Brendan Boyle. MSD chief executive on 30 January 2017 when I emailed a letter to the chief executive requesting an exemption.
This was from MSD's discretionary requirement to apply for the Australian Age Pension. My ground was trauma due to torture by the Australian government.
The letter should have triggered the "no surprises" principle of the Cabinet Manual's para 3.22, assuming it hadn't already been triggered by earlier email correspondence.
This correspondence didn't mention torture but it did say that explaining my request for exemption would entail naming intelligence officers and describing intelligence operations.
There was an unusual reluctance in MSD replies which suggested the no surprises principle had been triggered before 30 January. The principle said MSD minister, Anne Tolley, should be promptly informed.
Anne Tolley Former Minister of Police. In 2017 Anne Tolley was Minister for Social Development responsible for MSD, and was generally regarded as a hard-nosed conservative.
Under para 3.22 of the Cabinet Manual, she would have been promptly informed of any politically controversial matter (such as torture by the Australian government).
On 30 January 2017, I gave MSD chief executive details of the torture including names of people and places, dates, and descriptions of events.
Grant Pearson. In 2017 and until early 2022 when replaced by the Ministry of Justice, former tax lawyer Grant Pearson was chair of the Social Security Appeal Authority.
If a person applies to MSD for an internal BRC review of a Ministry decision, and MSD's Benefits Review Committee finds against them in part or in full, the person can appeal the BRC's findings and decision to the Appeal Authority.
The SSAA independently rehears the BRC hearing.
In MSD's 17 July 2017 internal review, the one conducted falsely in my name against my wishes as the email history clearly shows, the BRC found fully in favour of MSD. In October, I appealed.
Chair Pearson, with a duty to be reasonable, fair and independent, unfortunately had a Jekyll and Hyde personality. He was very considerate during the appeal hearings, undoubtedly due to his legal training, but when writing his findings was a latter-day Freddy Kruger.
He made significant mistakes, offered a bribe (with MSD's approval) of about $30,000 to abandon the appeal. Then found fully in favour of MSD and issued a certificate of non-prosecution preventing further appeal to the High Court.
Statutory law said once an SSAA appeal is filed MSD must send a copy of all relevant documents to SSAA. This was prescribed in section 12K of the 1964 Act, and called a 12K report.
MSD's 12K Reports also contained a summary created by MSD of the attached documents. In my case, summary para 2.15 said MSD's 17 July 2017 review was unlawful. MSD's Appeals Officer, had she not stated that, would have been personally exposed to section 113 of the Crimes Act 1961, Fabricating evidence.
Chair Pearson ignored para 2.15, finding that the 17 July 2017 review was lawful and that MSD had done nothing wrong. But he must have known the review was fraudulent and a legal nullity. He did know the appeal was about torture by the Australian government.
Sir Geoffrey Palmer. In 1988 Labour Party Attorney General. Sir Geoffrey re-wrote the State Services Act 1962 as the State Sector Act 1988. The 1962 Act defined a public service code of conduct and made offenses criminal.
Sir Geoffrey's 1988 rewrite deleted the code and its criminal offenses, making any future code optional and unenforceable. The public service was a key Labour Party constituency.
Sir Geoffrey was a stellar parliamentarian and contributor to NZ's justice system and to jurisprudence especially.
But it would have been better to balance deletion of the code with creation of an anti-corruption commission. That would have brought NZ up to the standard of comparable Western countries. We still don't have an anti-corruption commission.
Carmel Sepulni . Carmel Sepuloni was Labour Party Minister for Social Development from 26 October 2017 to 27 November 2023.
Debbie Power. Bebbie Power has been MSD chief executive since February 2019. In 2018 she was the Deputy State Services Commissioner. In early 2019 she took over MSD from Brendan Boyle.
Louise Upston. Louise Upston was National Party Minister for Social Development from 27 November 2023 to the present, May 2026.
Peter Boshier. In 2020, I filed a complaint with the NZ Chief Ombudsman, Peter Boshier, against the NZ Ministry of Social Development about its corrupt practice.
On 24 July 2017, I had filed with MSD a valid application dated 23 July 2017 for a review of its decision or determination, "we don't grant exemptions". MSD refused to process the application. This violated section 10A of the Social Security Act 1964. The appeal process ended on 29 October 2019.
MSD's internal policy, which it concealed for 5 years, said "we should consider their reasons" for requesting exemption.
However, if MSD did this it would formally consider then issue a report about torture by the Australian government. I'd provided details including names of people and places, dates and descriptions of events.
So was Peter Boshier, recently rewarded by his government with a knighthood, a genuinely independent chief ombudsman? Regarding important welfare cases, definitely "yes". But what about present-day security matters relating to historical torture during the Cold War by NZ's main defence partner?
Peter Boshier's Office, as per usual, asked MSD to comment on my complaint. MSD sent Ringa William's 25 August 2017 "Report of the Benefits Review Committee" containing much deception originally penned by disgraced Wellington barrister and senior MSD officer, Kenneth Bulmer.
Ombudsman Boshier's response to this report: dismiss my complaint ex parte. That is, without giving the complainant an opportunity to defend his character against MSD's character assassination in the form of its 25 August report. This ex parte dismissal breached the UN human right of natural justice.
The MSD report was a verbatim copy of disgraced Wellington barrister and senior MSD officer Kenneth Bulmer's 8 August 2017 ROD Team "Report to the Benefits Review Committee" minus all the ROD report's attached documents that proved MSD's many deceptions in the 25 August report.
Kenneth Bulmer designed his ROD Report to destroy credibility. He was very skilled at doing this, but the mandatory attached documents proved the mendacity. But would anyone bother reading them, so confusingly sequenced as the important ones were? Or would the reader, such as an ombudsman or his office, simply scan disgraced barrister Bulmer's summaries containing so much expert deception?
Peter Boshier dismissed my complaint ex parte. He intentionally denied a complainant the right to defend their character against many MSD false and unfair criticisms.
Then I asked Sir Peter Boshier to be allowed to comment on what MSD had sent. Sir Peter refused. An assistant ombudsman replied saying the ex parte dismissal was entirely correct.
Then I asked the Office to send what MSD had provided, which had been the basis of the ex parte dismissal. Sir Peter refused. Privacy was cited, but the chief ombudsman failed to advise that I could get the documents from MSD by requesting them under the Privacy Act.
At this point I was wondering how the chief ombudsman got the job. Then I thought, well, being a showboat on important issues, perhaps he wasn't paying much attention to the smaller cases, but rather focusing on the big complaints guaranteeing media attention. Still, it must have been his decision to authorize the ex parte dismissal.
Another explanation is that he knew he had to dismiss the MSD complaint without considering the details, even though the complaint was valid. He knew that investigation would mean considering torture by NZ's main defence partner. He was prepared to abandon his duty to the people of New Zealand and to Parliament in order to follow the government need of avoiding displeasing a crucial foreign power. Hence he well deserved his recent knighthood.