2. Question No. 2—Prime MinisterHon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime MinisterQuestion No. 2—Prime Minister2. Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government's statements and actions in relation to the alleged unauthorised access of Budget 2019 material?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes particularly the comments made by the Deputy Prime Minister in relation to the ethics and legality of the Opposition's unauthorised access of the Treasury site. Hon Simon Bridges: Does she stand by her Deputy Prime Minister's statement that every Budget figure released by National prior to the Budget was Utterly fake false and will be proven so on Thursday"? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister the Deputy Prime Minister did not say that. What he did was produce a press statement two Tuesdays ago from that man's office on which there were eight calculations seven of which were then and now demonstrably wrong. Hon Simon Bridges: Does she stand by her Deputy Prime Minister's statement in regard to the same accessing of Budget material that "The facts [are] very very bad for the National Party"?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister I rush to stand by the Deputy Prime Minister's comments because he has now got the very document put out by Simon Bridges' office and of these eight calculations seven are wrong. Clayton Mitchell: What reported comments has she seen regarding the alleged unauthorised access of Budget 2019 material? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister a number of commentators have determined that what Mr Bridges did had these features. There are some pretty good arguments that one or more of the provisions of the Crimes Act were breached. The implication that there was—Hon Gerry Brownlee: The Prime Minister's saying this? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Forget about it woodwork teacher; you wouldn't understand the law. SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well if you're going to keep on shouting—SPEAKER: No the member will sit down. Can I say to the Hon Gerry Brownlee that this is a serious matter. His leader thinks it's a serious matter. I've asked people in the House to try and treat it seriously and his interjections I think based on about as much legal training as I've had are not helpful. Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Recognising your chastisement I withdraw and apologise for any offence I've caused the House. I just hope that the Prime Minister treats the question as seriously as the Leader of the Opposition. SPEAKER: Well I'm trying to get him to do that. The member's not helping. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister these comments are very apposite: "There are some pretty good arguments that one or more provisions of the Crimes Act were breached … the implication that there was clearly nothing criminal in the activity is difficult to square with the statutory language"—that from a leading law professor. Hon Simon Bridges: Did member nations of Five Eyes contact the Government on Tuesday 28 May in relation to the Government's claim they had been systematically and deliberately hacked? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister I personally can't answer that question because I'm not aware of it. Hon Simon Bridges: Is that because some members of her Government quite possibly including the Deputy Prime Minister were out of the loop? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister no one in this Cabinet is out of the loop. Consultation is our middle name. But the reality is in April 2017 a Cabinet Minister created the cyber-security one-stop shop otherwise known as CERT the Computer Emergency Response Team which cost $22 million to establish. Those protocols under CERT were designed for reporting the type of data breach that occurred and accompanied the unauthorised Budget information accessed by the National Party spokesman's staffer in this case. Hon Simon Bridges: This is crazy town. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Mr Bridges you wrote the rules; abide by them. Hon Simon Bridges: Did the GCSB raise with the Government that Five Eyes members had raised concerns regarding the systematic and deliberate hack?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Again on behalf of the Prime Minister that is not a question that we can answer because there seems to be information that is coming in to the Government and maybe—Hon Dr Nick Smith: I thought you said you were in the loop.SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. Nick Smith—this is a very serious matter. It goes to both security and international relations and the House wants to hear it without that sort of inane interjection.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister there seem to be allegations which do not have any authorisation coming from the Opposition with respect to a possible leak but that's immaterial. What the protocol that was established by Mr Bridges was and I quote "When private confidential information is released"—SPEAKER: Order! I am going to interrupt the Minister acting for the Prime Minister now because the question that has been asked has been answered and this is extraneous material which is not related to the supplementary question.Hon Simon Bridges: Isn't it the case that as soon as statements from Treasury and Grant Robertson went out on Tuesday night alleging systematic and deliberate hacks Five Eyes members contacted the GCSB who then immediately got in touch with Andrew Little and his office?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister I am not aware of that. But I do not think that Five Eyes were struggling over themselves on a matter to do with Treasury. With the greatest respect it's not foreign policy it's not police it's not defence it's not customs—it's Treasury and I find it very hard to believe that. But what's important of course is the protocol established by Mr Bridges required him to do the following: advise the organisation—SPEAKER: Order! Order! Hon Simon Bridges: Is she aware that the Government through GCSB provided assurances to Five Eyes members that they had not been systematically and deliberately hacked?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister the GCSB could not give such an assurance on behalf of the Government. It would be for the Prime Minister or in this case Mr Little the acting Minister for the GCSB to give such an assurance. That's how responsibility works under this Government.Hon Simon Bridges: Is the Prime Minister aware that language such as "systematic and deliberate hacking" is often reserved by Governments for hostile foreign attacks?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister no we are not aware of that. But the real issue is this: if the National Party hadn't done what it did this would not be an event.Hon Simon Bridges: In addition to GCSB did the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade also become involved in providing assurances to Five Eyes members that the Government had not been systematically and deliberately hacked?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister this is getting more close to the area of responsibility of the person answering the question right now and the answer is no. But the real issue will never be—Hon Paula Bennett: Out of the loop—you're out of the loop.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The issue won't change. This so-called scandal would not exist if the National Party hadn't done what it did.SPEAKER: Order! No before the member gets up the deputy leader of the National Party will stand withdraw and apologise.Hon Paula Bennett: I stand and withdraw and apologise.SPEAKER: Well actually you'll just do what you're meant to do.Hon Paula Bennett: I withdraw and apologise.SPEAKER: Thank you.Hon Simon Bridges: Isn't it most certainly the case that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade did become involved in this and is it also the case that their Minister didn't even know?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister there is no way that such an involvement of foreign affairs would've happened without the Minister of Foreign Affairs knowing. Being asleep behind the wheel is not what the present Minister of Foreign Affairs does.Hon Simon Bridges: When did to the Prime Minister's knowledge the Deputy Prime Minister get informed it wasn't a systematic and deliberate hack?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I didn't hear that question clearly.SPEAKER: Ask it again.Hon Simon Bridges: Thank you. To the Prime Minister's understanding when did the Deputy Prime Minister get informed it wasn't a systematic and deliberate hack?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister when referring to the Deputy Prime Minister that is a very moot point. There are two sections of the Crimes Act which are very very concerning for that member over there.Hon Tracey Martin: Does the Prime—SPEAKER: No no sorry I'm going to go back.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: I'm going to—Hon Gerry Brownlee: Are you going to rule on that?SPEAKER: Yeah I am going to rule on that. I won't rule on the extraneous material but there was a specific question which I know that the Minister answering on behalf of the Prime Minister should be able to answer. Ask it again.Hon Simon Bridges: When did the Deputy Prime Minister get informed that it wasn't a systematic and deliberate hack?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister that remains a moot point which is the reason why there's a State Services Commission inquiry.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Hon Tracey Martin: To the Prime Minister—SPEAKER: Sorry there's a point of order from the Hon Gerry Brownlee.Hon Gerry Brownlee: If a Minister's going to give an answer in this House particularly the Prime Minister giving an answer in this House then the provision that it should be done so in the public interest as set down in the Standing Orders is going to be of most importance. Everyone knows that the question that the Deputy Prime Minister acting for the Prime Minister has just put to the House cannot ever be answered by the State Services Commission inquiry because of the very limited terms of reference that are well published. Now if someone would like me to table those terms of reference—SPEAKER: No I think I can deal with that relatively easily. If it is a relevant matter to that inquiry and it might well be the timing of members' staff timing of departments including in this case foreign affairs giving information to the Deputy Prime Minister is most—the giving and not the receipt is certainly covered by the inquiry.Hon Gerry Brownlee: There is no question of there being any investigation into matters that might be considered under the Crimes Act as the Prime Minister has just told the House. So either the Prime Minister doesn't know what the terms of reference are—and I'd be happy to table them for her—or the Deputy Prime Minister has not been told what the terms of reference are. Either way this House should not be given a brush-off with what is a totally incorrect answer.Hon Chris Hipkins: I think it's important that the House notes that there are two issues at stake here. One is the investigation about what Ministers were told and when. The second is the broader inquiry into how the information came to be released in the way that it was. Those are two separate investigations and as for what's in the latter it could well be in the latter.Hon Gerry Brownlee: The effective answer from the Prime Minister again opens the prospect that there has been some kind of crime committed that would be punishable under the Crimes Act. Neither of the investigations are looking into that matter and there's no way that there can be any decision or conclusion around that given the now public agreement by the agencies about what happened and our own knowledge in the Opposition of how it occurred. If that suggestion were to stand from the Prime Minister then the Prime Minister is condemning every New Zealander who goes on to Google and uses a search bar today to the potential allegation that they are behaving in a criminal manner.SPEAKER: OK. I just want to work through this one relatively carefully because I think we have a matter of facts and law here. I think there's a degree of acceptance around the facts of what occurred and I have certainly read a variety of opinions as to what the law is that fits those facts and therefore I think it is not out of order for the Prime Minister to say it is debatable whether or not a criminal act has taken place. That is—[Interruption] Order! If the Prime Minister is of the view that it is debatable whether or not a criminal act took place then it is not out of order for the Prime Minister to say that she thinks it is debatable that a criminal act took place.Hon Tracey Martin: Is she aware of any protocols or outlines about what should take place in circumstances similar to those that took place in this case?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister yes. In an April 2017 protocol assembled by the Leader of the Opposition then the Minister for Communications this is what was written: "when private and confidential information is released into an unsecured environment"—which is what happened with this data breach. The protocols advise that in the event of a data breach an individual should contact the "relevant business or organisation" namely Treasury—and they didn't and that's why they're caught by sections 252 and 249 of the Crimes Act.Hon Simon Bridges: Does the Prime Minister think it's arguable that a crime was committed and if so what is she going to do about it?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister that's a marvellous question because a law professor in a recent opinion here suggests that there are two breaches sections 252 and 249 of the Crimes Act and one is a seven-year sentence.Hon Simon Bridges: Is using google search a crime now Prime Minister?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That's not a crime but what is a crime is to 2000 times try to gain unauthorised access which was—in a $22 million documentary preparation in April 2017 prepared by that Leader of the Opposition—meant to be outlawed but now he's trying to seek refuge in some other scandal.Hon Tracey Martin: Can she confirm that historically Budget documents have always been confidential until released by the Minister of Finance and is she able to report any incidents in the past where similar information has been highlighted by a member of the Opposition to a Minister particularly in charge?Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister has no responsibility for what happened historically.SPEAKER: I think if the Prime Minister has been briefed on a similar case and is comparing this to that then that is—I'm going to listen really carefully as the question's asked but it can be brought into order.Hon Tracey Martin: Can she confirm that historically it has been recognised that all Budget documents are confidential until they are released by the Minister of Finance and is she aware of any circumstance where previously members of this Parliament had been made aware of confidential information and they then took it directly to the Minister responsible?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister I can answer the first part of that question by saying that there have been leaks in the past by accident apparently in 1985 under Roger Douglas. There was also a Chancellor of the Exchequer in the UK walking into Parliament and 15 minutes before he gave his Budget speech he was asked "Any tax on cigarettes?" and he said "No." and he got fired for that. So it's a very serious issue but of the type that that member asks right now there has to the best of our knowledge never been such an appalling breach.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Who leaked it? Treasury did. Like a newspaper. Rt Hon Winston Peters: No you did sunshine.SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will stand withdraw and apologise. Hon Gerry Brownlee: Which one?SPEAKER: No that one.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I apologise.SPEAKER: And withdraw.Rt Hon Winston Peters: And withdraw."