The government knew there was no hack before Gabriel Makhlouf made his public statements last week:
. . . The Government’s spy agency made urgent calls to the Beehive before Makhlouf’s public statement – we reveal today what they told at least one senior Government Minister. The new details come as Makhlouf faces a State Services Commission investigation over the way he handled claims the website had been hacked. It later transpired that Budget details could be uncovered using the Treasury’s search engine.
The Government Communications Security Bureau phoned the Beehive last week in a desperate 11th-hour bid to stop Treasury Secretary Gabriel Makhlouf from saying publicly that his department had been hacked, the Herald understands.
But it was too late.
The GCSB had already told the Treasury that it did not believe its computer system had been compromised.
The GCSB was sent a copy of Makhlouf’s statement just before it was due to be released on Tuesday night last week. . .
This just gets messier and messier and needs a wider inquiry than just the States Services Commissioner’s one which won’t ask questions of Ministers.
An investigation by the State Services Commission has found 13,600 references to the Labour-led Government which must be removed from government websites because of the Electoral Finance Act.
National deputy leader Bill English said the SSC had sent out a memo to 120 state agencies saying “Labour-led government” was not appropriate under the EFA.
A search by the SSC had found the offending phrase 13,600 times on taxpayer funded websites, Mr English said.
Cabinet Minister Pete Hodgson said the SSC had advised departments of their obligations under the EFA and he hoped they were well followed. He said as time went by the references would be removed.
As time went by? Would any of us be able to attend to matters which breached the law “as time went by”?
Mr English also claimed that a Labour MP was distributing stickers with the phrase “Labour-led Government” and featuring two ticks. These were funded by the Prime Minister’s office and in clear breach of the EFA, he said.
Mr Hodgson did not respond to the substance of Mr English’s allegation.
Why would he when the EFA was supposed to stop National spending its own money not hamper Labour in spending the taxpayers’?