Note: probably shouldn't be too hopeful of the success of this OIA request. In order for the Minister of Revenue to be said to 'hold' the information under the Act, Dunne would have needed to sent the emails in a Ministerial capacity. It rather appears that the leaked documents were given to Dunne in his capacity as a leader of United Future, rather than as a Minister of the Crown, under the Confidence and Supply agreement between National and UF.

At the very least though, McClay should have to look through Dunne's emails in order to distinguish which were sent in a Ministerial capacity and which were not.

This other OIA request to the DIA is probably more conducive to success: https://fyi.org.nz/request/923-emails-se...

http://www.dpmc.govt.nz/sites/all/files/...

http://www.beehive.govt.nz/sites/all/fil...

Page 52 of the PDF document comprising emails between the Parliamentary Service and the Inquiry Administrator released under the Official Information Act list dates and numbers of emails between Peter Dunne and Andrea Vance during the time period 22 march 2013 and 9 April 2013. The email furnishing the information is dated Monday, 20 May 2013 2:25pm.

The list matches the same one as published in the Henry report at paragraph 75, except that the Henry report states there were 23 email exchanges on the 3rd of April, whereas the Inquiry Administrator states there were 24 on that date.

page 11 of the Henry report states that Peter Dunne disclosed forty-one of the forty-four emails he sent to Ms Vance, but that fourteen were partly deleted and four completely deleted. Mr Dune obviously did not want Mr Henry to see the withheld information. If those forty-four emails were sent in his capacity as a Minister, they should be released. What are the relevant factors to consider when determining whether they were sent in that ministerial capacity? His email address, the signature, the position that entitled him to obtain the information?

The report refers to Mr Dunne as "support party minister" and "support part leader" (p.16 & 17 of the report respectively). The terms of reference for the inquiry did not state who was and was not in scope. Paragraph 83 of the report and paragraph 6 of appendix 3 of the report show the extent of the types of people who were inquired into.

At 6:52 in this press conference a reporter asks Mr Dunne which email address the emails were sent to and he replies that they were sent to his Parliamentary email address. One assumes that the *replies* were also sent from that address too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9k6VSBQhPaw