Dear Mr Soar

I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your OIA request below.

We will endeavour to respond to your request as soon as possible and in any event no later than are 20 working days after the day your request was received. If we are unable to respond to your request by then, we will notify you of an extension of that timeframe.

If any additional factors come to light which are relevant to your request, please do not hesitate to contact us so that these can be taken into account.

Our letter notifying you of our decision on your request will confirm if we intend to publish the letter (with your personal details removed) and any related documents on the State Services Commission’s website.

Kind regards

SSC Enquiries
State Services Commission | Te Kawa Mataaho
email: [email address]
www.ssc.govt.nz | www.govt.nz

-----Original Message-----
From: Gregory Soar <[FOI #9457 email]>
Sent: Monday, 28 January 2019 6:04 AM
To: SSC Enquiries <[email address]>
Subject: Official Information request - When Did State Services Commissioner First Know MSD was using actions that the Crimes Act declares criminal

Dear State Services Commission,

!. On what date was the State Services Commissioner “first” informed of the use of false names being used on documents within MSD WINZ?

2. On discovering the unlawful actions of false name use by MSD staff what action did SSCommissioner take to meet his legislated duties of his paid employment as defined by the State Sector Act as follows in relation to the use of false names at MSD:

“State Sector Act 1A Purpose (c)maintains appropriate standards of integrity and conduct;
“State Sector Act 4A Role of Commissioner (d) working with State services leaders to ensure that the State services maintain high standards of integrity and conduct and are led well and are trusted;
“State Sector Act 4A Role of Commissioner (g) evaluating the performance of Public Service leaders

3. On what date did the State Services Commissioner take his first action to abide by his legislated duties to ensure appropriate standards of integrity and conduct that ensured the State Service, being the MSD, maintained these legislated requirements that would see the MSD being trusted.

4. What were the actions taken by the State Services Commissioner after being informed of false name use on documents?

5. Does the State Services Commissioner feel he acted in accordance with his legislated duties once he was aware of false names being used on documents at MSD?

6. Does the State Services Commissioner understand or have any knowledge of the Crimes Act 66 Parties to offences
(1)
Every one is a party to and guilty of an offence who—
(a)
actually commits the offence; or
(b)
does or omits an act for the purpose of aiding any person to commit the offence; or
(c)
abets any person in the commission of the offence; or
(d)
incites, counsels, or procures any person to commit the offence.
Crimes Act 1961 Interpretation
For the purposes of this section and sections 256 and 263,— false document means a document—
255
(a)
of which the whole or any material part purports to be made by any person who did not make it, or by a fictitious person; or
(b)
of which the whole or any material part purports to be made by or on behalf of any person who did not authorise its making, or on behalf of a fictitious person; or
(c)
of which the whole or any material part has been altered, whether by addition, insertion, deletion, obliteration, erasure, removal, or otherwise, and that purports to have been altered by or on behalf of a person who did not alter it or authorise its alteration, or by or on behalf of a fictitious person; or
(d)
that is, in whole or in part, a reproduction of any other document, and that purports to have been made by or on behalf of a person who did not make it or authorise its making, or by or on behalf of a fictitious person; or
(e)
that is made in the name of a person, either by that person or by that person’s authority, with the intention that it should pass as being made by some other person who did not make it, or by a fictitious person.
256
Forgery
(1)
Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years who makes a false document with the intention of using it to obtain any property, privilege, service, pecuniary advantage, benefit, or valuable consideration.
(2)
Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years who makes a false document, knowing it to be false, with the intent that it in any way be used or acted upon, whether in New Zealand or elsewhere, as genuine.
(3)
Forgery is complete as soon as the document is made with the intent described in subsection (1) or with the knowledge and intent described in subsection (2).
(4)
Forgery is complete even though the false document may be incomplete, or may not purport to be such a document as would be binding or sufficient in law, if it is so made and is such as to indicate that it was intended to be acted upon as genuine.
(5)
Every person is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years who, without reasonable excuse, sells, transfers, or otherwise makes available any false document knowing it to be false and to have been made with the intention that it be used or acted on (in New Zealand or elsewhere) as genuine.
257
Using forged documents
(1)
Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years who, knowing a document to be forged,—
(a)
uses the document to obtain any property, privilege, service, pecuniary advantage, benefit, or valuable consideration; or
(b)
uses, deals with, or acts upon the document as if it were genuine; or
(c)
causes any other person to use, deal with, or act upon it as if it were genuine.
(2)
For the purposes of this section, a document made or altered outside New Zealand in a manner that would have amounted to forgery if the making or alteration had been done in New Zealand is to be regarded as a forged document.

7. A recent OIA response says that the SSCommissioner believes the action he took in regard falsename use was appropriate. The use of false names is not only not lawful as per recentHigh Court ruling in civil matters re Collins J and the Crimes Act above clearly outlaws false name use in the criminal arena. Considering that the State ServicesCommissioner permitted unlawful actions to continue pleasesupply all the information on how the State Services Commissioner and State Services itself met the legislated requiremts above in the handling of the use of false names on formal documents by MSD.

Yours faithfully,

Gregory Soar

-------------------------------------------------------------------

This is an Official Information request made via the FYI website.

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #9457 email]

Is [SSC request email] the wrong address for Official Information requests to State Services Commission? If so, please contact us using this form:
https://fyi.org.nz/change_request/new?bo...

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers

If you find this service useful as an Official Information officer, please ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's OIA or LGOIMA page.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

hide quoted sections

Good morning Mr Soar

Official Information Requests

Our Ref:  SSCOIA 2019-0014

 

We refer to your official information requests dated 28 January 2019 where
you have asked several questions that relate to the Ministry of Social
Development’s previous Chief Executive, Mr Brendon Boyle and a recent High
Court decision on the use of pseudonyms.

The Official Information Act 1982 requires that we advise you of our
decision on your request no later than 20 working days after the day that
we received your request.  Unfortunately, it will not be possible to meet
that time limit and we are, therefore, writing to notify you of an
extension of the time to make our decision, to 11 March 2019.   We will
keep you updated on the progress of our response to your request.

This extension is necessary because consultations needed to make a
decision on your request are such that a proper response cannot reasonably
be made within the original time limit.

If you wish to discuss any aspect of your request with us, including this
decision, please feel free to contact Ministerial Services at
[1][email address].

You have the right to seek an investigation and review by the Ombudsman of
this decision. Information about how to make a complaint is available at
[2]www.ombudsman.parliament.nz or freephone 0800 802 602.

 

Kind regards

 

[3]State Ministerial Services  
Services State Services Commission | Te Kawa Mataaho
Commission [4]www.ssc.govt.nz | [5]www.govt.nz
[6]cid:image006.png@01D48277.F3E02860 [7]cid:image011.png@01D48277.F3E02860

 

 

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. http://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/
4. http://www.ssc.govt.nz/
5. http://www.govt.nz/
6. https://www.linkedin.com/company/state-s...
7. https://twitter.com/StateServicesNZ

Good morning Mr Soar

 

Please find SSC response to your OIA request received on 28 January 2019.

 

 

Kind regards

 

[1]State Ministerial Services  
Services State Services Commission | Te Kawa Mataaho
Commission [2]www.ssc.govt.nz | [3]www.govt.nz
[4]cid:image006.png@01D48277.F3E02860 [5]cid:image011.png@01D48277.F3E02860

 

 

References

Visible links
2. http://www.ssc.govt.nz/
3. http://www.govt.nz/
4. https://www.linkedin.com/company/state-s...
5. https://twitter.com/StateServicesNZ