Dear Ministry of Social Development,

I am advised the Ministry accepts the recent High Court ruling on cessation of the use of false names when dealing with clients.

To accept this ruling of the High Court it means acceptance of breach of a right so inviolate their is no justifiable reason

The ruling clearly stated such action was a breach of the Bill of Rights supported right to natural justice.

It states in part s68 - “What the Court of Appeal was saying in Drew is that the rights to natural justice are so inviolate that they cannot be justifiably limited in a free and democratic society.”

47
Drew v Attorney-General [2002] 1 NZLR 58 (CA) at [67].
free and democratic society. In large part, this is because the principles of natural justice already internally balance the competing interests at stake.48
[69] The conclusions I have reached in relation to the first question posed by the Authority may be distilled to the following points. First, the use of fictitious names and signatures by Committees breached Ms L’s right to the observance of the principles of natural justice. Second, there is no legislative or common law authority for Committees to have used fictitious names and signatures when determining Ms L’s applications. Third, the common law cannot be “developed” to permit the practice followed by the Committees in this case. Fourth, s 5 of NZBORA cannot be invoked to salvage the Committees’ practice of using fictitious names and signatures.”

Bearing this position in mind I wish to know if both written apologies and suitable compensation for these violations is to be made and if not why not.

Yours faithfully,

Gregory Soar

Dear Ministry of Social Development,

This response has not been received within the required time frames.

If a response has been sent or given using another forum please provide the details so I may check

Could you kindly respond in an appropriate manner including time frames to prevent a formal complaint to the Ombudsman.

Yours faithfully,

Gregory Soar