than that, and he knows that. What he knows is that the Prime Minister acted quickly. He acted decisively. He called for an investigation and the matter was dealt with very quickly. Sadly, a Minister resigned on Friday, but, in the end, David Henry said that he could not take the inquiry any further. I know that those members over there will have read the inquiry, and it is spelt out quite clearly there.

I would also like to say that no one in this House takes any pleasure in what has happened over the past few days. It is a very sad turn of affairs. Peter Dunne, a member who has served here for many, many years and is well-known to the House, is a man of honour, and he cannot explain his behaviour either. What has gone on is, I think, beyond explanation, but, sadly, a career of service to New Zealand has been brought to an end. I even forgive Mr Dunne for handing me the wrong speech to read on his behalf while he skived off to a school prize-giving one night, but that is a long time ago.

But Labour cannot have it all ways. You know, David Shearer today is calling for greater emphasis on privacy and talking about PRISM. He is very, very concerned about the implications of that for New Zealanders’ privacy, and privacy is a serious matter. But then, in the next breath, he is wanting all these emails tabled and released. His naivety, I think, has been highlighted in the Dominion Post editorial this morning, which just shows how naive David Shearer is being in calling for that. But it is even worse than that, because, actually, David Shearer has been conned by Winston Speakers. He has taken the sucker punch—

💬 Andrew Williams: “Winston Speakers”? Who’s “Winston Speakers”?

He has been convinced by Winston Peters—Winston Peters; well, Winston Peters thinks he is the Speaker—to put—

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: He thinks he’s the Prime Minister.

Well, the Speaker thinks Winston Peters is the Prime Minister. He has been convinced by David Shearer to put in a letter to the Privileges Committee, and he wants Peter Dunne put under oath and all those emails and his phone calls to be revealed in their full entirety.

Well, there are some serious implications to that. If you look at the sad case of Phil Goff, a member who has been leaking sensitive Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and Defence Force documents for a long, long time—and I would love to see Mr Goff’s emails, and I would love to see his phone logs, because I would like to know what conversations he had when he leaked to the media pages from the court of inquiry relating to the death of a New Zealand soldier. I think that if David Shearer was not working to a double standard, he would say to Mr Goff: “You know, in the interests of this new age of transparency that Labour is calling for, please table your phone logs; please table your emails and their contents.”, so that we can know where Phil Goff gets his information from. When Phil Goff undermines national security, when he undermines the morale of the Defence Force, he knows that he is doing the New Zealand Defence Force and the people of New Zealand a great disservice.

But there is more coming for Phil Goff, because, of course, about a year ago Phil Goff tabled leaked documents from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. He tabled pages from a Cabinet paper, and I want to know who Phil Goff’s source was. I would love to see the content of Phil Goff’s emails, and I would love to see his phone logs, but, of course, Phil Goff thinks it is OK for Peter Dunne to be called to account under oath and be made to table his emails—to be made to table the full content—but Phil Goff never will. Of course, when David Shearer actually connects his neurons together and gets some synapses firing, he will realise that what he is calling for in this House will have very, very grave consequences.

We heard from Winston Peters today, and, of course, we all know about the 2008 Privileges Committee hearing. Winston Peters was found guilty at that hearing. Would we not love to see the full content of his phone logs? Would we not love to see the content of his emails? I think that would be very, very revealing. So David Shearer and Winston Peters should be very wary of what they ask for, because if they are going to hold Peter Dunne to one standard, they will have to hold Phil Goff—the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade leaker, who has undermined the morale of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the New Zealand Defence Force—to exactly the same standard, and I think it is really going to unravel pretty badly. Someone with the ethics of Phil Goff, who will seek out leakers and who will go out there and publish that information, would not like to be held accountable.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: Just ask any member of the Defence Force who was responsible, they’ll say the Minister. They’ll say the Minister let them down.

You can tell by the fact that Phil Goff is raving and shouting that he has lost it here in the House. A raw nerve has been hit, because Phil Goff is the biggest leaker in the New Zealand Parliament. Of that, there is no doubt.

💬 Hon Member: I thought that was Andrew Williams.

Well, no, we are talking information leaks. So I can tell you, Phil Goff’s day of accountability is coming. I would love Phil Goff, if he believes in transparency, to get up in this House and tell us who “Person A” is and tell us who his contact is who leaked the information to him, and I think you will find he is very loath to do that. Transparency goes both ways. Ministerial resignations and MP resignations go both ways. So when you are calling for Peter Dunne to be put under oath, be prepared for Phil Goff to go under oath as well, because you might not like what you find.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: Why can’t they come clean on that—did Peter Dunne leak the paper?

You can tell by Phil Goff’s yelling and shouting and raving here, and the barrage of completely non-witty interjections, that he knows we are on to him and that his day is coming very, very soon.

Of course, there is the police complaint again Phil Goff, as well. We greatly await the police complaint—

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: What?

Yes, apparently someone has made a police complaint because Phil Goff leaked those details of the dead soldier to the media. It was a court of inquiry, it was a suppressed report—

💬 Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think you were in the House when the Minister had to withdraw and apologise for making an allegation that was not true and that I found offensive, and he has just done it again. I will ask you again to ask him to withdraw and apologise.

Speaking to the point of order—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will hear the member.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: Well, you—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. Order!

Mr Deputy Speaker, you know that that is a debating point. It is not something he can take offence at. I could say that I take offence at the way he characterises—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I do not believe I was here when the decision the member refers to was made, but I think we can be more productive and just move on with the debate.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Speaker ruled last Thursday that the Minister making that statement had committed a breach of the Standing Orders in making an offensive statement, the more so because it is not true. I ask that you do what the Speaker did last week in exactly the same circumstances and require the Minister to withdraw and apologise, because I take offence at the untruth that he has just told.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: All right—[Interruption] Order! All members are honourable members and the member has taken offence. The member will withdraw and apologise, and then continue with his speech.

I withdraw and apologise. To get back to the facts, what Phil Goff did was he took—

💬 Hon Phil Goff: You’ve done it twice now, and if you lie again you’ll have to do it again.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member has just breached the Standing Orders himself by implying that that member did something that is not acceptable. So the member will now withdraw and apologise.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: I withdraw and apologise.

I have got a far thicker skin than Phil Goff. What Phil Goff did—OK, so Phil Goff took a suppressed report. The coroner had suppressed this court of inquiry. It was a court of inquiry relating to the death of a New Zealand soldier in Afghanistan. Phil Goff broke that suppression order and he took pages from that inquiry and emailed them to the media, and that is now the subject of a police complaint. Not only did he do that, but a year ago he took sensitive Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade documents and Cabinet papers and released them publicly. So I want David Shearer to go out and say to Phil Goff: “Phil Goff, we want Peter Dunne to table his emails. We want transparency. But to do that, so that we don’t look like hypocrites, we need you, Phil, to table all your emails and to make available your phone records in exactly the same way we are calling for.”

So you see, when you tie all this together and you go back to that Dominion Post editorial today, what you see is the Prime Minister has acted very, very decisively and quickly. Dunne was gone that day. That did not happen in the Clark era. I mean, it took years and police investigations—incredible pressure—to get rid of Taito Phillip Field. But John Key, a man of high integrity, acts in a totally different manner. He acts decisively. If Phil Goff and David Shearer et al. really want to get to the bottom of this in the way they say, all they have to do is get their mate Winston Peters to publish the emails that he claims he has. But, of course, we do not reckon he has them. Once he tables them, we will all know what David Shearer thinks he wants us to know. We want to see Phil Goff’s emails and his phone calls, but, most of all, I would love to see the emails relating to David Shearer’s secret bank account, because this is a man constantly calling for transparency, and we would not want to see hypocrisy in this House.

So the summary of it is to be careful what you ask for, because it really could backfire. There are no winners in this. I feel sorry for Peter Dunne. He was a man of integrity. I still believe he is. He has had some sort of very unfortunate brain explosion, and I do not think it is reflecting very well at all on David Shearer and his ill-judged, crazy calls for a total change to accepted parliamentary practice.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.