MSD, DIA say no Super leak from them

Following an Inland Revenue investigation that found no evidence of a leak of Winston Peter’s super over payment – see  Inland Revenue “could not have been the source” of Super leak – both the Ministry of Social Development and the Department of Internal Affairs also found no evidence of a leak from their departments.

Ministry of Social Development releases investigation finding:

MSD on Winston Peters super leak investigation

Following information regarding Mr Winston Peter’s Superannuation payments entering the public arena, the Ministry launched an investigation to assess whether there was any indication that a Ministry employee may have been the source of the information.

That process is now complete, and we can confirm that all staff that had access to the relevant information had a reasonable business purpose for accessing it, and there is no evidence that this information was passed to a third party.

The Ministry holds a great deal of very personal information about people and their families that New Zealanders trust us to safeguard.

Both data searches and staff interviews were employed in this investigation.
If further information relating to this matter comes to light, MSD will make further investigations as necessary.

 

DIA statement: Privacy investigation complete

Department of Internal Affairs investigation into Peters leak

We investigated whether any Ministerial Services staff received or passed on information regarding the Rt. Hon. Winston Peters’ superannuation matter.

The investigation process included a search of digital records and a series of interviews with Ministerial Services staff. It found that five Ministerial Services employees had received the information before it was reported by media.

There was no evidence that the information was provided to media or third parties by these staff members.

The Department takes privacy seriously, and upholding the confidentiality of information forms part of the Code of Conduct all employees sign.

If further information comes to light, the Department will undertake further inquiries as necessary.

Peters claims he was alerted to the leak before it happened by a ‘very senior National Party person’ but no details or names have been given.

Details and timeline at RNZ: Third probe fails to find leaker of Peters’ super info

16 Comments

  1. Tipene

     /  September 15, 2017

    So………….

    1/ It wasn’t IRD;

    2/ It wasn’t MSD;

    3/ SSC Peter Hughes has disclosed telling Ministers;

    4/ The Chief of Staff knew.

    Hear that sound?

    It’s the noose tightening, followed by the rumble of the bus that someone is about to be unceremoniously chucked under.

    Timing is everything.

    Tick tock.

    • duperez

       /  September 15, 2017

      Rumble? Bus? Chucked under? Tick tock?

      People don’t care. Corrupt, unethical practice matters to very few. Paula Bennett could come out and say she spilt her guts about Peters and I doubt anyone would change their voting for her. And no doubt some would even congratulate her. A cynical view but I reckon it reflects reality.

      • Corky

         /  September 15, 2017

        You understand reality well, Duperez. The only thing people are worried about is the culprit becoming know before the election. Afterwards no one will care about what may become of a political irrelevance formerly known as Winston Peters.

  2. Kitty Catkin

     /  September 15, 2017

    I find it impossible to believe that Paula Bennett has so little to think about.

    People who say things like ‘corruptm unethical practice matters to very few’ include themselves in the very few, I imagine, and not in those who ‘don’t care’.How conceited and judgemental.

    Anyone who sees a leak like this as corruption has a very limited knowledge of what corruption really is.This isn’t corruption, it’s a trivial case of someone telling someone else who told someone else….

    • duperez

       /  September 15, 2017

      I believe no politicians should have been given that information about Peters.

      I trust that someone who had the information in a capacity of trust and passed it on with the best of intentions thinking it was their responsibility to do so, would have done it with the expectation that the information was confidential. I would say ‘absolutely confidential’ but just the one word is enough.

      I believe that someone coming by the information legitimately and then passing it on for reasons of malfeasance has shown corrupt behaviour. Your easy acceptance of crap behaviour probably means that that of Murray McCully exposed today was ‘just another trivial case’ of something or other.

      You either want standards of honesty and integrity or not.

      • Kitty Catkin

         /  September 15, 2017

        The fact that someone disagrees with your definition of corruption does NOT mean that they have an easy acceptance of crap (sic) behaviour. One thing cannot be judged by another.

      • Kitty Catkin

         /  September 15, 2017

        If Murray McCully did that, it is a very different thing. It’s a lot more serious than a stupid error made in someone’s super payments. Even you should be able to see that.

        Have you heard of the ‘No surprises’ policy ? This means that things are passed on to the relevant minister to sllow them to tske action or at least not be caught unaware by whatever it it. It’s been in place for some time.

        • Blazer

           /  September 15, 2017

          how naive are you ?Merino’ Murray is retiring this election….gaming the accepted protocols of govt has been Nationals ….defining legacy.

          • Kitty Catkin

             /  September 16, 2017

            What on earth are you on about ? Please try to make sense. And calling someone naive is not really the final answer or one that proves how clever you are. It simply shows that you can’t think of anything better to say and can’t refute what the other person has said.

    • Blazer

       /  September 15, 2017

      all Bennett thinks about is shoes…she has six shelves of shoes at her home.

      • Kitty Catkin

         /  September 15, 2017

        I have many handbags, but it’s not all that I think about. It’s absurd to say that because someone has a lot of something, that’s all they think about. I also have a great many china crinoline ladies, but it’s not all that I ever think about.

    • Kitty Catkin

       /  September 16, 2017

      Corruption by definition means personal gain.

  3. Kitty Catkin

     /  September 15, 2017

    Why would Winston Peters not be known as Winston Peters after the election ?

  4. PDB

     /  September 15, 2017

    All they have said is that the people who had access to the files said ‘it wasn’t me’ – doesn’t prove anything or clear anybody.

    • Loki

       /  September 15, 2017

      Looks like a lusk inspired attempt by Winston to steal the spotlight back.
      Don’t discount Winston front footing the near decade of overpayments himself.

      Although after his “bill birch” incidents in Qtown and his confused and frankly pitiable effort on Espiners show it is becoming easier to believe he may have become befuddled and ticked the wrong box on his pension forms.

    • duperez

       /  September 15, 2017

      You’re right. They were all in the room, someone farted, they all said, “it wasn’t me” and looked at the others. 😊