Fake names a denial of justice
Should Ministry of Social Development (MSD) staff use false names on official documents relating to clients? Of course not, especially as the ministry has previously been warned that the practice is a denial of justice.
Decisions by the MSD’s benefits review committees have been issued under false names and signatures, despite earlier rulings that the practice should cease. It came to light after a client of the ministry appealed against seven decisions about her case, leading to a MSD manager disclosing the falsehoods to the Social Security Appeal Authority that was to review the decisions.
A lawyer acting for the woman called it ‘‘extraordinary misbehaviour’’. He has gone on to question MSD chief executive Brendan Boyle’s fitness for office and the authority has referred the matter to the Solicitor-General, Una Jagose, QC.
The Social Security Appeal Authority had already ruled that the practice must stop as it deprives those whose cases are being reviewed of their right to natural justice, including the ability to check on the possible bias or validity of committee members. It is ‘‘repugnant to the most fundamental concept of justice’’, the authority stated.
The authority has also said Boyle had given ‘‘a personal undertaking’’ he would discontinue the use of pseudonyms. However, Boyle has issued a statement saying he never gave such an assurance. State Services Commissioner Peter Hughes has added that he too supports the use of false names at the ministry.
On the face of it, the MSD’s reasons might seem compelling. It has been revealed that false names were used when dealing with some of its most ‘‘volatile’’ clients, including those who have made death threats and ‘‘inappropriate allegations’’ against MSD staff. It was felt that threats to the safety of some staff were too great to allow real names to be used.
In the background to this there is the tragic shooting at a ministry office in Ashburton in 2014 that left two staff dead and was later found to have resulted from a client’s twisted belief that he had been mistreated. It is easy to understand that the ministry would try to avoid such direct targeting of its staff where possible.
But while the Social Security Appeal Authority agreed that the woman in the current case was aggressive, had used crude language and also harboured a sense that the MSD was to blame for events in her life, it was revealed that the police advised ministry staff that she was harmless and would not act on her threats. The embarrassment and offensiveness that might come from confrontations with the woman were outweighed by the right to open justice, in the view of the Social Security Appeal Authority, which said it ‘‘cannot accept the chief executive filing documents that contain false information’’.
This is it in a nutshell. Regardless of the unforeseeable tragedy in Ashburton, or the potential for hurt feelings and inconvenience among MSD staff who deal with ‘‘volatile’’ clients, the use of false names and signatures during these processes seems a clear violation of natural justice. If ministry staff do feel threatened or unsafe in such situations, there must be other, more acceptable ways of ensuring their security.
... the tragic shooting at a ministry office in Ashburton.