Dunne back as Minister?

The Privileges Committee report on the Henry/GCSB inquiry has said that the inquiry acted improperly in seeking data and getting data without permission. Peter Dunne has responded:

Response to Privileges Committee Report: Hon Peter Dunne

“On the basis of the Privileges Committee’s findings it is now clear that I was entirely within my rights to decline access to my emails, and that in accessing my electronic records without my approval the Henry Inquiry grossly exceeded its authority and acted quite improperly.

“In hindsight, it is also clear that the pressure which led me to resign as a Minister, for failing to comply with the Inquiry’s improper demands, while perhaps understandable in the heat of the time, was both unfortunate and a hurried over-reaction.”

And (from Parliament?)  @patrickgowernz

John Key says Peter Dunne could be back as a Minister

It was inevitable, just a matter of time.

Previous Post
Leave a comment

20 Comments

  1. There is now NO reason not to reinstate Peter Dunne. He acted according to conscience not pay packages. That says a lot about integrity. He has been vindicated of wrongdoing which shows his Ministerial position was NOT compromised.

    Reply
  2. graham

     /  3rd December 2013

    Quentin, Peter Dunne has not been vindicated of wrongdoing. Regarding the original issue – who leaked the Kitteridge Report – it has not been proven that Dunne either did, or did not, leak.

    Reply
    • I was not referring to the leak – only the GCSB and the Inquiry’s impropriety.

      Reply
    • I agree that the original issue, the leaking of the report, remains unresolved.

      But if the Henry Inquiry hadn’t overstepped so badly and put Dunne into a position where he felt compelled to resign then Dunne would probably still be a Minister. He was wrongly accused (absent any evidence) and the inquiry was a travesty of justice and parliamentary process, as I said at the time and was heavily criticised for.

      Reply
      • graham

         /  4th December 2013

        I’m sorry but I cannot accept this whole “Dunne was forced to resign”. He made the decision, and if – as an MP with around 30 years of experience – he “felt pressured”, then I would have to question what he’s been doing for 30 years. The inference is that he has NEVER come under pressure like this previously. IN 30 YEARS!

        Sorry, that just doesn’t ring true.

        Reply
        • “Being forced” for me means that Peter Dunne chose to maintain the integrity of office. He has said in hindsight he may have rushed the decision – but what else can one do when being accused by a Intelligence Community?

          Reply
  3. Darryl

     /  3rd December 2013

    Good One for Peter Dunne.

    Reply
  4. graham

     /  4th December 2013

    “He has said in hindsight he may have rushed the decision – but what else can one do when being accused by a Intelligence Community?”

    Quentin, this is just ONE example where you would expect Dunne to fall back on his 30 YEARS of experience. How does somebody with that length of service, who has survived the dog-eat-dog world of politics for so long, rush into making a hasty decision? How does a senior MP allow himself to be pressured in this way?

    Reply
    • Good question! I don’t have an answer to that. Maybe the nature of the political footballing has changed hugely from the tired old niceties – it’s much more ruthless????

      Reply
    • He didn’t “allow himself”. He found himself in an unprecedented situation. First by the way the inquiry was done. Then by the leaking to Winston Peters and subsequent pressure through parliament. And then Henry effectively accused him without evidence and also initiated salacious rumours that were false. I can understand that creating a lot of pressure, particularly for someone who values their reputation maintained over such a long career.

      Reply
      • graham

         /  4th December 2013

        “Henry effectively accused him without evidence and also initiated salacious rumours that were false.”

        Really? I wasn’t aware that Henry had initiated salacious rumours. Or that the rumours had been unequivocally proven to be false. Could you point to the details revealing this?

        Note, I have no particular reason to believe that the rumours were true, nor do I have any particular reason to believe that they weren’t.

        Reply
        • Henry made it obvious he thought that something between Vance and Dunne was the reason for the leak, that was why he targeted Dunne and excluded all other possibilities. It’s all in his report. That initiated all the salacious innuendo.

          Reply
  5. graham

     /  4th December 2013

    Could you point to the page(s) in the report where Henry states or infers that there was something going on between Dunne and Vance? I don’t recall seeing that.

    Reply
    • graham repeated this question on Kiwiblog resulting in discussion and disagreement, starting from here: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2013/12/general_debate_4_december_2013.html#comment-1243905

      Graham is yet to respond to questions I have put to him:
      Will you join the many critics of David Henry, who made a serious accusation without getting the facts right?

      Do you agree with the Privileges Committee criticisms of the Henry inquiry?

      Reply
      • graham

         /  6th December 2013

        That’s because you’re yet to give me a direct honest answer to my original question:

        Could you point to the page(s) in the report where Henry states or infers that there was something going on between Dunne and Vance?

        Reply
  6. graham

     /  6th December 2013

    No you haven’t explained it, and Reid most certainly did not “prove your point”. Your claim that “The only information available was via the Henry report so it must have come from that” is complete nonsense. Henry presented the facts as he found them. If people then choose to draw certain conclusions from them, that is hardly Henry’s fault. As far as I can tell, you seem to be basing this claim on the supposed “fact” that there were a number of references to the number of emails and the amount of contact. The only reference I found was in point 76:

    “Mr Dunne has advised me that he has frequent contact with the reporter including communications by telephone, text, email and in person.”

    So Peter Dunne himself is the one who referred to “frequent contact”! David Henry simply reported Dunne’s own words in a rather dry and boring style. Hardly stuff to set the pulse racing.

    It actually makes far more sense to apportion blame to Jane Clifton, who asks why did Dunne consider leaking (and Dunne, of course, confirmed that he considered leaking), and posits that it was due to ego and a midlife crisis. This was based not on the report, but on how Dunne acquitted himself at the press conference and the stated fact that he did CONSIDER leaking for reasons he can’t explain. But I’m sure you will link that back to David Henry, someone you appear to be obsessed with maligning and smearing.

    Let me state again – NOWHERE in the report do I see any inference or suggestion by David Henry that there was anything untoward going on between Dunne and Vance. David Henry did not start any rumours. If you can actually point to a sentence or a paragraph in the report where he did insinuate that Dunne and Vance were romantically involved or having an affair or behaving inappropriately (in a sexual manner), then I’ll look at it and reconsider my standpoint.

    Reply
    • Ok, we differ on that.

      Now – do you agree with the Privileges Committee findings about the conduct of the Henry inquiry?

      Reply
  7. graham

     /  6th December 2013

    No, I don’t.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: