MSD's fake 18 November 2025 review
Background
MSD's first fake review started 17 July 2017. MSD's ROD Report was supposed to contain all documents relevant to my case, but author Kenneth Bulmer omitted the most important, MSD's policy on trauma, then included many deceptions in his summary of documents, and defamation. BRC chair Ringa Williams ignored all the attached documents that proved the 17 July 2017 review was fake then found fully in fabour of MSD, her paymaster.
I later asked MSD under the Official Information Act for the notes and other records of the BRC's deliberations. There was absolutely no records of anything. No audio record. No written comments or requests by committee members. No request sent to committee members asking for their comments. Nothing.
Chair Williams, in her BRC report 10 days after the hearing, quoted words she said I'd uttered during the hearing, but no one had kept any notes. No one had kept any records. No audio recording had been made.
The ROD Report was clearly fraudulent. I thought the BRC hearing itself was possibly fraudulent, that is, fixed, but if not then at least it was incompetently conducted.
In any case, I took the further options for review - appeal to the SSAA - but lost. Chair Grant Pearson was exceptionally corrupt including bribery with MSD's approval. His October 2019 certificate of non-prosecution prevented further appeal to the High Court. That ended statutory remedy over MSD's fake 17 July 2017 review.
It seemed to me that, at the management level, MSD was a very rotten and smelly object. But I thought, well, even though the Act takes that onto account, SSAA is even worse.
MSD's second fake review
MSD had cancelled Superannuation in July 2017. In October 2019 SSAA chair Pearson had iddued his ceretificate of non-rosecution. now in early 2020, I was reading the Social Security Act 2018 and noticed Job Seeker Support, the unemployment benefit.
I checked the Act. There was a lower age limit but no upper age limit. People on Super didn't qualify because Super income is above the JSS income limit. But my Super had been cancelled.
But this time I knew how depraved the system could be. I knew what might happen. But I thought I didn't have much to lose. I wanted to apply for JSS and went to the MSD website to find out how.
The website "knew" who I was. I'd sert up a RealMe login when filing patent applications with the Patent Office. It knew my age. I navigated to the page that listed all the benefits I could apply for. JSS wasn't there.
I was confused. I hunted around but couldn't find any information about why JSS was absent. I hunted for a manual application form. PDFs were usually available as well as online application forms. I found that most benefits did have manual forms - but not JSS. It could only be applied for online.
What a gaggle of semi-moronic dingbats, I thought. Anyway now I had a problem. I would have to communicate with MSD staff, and that could mean difficulties. But not with the customer-facing staff called "processing officers" They just tried to follow the rules and be helpful. Descent into Hades started with communicating with MSD managers.
I asked why couldn't I just apply for JSS? The Act said I could. MSD staff simply refused to believe it. How could the computer possibly be wrong? So I kept phoning and also sent emails.
Eventually, after suggesting MSD actually read the act it existed to administer, someone agreed I could apply. They created a special enterable PDF just for me, they sent it, I filled it out, I sent it back, JSS payment began. Then I got a letter - as I knew I must:
22 July 2020
Dear Rodney
YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE A PENSION FROM AUSTRALIA...
Everyone who receives Job Seeker Support or other payments from Work and Income is required to apply for any overseas pension that they may be able to receive ... if you do not complete the application your Job Seeker Support Payments may be affected...
As in 2016 and 2017, I didn't apply but requested exemption on the ground of trauma due to torture by the Australian government. MSD hadn't decided this request so far. MSD will never decide it. Deciding it would mean considering details of torture by part of the Australian defence establishment. Instead, as in 2017, MSD cancelled the benefit, this time JSS.
Then I applied for internal MSD review of its cancelation. So my JSS case was now fundamentally different from MSD's first fake review. In 2017, MSD invented its 17 July application then proceeded with the review falsely in my name - I had never applied. But this time in 2020, on 8 August, I did actually apply for a review of an MSD decision. But this is not the second fake review. That would start on 15 November 2025.
Now in 2020, MSD went through the standard review process, held a hearing, and found fully in favour of itself. But there was one crucial difference. Now it had independent evidence of the trauma. In 2017 MSD had refused to allow trauma a ground of exemption (even though its internal policy, hidden then and still hidden, allowed it).
In 2017, I had the independent evidence of trauma but didn't provide it because (a) MSD didn't allow trauma, and (b) the evidence was in the form of statements and MSD said statement, actually sworn affidavits, were inadequate because they were only "opinion". Though crucial to courts, they were unsuitable to MSD.
Now in 2020, I submitted submissions to the BRC. My first three attached exhibits were the three statements of independent evidence of trauma. The BRC ignored these, finding fully in favour of its paymaster, and failing to mention the independent evidence from qualified sources in its statutory "Report of the Benefits Review Committee".
Expecting ethical coherence and competence from a BRC is an interesting possibility rarely realized. I fully expected to lose. I knew how crooked the system was. But at least now in 2020 I had some experience under my belt.
In 2021, I appealed MSD's BRC's decision fully in favour of itself to SSAA. The case number was 51/21. My earlier SSAA appeal had been a criminal extravaganza by chair Grant Pearson. But I had few options. Again I appealed to SSAA. Again, the chair was mild-mannered and staggeringly corrupt Grant Pearson.
All sorts of devious things happened. MSD colluded with SSAA to gerrymander the appeal. I won't go into the Mafia-esque details, but deception was the order of the day.
I realized MSD was arranging with the eternally corrupt chair to stack everything against the appellant. Nothing I could do could help. Nothing I could say would make any difference. Nothing would be taken notice of. Both MSD and SSAA knew it was impossible for an ordinary person to do anything about two government doing synchronized swimming through the black slime at the bottom of the ethical barrel. The ordinary person is simply powerless.
So I frantically raced around trying to get legal counsel. That was the only thing I could see that would make any difference, would give me any chance of fending off the ethically challenged MSD and SSAA. The first lawyer started to help but his partners told him to stop. In Wellington, lawyers can make lots if money from the government. Best not to bite the flipper of the craken that feeds you.
Lawyers by and large in my experience, not all lawyers, but far too many also inhabit the black slime at the bottom of the ethical barrel. No wonder they make good politicians. In any case, the first lawyer started to help and began communicating with MSD and SSAA but his partners told him to quit. (So much for the myth that lawyers have a duty to help when mere mortals needed legal assistance.)
So I rushed around again. SSAA had put a 5-say deadline on its most recent crooked decision and I had to find representation fast. Fortunately I did. And at "discounted" rate of $460 an hour.
To cut the story short, chair Pearson decided to import his 2019 decision wildly in favour of MSD into the JSS appeal with the idea of simply applying that decision to the JSS matter since it was exactly the same matter as pertained to Super - a request for exemption on the ground of torture, the same trture event in each case.
But that meant I could legitimately address Pearson's 2019 decision wildly in favour of MSD. In submissions sent to the Ministry of Justice I did discuss certain elements of Chair Pearson's corrupt 2019 decision.
The Ministry replaced Chair and his panel with a new chair and panel. I won. The new chair found MSD was wrong to cancel JSS, that I had suffered trauma in Australia, and that MSD should have allowed an exemption on the ground of trauma.
Then she ordered MSD to pay the about $52,000 in unpaid JSS. She was also the one who ordered MSD to reveal its policy on trauma MSD had concealed for six years.
But MSD, being eternally corrupt as was its want, didn't want to abide by the SSAA's judicial order to pay the unpaid JSS. It wanted to act in contempt and do something not only different but something SSAA said it should not do.
Out of the blue on .... 2023, I got a completely unexpected email from MSD (Tania Tandy):
JSS had been withheld for about 3.5 years. MSD didn't want to pay the JSS arrears, for that same 3.5 years, it wanted to pay Super arrears instead, something SSAA had specialty said it should not do - the SSAA decision applied only to JSS and not National Super arrears.
There was a clear reason for this. MSD didn't want to be put in a position of having to obey New Zealand law. I don't need to go into that in detail just now, but there was withheld Super and withheld JSS over the same 3.5 year period.
SSAA ordered MSD to pay the JSS, but what about the Super? That had also been withheld. The reason to pay JSS arrears was exactly the same reason MSD should have paid Super but didn't.
So if it had to pay the withheld JSS, if it was being honest, it should also pay the withheld Super. But that would mean paying two benefits for the same 3.5 year period. That would be embarrassing.
But why pay all the withheld Super of about $150,000? Super is universal. Income and assets are not part of the calculation. If MSD should pay the withheld Super it should pay the full amount, $150,000, as well as pay the unpaid JSS. Total, $200,000. Oh dear! How embarrassing! What could MSD do? Act in contempt of the SSAA order and try to pay Super instead of JSS for the 3.5 year period.
So out of the blue on 4 December 2023 MSD sent an email:
This was sent near the end of the day and the transaction to pay Super instead of JSS was going to be processed the next day unless I objected. Luckily I saw the email on the 4th and objected saying that SSAA had ordered MSD to pay JSS. MSD paid JSS as SSAA had ordered.
But in order to pull off the trickery, MSD had to grant Super: ""....". In the nick of time I saw the deception and objected. JSS was paid. That was over 2024. Then the conservative government tightened JSS requirements. Why should a conservative government actual want to help people in need, who, if the needy bludgers could wean themselves of state dependency, would go and get a job.?
Then I thought, well, since Super had been granted why not ask MSD to start paying? I knew what a degenerate organism MSD was, so expected trouble. MSD refused.
Then on ..., November 2024, I wrote to MSD chief executive, Debbie Power, putting my case that MSD should pay Super going forward. I asked for acknowledgement of receipt, but didn't get one. No substantive answer came.
I waited a week, then on ... wrote to the Minister for Social Development, Louise Upston, asking the same thing. I asked for acknowledgement of receipt, but again didn't get one. No substantive answer came.
I waited another week then wrote to the Prime minister, Christopher Luxon, asking the same thing. No written response came but a few days later MSD rang saying it had decided to start paying Super going forward. And it did. That must have hurt. I was distraught with happiness in that it must have hurt so much.
Then on 18 November 2025, I wrote to MSD chief executive, Debbie Power, former Deputy Commissioner of the Public Service Commission which I used to work for many years ago under its previous name, the State Services Commission, and put my case that MSD should pay the $150,000.
Now at last, the second fake MSD review of decision. On 25 November 2025, I got a formal MSD letter on formal MSD letterhead saying:
25 November 2025
Tena Koe Mr Smith, [woke had invaded MSD]
Application for a Review of Decision
We have received your application for a review of decision...
[Signed]
Michael Edgerley ... Review of Decision Team
So it looked like the MSD fraud, conspiracy, fabrication and forgery of 2017. I hadn't applied for anything and MSD knew this. But there was one strange difference.
In 2017, as per what I understand to be standard practice, MSD in its official acknowledgement of receipt stated the decision it was now reviewing.
But now in 2025, no decision is mentioned. So the review has started, but MSD doesn't want to tell me what decision is being reviewed. It was just getting curiouser and curiouser. But I would soon find out why the decision was omitted.
Nevertheless, on 28 November 2025, I replied:
I haven't applied for a review of decision.
Then, again out of the blue, another official MSD letter on official MSD letterhead:
3 December 2025
Tena Koe [presumed translation: Dear] Mr Smith,
Your application for a Review of Decision
We have completed an internal review of the decision to suspend your New Zealand Superannuation from 28 July 2017...
[Signed]
Michael Edgerley ... Review of Decision Team
I consulted the Act. A person has three months to apply for an internal MSD review of a decision. In 2025, ignoring the fact that I hadn't applied for anything, 2017 was more than three months ago.
That second official MSD letter on official MSD letterhead came on 3 December 2025. The next day, the 4th, I was doom-scrolling though MSD's website then had a thought.
MSD was engaging in the old fraud of inventing an application for review falsely in my name then conducting the review against my wishes. Why not put the ogre of state to the test?
MSD had an online form for making a request to MSD under the Official Information Act. Why not ask:
Official Information Act request:
On 25/11 I received a MSD letter starting "We have received your application for a review of decision." Please send a copy of my application.
I asked that then the same day, 4 December 2025, the MSD team that processed OIA requests emailed that my OIA request was being processed under the Privacy Act and has been...
forwarded to the proper team to action and you can expect a response back from them no later than the 23rd of January 2026.
The OIA allowed just 20 working days for a department to reply to an OIA request unless for some allowed reason more time was needed. But on 4 December, nothing had been done about the request so there would have been no decision on extra time. So why was it going to take up to 50 days to get a response?
In any event, no notification of extra time came. But 23 January 2026 came - with no response. So on 26 January I wrote to MSD (email) asking:
Dear [possible translation: Tena Koe] MSD,
On 4 December 2025, I made a request under the OIA which you treated under the Privacy Act ... The same day, 4 December 2025, you replied "you can expect a response ... no later than the 23rd of January 2026." It's now 26 January 2026 but I've had no response...
On 30 January 2026, I received another official letter on official MSD letterhead:
30 January 2026
Dear Mr Smith
Our Response to your Information Request
We enclose our response to your request...
Yours sincerely
[Signed]
Pam Unsworth Manager Client Service Delivery.
Enc. [Letter sent to the Ministry dated 18th November 2026]
Sent just shy of two months after MSD received my 4 December 2025 OIA request.
My letter to MSD dated 18 November 2025 asked MSD to apply the reasoning in SSAA"s decision in 51/21 about JSS to National Super, starting:
18 November 2025
Request that MSD pay NZS Arrears
Dear Chief Executive,
...That 3 November 2023 decision of SSAA in 51/21 applied only to JSS. However, it applied equally to the NZS that MSD cancelled in 2017 ... I ask that MSD now pay the NZS it would have paid had it not wrongly cancelled NZS...
To apply under the act for a statutory review, you need the intention to apply. Nothing in my letter indicates an intention to apply for a statutory review of an 8-year-old decision. My 18 November letter wasn't an application for a statutory review of anything.
On 18 November 2025 I asked MSD to apply the reasoning in appeal 51/21 about JSS to NZS. Why did MSD steamroller me without my knowledge or authorization into an internal BRC decision of an 8-year-old decision, then undertake the review against my wishes?
I had no doubt. The fix was in. MSD was railroading me into a BRC review because it was going to arrange, or had already arranged, for the BRC probably to pay something but nowhere near the $150,000 of wrongly withheld NZS. So MSD embraced fraud once again.
I was hoping MSD would simply say yes or no to my 18 November 2025 request to apply the JSS reasoning to NZS. If MSD said yes, then it would pay the $150,000 and I could get on with other things.
If it said no, then I could apply for a BRC review of that 2025 "no" decision and put my case, this time being represented by counsel. I thought my case was very good. But a review would involve the BRC consider torture by the Australian government, something the New Zealand government, by far the junior Trans-Tasman partner, was desperate not to do.
So fraud was the preferred option, and the fix was in. As long as I didn't reject the fix - but I did reject it.
Yet at the end of the day, even if everything about the torture to get dirt to use against the Labor Party came out, the New Zealand government could say, well, we did everything we could including breaching statutory, civil and even criminal law to avoid displeasing the Australian government.
On that way of thinking, all the MSD and SSAA corruption was due to New Zealand's weakness compared to Australia. At east that seems a good story, and it would include saying that MSD isn't an utterly corrupt organ of state in its own right. But when it comes to the national interest it will happily commit wrongs against the individual because the rights of the individual must be surrendered to the interests of the state.
After all, what is life? Life is the state. The individual is irrelevant. Sometimes the individual must suffer so the state can maintain its international relationships (to modify the original wording somewhat).
So neither statutory law, nor civil law nor criminal law nor the pubic service code of conduct have restrained MSD in its corrupt purposes.