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 JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes in the context in which they were made and given.Hon Simon Bridges: Why has she over the last 24 hours variously said that GCSB advised Minister Little that there was no hack or to that effect at 9 p.m. on the Tuesday—several hours later—and what did she say the exact time is?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The same as what has been relayed as has just been advised by Minister Little—at least on his behalf—that contact was made close to around 9 p.m. with Minister Little's office and that he had a direct conversation sometime thereafter. He was in a meeting at the time and there was a delay. So I think you'll find I said it was a couple of hours; it might have been maybe an hour and 45.Hon Simon Bridges: When were she and Grant Robertson told the dispute wasn't a hack and who specifically told them?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As Minister Little has advised—or at least on his behalf—his office was advised at close to 9 p.m. At about that same time the chief executive of DPMC also made contact with the GCSB and I was advised thereafter in close proximity. Then contact was made from that point with various Ministers who needed to be kept informed including Minister Robertson.Hon Simon Bridges: So to be clear did she know from 9 p.m. or thereabouts on the Tuesday of the GCSB's quite different position to the press releases of Treasury and Minister Robertson?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: This is not new information. As we have pointed out a number of times at the time that the statement went out by both the Secretary to the Treasury and then subsequently the statement by the Minister of Finance no Minister had been advised of the GCSB's views around the use of the word hack" versus "unauthorised access". We were advised around 9 p.m. that night that they would prefer the use of the word "unauthorised access". To be clear we still did not know what had occurred and we did not know who was responsible. I note that the member asking the question knew the answers to both of those questions. He however chose not to say anything until Thursday morning. Hon Simon Bridges: What did she know about the releases sent out by Treasury and Grant Robertson before they were sent out?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I've said already and as is on record after the Secretary to the Treasury briefed the Minister of Finance I was informed of the briefing. That was probably about 7.25. I did not know the exact content of the statement but I only assumed it was similar to the briefing itself. So I actually saw neither statement but I knew that both were based on the briefings that had been received.Hon Simon Bridges: Did she know that they—that is Treasury and repeated in Minister Robertson's statement—alleged that there was sufficient evidence that the material obtained by the Opposition was obtained by "deliberate and systematic hacking"?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As has been relayed several times now that was the information that was provided to the Minister of Finance and that was the belief of the Secretary to the Treasury. As the member well knows that's now the subject of a State Services Commission investigation. They're looking into those very matters but yes that was the information provided to us at that time. We did not know who was responsible. I note that the member will have known that.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Having regard to the primary question which mentions her Government's statements and actions is she aware that section 252 of the Crimes Act states that a crime is committed if someone "intentionally accesses … any computer system without authorisation" and either knows that they are not authorised to access that computer system or are reckless as to whether they are authorised to do so? That's the fact of the matter.Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes I am advised that that is the advice that is given when someone is able to gain unauthorised access and of course that is the language that we were advised at that time. In fact I can recall a time in Opposition when it was brought to our attention that unauthorised access to information was able to be gained via the Ministry of Justice website. When that was brought to then member Clare Curran's attention she took it directly to the then Minister Judith Collins. But I just relay that as a form of comparison.Hon Simon Bridges: Does she think using a search bar is "unauthorised access" or "an attack" as she and her Ministers said repeatedly the Wednesday after she knew that wasn't so?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I think you'll find the language that we used was around unauthorised access because again that was the advice that we were provided. Again I note the member is taking that particular language quite personally. The member needs to remember that at that time we did not in fact know it was him who was responsible.Hon Simon Bridges: Does she stand by her statements made several times today that on Tuesday throughout the evening she and her Ministers "had absolutely no idea what happened"?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes we certainly were asking a number of questions because we had been advised it was unauthorised access. Of course that led us to ask questions but we did not know who was responsible or exactly how access was gained. That was something that we were advised of on Wednesday and then on Thursday when the member himself confirmed it was the National Party.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Arising from the Prime Minister's answer about an example of what to do is she aware that in Budget week a political party was given the information about the National Party's spending but rather than do it sent it back to them?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again I think you'll find there will be a range of different responses from different members or political parties and each of us holds our own responsibility with how we deal with those situations. I know the member argues he acted in a completely appropriate way. That's his call not mine.Hon Simon Bridges: Why does she believe her Government put out releases alleging "deliberate and systematic hacking" when from the top down it had "no idea what happened" as she confirmed today and in fact by 9 p.m. that evening it knew that wasn't true?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again as I've said many times the Secretary to the Treasury briefed that there had been a systematic hack. That was the information provided both to the Minister of Finance and to myself. The Minister of Finance as you can imagine after Treasury put out a statement was asked a number of questions by the media. He put out simply a statement using the language and the references made by Treasury because that was the information that we had. Hon Simon Bridges: Why all of the next day the Wednesday—when she and her Ministers knew what the GCSB had told them that is they didn't believe there was hacking—didn't they that is her Government publicly correct that allegation of hacking? Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again we followed the advice we were given and used the word "unauthorised access". Again we still at that point did not know who was responsible. I know the member saw it as an allegation against him; we didn't necessarily see it that way at the time. But again we did use the word "unauthorised access". That's at least certainly my recollection.Hon Simon Bridges: Didn't her Government sit on a fundamental mistruth all of Wednesday? Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No but again I do raise that the member opposite actually knew the full story and could have enlightened all of us at any time. Hon Simon Bridges: Didn't she know there was no criminal hacking and yet did nothing? Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No. In fact as I've said we did not know whether or not the unauthorised access was legal or illegal. It was still a matter for the police and that is where we left it. As the member will well know when issues are referred to the police they do tend to be things that you then don't comment on beyond that point.Hon Simon Bridges: Instead of changing her language why didn't she do the right thing and publicly make clear there was no criminal hacking?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Because—actually the member has just used the word "criminal"; we did not know whether what had occurred was criminal or not. We simply did not have that advice. Had we spoken to the police that would have been direct interference in an operational issue. That member would have had a lot to say about that if we did. We waited for the police to conclude their work. I would acknowledge this is the first time the member's had a chance to question me about the Budget and I note his priority is that this is the only thing that he thinks matters to members of New Zealand. Again these are all political calls and clearly this is his one and I wish him well.Hon Simon Bridges: Does she not like answering questions about incredibly false impressions she and her Government left? Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Absolutely not. I just thought the member might like to listen to New Zealanders and where their interests lay. I was just trying to give him a little helpful tip.Hon Simon Bridges: In light of the fact that on Wednesday the Treasury secretary continued to talk publicly of deliberate and systematic hacking and the Deputy Prime Minister that afternoon said National had done illegal activity shouldn't she or one of her Ministers have corrected the incredibly false impression they left all of that day and into the next? Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We did not know whether or not a criminal act had occurred. Again including the fact—as I said in the House that day—we were making no accusations over who was involved. Secondly the State Services Commission is looking into the issue around the agencies and I'll leave that for them. Hon Simon Bridges: When did she find out that the police had found no wrongdoing? Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That was Wednesday evening I believe. From recollection it was around early evening-ish sometime after 6 p.m. I believe. Rt Hon Winston Peters: In the Prime Minister's view would 2000 hits on the same website in one day look like an accident? Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Certainly that was one of the things that the Secretary to the Treasury brought to the table. I think that was the basis on which he used the word "systematic". Again we're leaving that for the State Services Commission. Hon Simon Bridges: In the week before the Budget would it be so unusual to see 2000 hits on a very popular website?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As the member well knows the Budget actually hadn't been released at that point and that's probably the point isn't it? Hon Simon Bridges: Why is it that on the Tuesday having found out information her senior Minister Grant Robertson could put a press release out a bit after 8 p.m. but when she found out the police had found no wrongdoing at around 7 p.m. on the Wednesday she didn't think to correct the fundamentally misleading position she left New Zealand with about the National Party?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I said the day after on Wednesday we were not making an accusation about the National Party. We did not know that the National Party was responsible. As it turns out they were."