It appears that MSD staff members feel the need to conceal their real names/identity regarding BRC matters. If we are expected to respect this, then surely, the same should be applied to those that are beneficiaries/job seekers or those that have requested their identity details be concealed?

I raised point with Stephen Ward (chairman BRC hearing) of why it was necessary to record my personal info ie age ,marital status etc on the BRC report when he was aware I would be escalating matter to an external agency and I was not comfortable having that personal information passed to any external organisation. He advised that the matter(ROD) related to my entitlements that were based on age,marital status etc. I advised that this was not the case as the ROD was entirely about why MSD/WINZ failed to provide any assistance or support to me regarding my job application to MSD in 2014 for a Web Administrator which subsequently was declined.

Refer link to my complaint ...'Key points ignored by MSD/BRC & Social Security Appeals Authority'..
https://fyi.org.nz/request/5727-key-poin...

We are currently seeking legal advice regarding the response of the Ministry with a view to challenging it by way of judicial review. Every person affected by the Ministry's use of fake names in Benefit Review decisions has the right to apply for a rehearing, and to be informed that the Ministry used fake names when dealing with those clients.

We are entitled to know how many other times the Ministry communicated with Court or Tribunals "in confidence" regarding their policy of using fake names during review processes.

Taxpayer and Ministry clients are entitled to know how many times this occurred and the Ministry seems to be attempting to evade their legal obligations in order to conceal evidence of their evasion of their fiduciary obligations to their clients.

We are also complaining to the Ombudsmen regarding this decision and the delay in providing this information.

We note with interest that some of this information is now available to access on the internet. It can be accessed at the following link and is well worth reading.

It appears that the Ministry has breached its own policies - unless it has a policy of using fake names, which is entirely likely - and worse, the actions of the Ministry show a blatant contempt for New Zealand legislation as well as article 14 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights.

Link did not appear in previous annotation for some reason, posting it again:

http://sonjalawson.blogspot.co.nz/2017/0...

Complaint laid with the Office of the Ombudsmen, as follows:

On May 24th I received a delayed response from the Ministry of Social Development regarding a request under the Official Information Act. The latest response to this request is copied below:

Dear Ms Raue,
On 5 April 2017 you emailed the Ministry requesting, under the Official Information Act 1982, the following information:
· A copy of the recent "memo" from the Chief Executive's agent Mr Van Ooyen to the Social Security Appeals Authority in which Mr Van Ooyen
states that the Ministry routinely provides fake names or pseudonyms instead of the actual names of members of the BRC. I would expect all
details regarding the identity of the client to be redacted, but I request all other information contained in the memo.
· A copy of the Minutes issued by the SSAA on 8 and 9 March 2017
regarding that memo.
· How many times has the Ministry used fake names?
· What action was taken in response to the fact that this matter was brought to the attention of the Ministry in 2015?
· All communication between Ministry staff regarding the matter of the Minutes issued by the SSAA.
· All information regarding the practise or policy of using fake names for BRC members, including all information regarding discussions and decisions about the practise.

The Ministry has decided to grant your request in part, however, it will take some time to prepare this information for release. The Ministry intends to provide you with a response by 24 June 2017.
The Ministry has also decided to refuse part of your request for information under the following sections of the Official Information Act:
· Some information is held in notes on individual case files. In order to provide you with this information Ministry staff would have to manually review hundreds of files and is refused under section 18(f) of the Act.
· The names of some individuals are withheld under section 9(2)(a) of the Act in order to protect the privacy of natural persons.
· Some information may be withheld under section 9(2)(h) of the Act in order to maintain legal professional privilege. The greater public interest is in ensuring that government agencies can continue to obtain confidential legal advice.
If you are not satisfied with this decision, you have the right to seek an investigation and review by the Ombudsman. Information about how to make a complaint is available at [2]www.ombudsman.parliament.nz or 0800 802 602.
Yours sincerely
Official and Parliamentary Information team | Ministerial and Executive Services
Ministry of Social Development
Our Purpose:
We help New Zealanders to help themselves to be safe, strong and independent
Ko ta mātou he whakamana tangata kia tū haumaru, kia tū kaha, kia tū motuhake

This is a formal complaint about that response. Evidence strongly indicates that the Ministry acted against legal advice, and it is in the public interest that the legal advice is provided - the response is a mockery of section 9(2)(h) of the Act! The government represents the people, and the people are entitled to know if the government acts against the people and against legal advice - providing the information requested would in no way prevent obtaining confidential legal advice in the future - confidential until a request is made anyway. It is in the public interest to provide the legal advice because it is clear that the Ministry acted against legal advice!

As for the excuse regarding section 16(f) - this excuse is totally rejected - everyone affected by the practise of using fake names is entitled to know that, and entitled to complain about it, and needs to be advised of it - the actions are in direct breach of article 14 of the international Covenant of Civil and Political Rights!
This is a complaint regarding the actions of the Ministry as well as the delayed response to the OIA request.
Katherine Raue.

MSD was supposed to reply by June 24th. Has the Ministry done so, and will that reply be posted in such a manner that anyone can see it?

Not only has MSD been accused of using fake names and pseudonyms for BRC members, it is also being accused of deceiving a United Nations investigation into New Zealand's treatment of legitimately earned overseas contributory pensions.

How ironic. Received today, a letter from the Manager at the "Early Resolution Team".

It can be read at this link, and it demonstrates why the current system is such an utter waste of time:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B-Evc9...

This is an insult to taxpayers, we're simply funding a huge 'complaints industry' in which people like Rachel are paid tax payers' money to fob us off with this ineffectual nonsense while the Ministry tries to weasel out of this.

I note that the person who is the catalyst for this request has been targeted by the Ministry as a whistleblower - they wasted no time in pursuing her in a manner which a High Court Judge deemed "disturbing":

http://kate-raue.blogspot.co.nz/2003/12/...

Of course, the Ministry has a quota to fill, and vulnerable women are an easy target:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-standard...

Another commentator mentions misleading the UN inquiry. Might as well read about that while we wait - links to some information regarding that are as follows - but get in quick, the Herald in particular and media in general are removing 'news' articles from their websites fast these days:

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/3...

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/articl...

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/9351235...

We have requested a copy of the entire RCU Business Process document, which was provided with substantial redactions - on the grounds that it was allegedly "out of scope" of the request.

A link to the document will be added via annotation to this request when it is provided. If it is provided.

The request is at this link:
https://fyi.org.nz/request/6382-request-...

WINZ MSD today admitted this to me.
Fake names.
Crimes Act makes that a false document and the production of it was forgery...three yrpears jail.

I am angry..winz now stalling...making it difficult,,..
Can we sue them for criminal action? Perhaps a simple complaint of forgery to police?

It's SEVEN years for conspiring to pervert the course of justice Gregory. The answer to your question is yes. Please email me at kateraue@gmail.com if you are interested in pursuing this course of action.

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/publi...