MSD's fake 17 July 2017 review
On 30 January 2017, I asked MSD for an exception from its discretionary requirement to apply to MSD for an Australian Age Pension. The manager of the MSD section that processed applications for overseas pensions was Tania Tandy.
My ground for exemption was trauma in the "testing country", Australia in my case. On 30 January I gave MSD chief executive Brendan Boyle details of the cause of the trauma.
An enormous amount of MSD obfuscation, dissembling and evasion followed, and by July MSD still hadn't made a decision for or against exemption. But it had threatened many times to cancel Super unless I abandoned my request for exemption and applied for the Australian pension.
After five months of trying to get a decision from MSD about my request for exemption, I reluctantly realized that something devious happening that I had little choice but to seek review of related MSD decisions, with a preference for external review. I'd lost trust in MSD and believed New Zealand's largest organ of state was acting in bad faith.
On 17 July 2017, I emailed Tania Tandy:
"Has my application for exemption been declined? If it has not then I'll continue seeking supporting material... If [it] has been declined, then I will probably refer the matter to a third party ... I have written to the Chief Ombudsman ... Another option, as you would be aware, is Judicial Review..."
Later the same day MSD (Tania Tandy) repied:
"Dear Mr Smith
...We have accepted your email of 17 July 2017 as a request for review of our decision to test your entitlement to an Australian Age Pension. As such, your request has been referred to our Review of Decision Team..."
My email obviously wasn't an application for an internal MSD review of decision, and it was about exemption, not MSD's discretionary statutory requirement.
The review of decision process starts with the ROD Team receiving an application. So at the time MSD contacted me, the review had already started: "your request has been referred...".
Later still the same day, 17 July, I received a formal MSD letter:
"[MSD letterhead]
17 July 2017...
Dear Mr Rodney Smith
Application for a Review of Decision
We have received your application for a review of our decision to require you to take reasonable steps to apply for an Australian Age Pension under section 69G of the Social Security Act 1964.
[Signed]
Kenneth Bulmer"
On 19 July I replied:
"Dear Kenneth,
I have not yet made an application for review ..."
I was so shocked at what was happening - faking a review of decision. Also, the fake review wasn't about exemption. I felt I had to be very clear in my position so added:
"I emailed Tania Tandy on 17 July ... She then deemed this email, without my knowledge or agreement, to be a request (not an application) for review by ROD. It was not my request to ROD. I would not have agreed to it being my request to ROD..."
On 20 July 2017, I strongly further added:
Dear Kenneth...
...can I repeat that I haven't made a request for review. Your acknowledgement of 17 July says: "We have received your application for a review...". I haven't sent an application for review. The reverse side of your acknowledgement refers to "once you've applied". I haven't applied. It refers to "having received your review application". I haven't sent a review application...Would you confirm receipt of this email and acknowledge that I have asserted in it that I have not sent an application for review. Would you pass this email chain (17-20 July) to your manager and confirm in writing to me that you have done this. Would you ask your manager to contact me by email today.
I've never received a response to these questions.
I found the corruption staggering. MSD continued with the review against my wishes. No MSD reply exists either from Kenneth Bulmer or from his manager in any MSD report supposed to attach all relevant documents in my case. No response was made, and the review continued.
MSD had a rule that said a person could withdraw their application for review by asking in writing. It wasn't my review application. It was in my name but I had never applied. But MSD was still duty-bound to withdraw it. But MSD continued.
It continued to Benefits Review Committee (BRC) hearing and completion. Under chair Ringa Williams, the committee had the documents that proved the review was fake. Yet she found fully in favour of MSD saying her paymaster had done nothing wrong. She failed to mention the emails that showed the review was clearly a fabrication.
In her Report of the Benefits Review Committee required by the Act, chair Williams said:
"The Committee carefully considered all the information that was presented both verbally and written by the Applicant and the Ministry.
[Signed]
Ringa Williams"
But to create her BRC report she copied the ROD report verbatim including its deceptions and defamation, added her findings fully in favour of MSD, then deleted the documents attached to the ROD report which proved the deceptions and that the review was fake.
That behavior was a harbinger of the future. I appealed Ringa William's BRC decision, as allowed under the Act, to the Social Security Appeal Authority. The chair was mild-mannered and deeply corrupt Grant Pearson.
MSD's second fake review would start 15 November 2025.