2. Question No. 2—FinanceHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 2—Finance2. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all of his policies statements and actions?Hon DAVID PARKER (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: Yes in the context in which they were made given and undertaken.Hon Paul Goldsmith: What involvement if any did his office have in the timing of the release of the State Services Commissioner's report into the actions and statements of Mr Makhlouf?Hon DAVID PARKER: So far as I'm aware the release of that report was a matter for the State Services Commission.Hon Paul Goldsmith: What responsibility if any has he taken for the breach of security around Budget documents?Hon DAVID PARKER: The Minister has previously gone on the record that he was disappointed that the Treasury website could be accessed in the way it was and he looks forward to the Jack inquiry into that very issue.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why has he taken no responsibility for the breach of security around the Budget 2019 documents?Hon DAVID PARKER: It's not correct that he hasn't.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Well does he take responsibility for the leak of the documents?Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why haven't you?SPEAKER: Order!Hon DAVID PARKER: The operational responsibility for the computer system is of course a matter for the officials at the department of the Treasury.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he agree with the State Services Commissioner Peter Hughes that The breach of security around the Budget documents should never have happened under any circumstances" and in relation to the Secretary to the Treasury "The right thing to do here was to take personal responsibility for the failure irrespective of the actions of others and to do so publicly." and that he failed to do that?Hon DAVID PARKER: In respect of the first part of the question yes I'm sure the Minister of Finance agrees that the computer systems at Treasury should've been better. In respect of the second question I would note that the report contrary to the accusations that have been made by the National Party concludes that the use of the word "hack" was reasonable but that the phrase "deliberately and systematically" used on the Wednesday was too strong given what the Secretary to the Treasury by then knew.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has he seen the report's conclusions which had the following effect: that Mr Makhlouf acted in good faith had views sincerely held and was honest acted in a politically neutral manner and his statements were reasonable in all respects? Has he seen that part of the report?Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes and I think that is a fair summary of the report.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is it not the case that the State Services Commissioner's criticisms of the Secretary to the Treasury apply equally to him that he ultimately is responsible for the breach of security and rather—SPEAKER: Order! That's two questions.Hon DAVID PARKER: I think the report doesn't opine as to what the responsibility of the Minister of Finance was. It's an inquiry into the conduct of the Secretary to the Treasury.Hon Paul Goldsmith: And does he not accept that those criticisms apply equally to him as the Minister responsible for Treasury and responsible for the security of Budget documents?Hon DAVID PARKER: Not in the sense that the member suggests. I would also note that in terms of responsibility for what the report says was reasonably described as a hack that responsibility rests with the National Party because they did it.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Who was it that accessed the Treasury website over 2000 times?Hon DAVID PARKER: The report concludes that that was the National Party.Hon Paul Goldsmith: So is he still blaming the National Party for the fact that there was a breach of Budget documents—he didn't take the responsibility that he was responsible for for those Budget documents—and is he going to continue to blame everybody else for that breach?Hon DAVID PARKER: No.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has he read section 249 of the Crimes Act which says this: "Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who directly or indirectly accesses any computer system and thereby dishonestly or by deception and without claim of right"—has he read that section?Hon DAVID PARKER: Not today but I am sure it has been accurately represented by the Deputy Prime Minister.Hon Paul Goldsmith: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I understand we just lost two questions.SPEAKER: Yes.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Well the Deputy Prime Minister interjected vigorously during one of my questions earlier in this—SPEAKER: That's right. And the member gained some then. The member should stay alert. Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he accept that when significant mistakes and failings occur at Treasury the buck stops with him; if so why did he not offer his resignation to the Prime Minister?Hon DAVID PARKER: Because that would have been a complete overreaction to the issues. I am confident in the way in which the Government has responded to this issue and the way in which the Minister has been proper.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Minister seen section 252 of the Crimes Act which says this: "Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years who intentionally accesses directly or indirectly any computer system without authorisation knowing that he or she is not authorised to access that computer system or [be] reckless as to whether or not he or she is authorised to access that computer system."? Hon DAVID PARKER: I am aware—[Interruption] SPEAKER: Order! Order! Just before the member starts I'm going to say I am going to ignore the interjections from Mr Woodhouse then which were inappropriate.Hon DAVID PARKER: I am aware of that section of the Act; I'm also aware that the report from the State Services Commission says that it was reasonable of the Secretary to the Treasury to refer the matter to the police.Hon Paul Goldsmith: How long did the New Zealand Police take to determine that there had been no crime?Hon DAVID PARKER: Their opinion that there was no crime was determined within a matter of days.Rt Hon Winston Peters: In contrast how long did the police take to come to a decision in the "tea party" tapes?SPEAKER: Order! No responsibility."