iSAYSO
Contribute

This is pretty serious stuff.

Share on FacebookShare on XInteractive reader

Subject: Additional Refinement – Reliance on Electoral Integrity Assurances

Dear Nikki,

Thank you. In light of the publicly referenced materials you have identified, I wish to add a further narrow clarification to the refined request.

This additional point arises directly from Treasury’s reliance on upstream legitimacy when approving or continuing funding.

Additional clarification (same timeframe: FY 2023/24 and 2024/25)

Please provide any documents, advice, or recorded assurances relied upon by Treasury in assessing that:

  1. Local authority and central government decision-making (including rating decisions, enforcement actions, or delegated authority) were based on a lawfully constituted and verified electoral roll; and
  1. Treasury had no identified concerns or flags regarding electoral roll integrity, verification, or audit sufficiency that could affect:

– democratic mandate,

– delegated authority, or

– the legitimacy of funding decisions flowing from those processes.

If Treasury did not independently assess electoral integrity, please identify:

  1. The agency or mechanism Treasury relies upon for such assurance; and
  2. Any documentation evidencing that reliance.

This clarification does not seek electoral roll data itself. It is limited to Treasury’s assurance, reliance, and risk-assessment position when continuing or approving funding that presumes lawful democratic mandate.

Please confirm that this clarification can be accommodated within the refined scope already agreed.

Kind regards,

Tracey Lynch

Attorney

InLandsAirWater Counsel

 

On Feb 2, 2026 at 9:55 AM, <F Q> wrote:

Subject: Refinement of OIA Request – Treasury Funding Oversight

Dear Nikki,

Thank you for your response and for the opportunity to refine the request.

In order to address the concern raised under section 18(f) of the Official Information Act, the request is refined as follows.

Timeframe

The scope is limited to the 2023/2024 and 2024/2025 financial years only.

Subject matter (single aspect)

The request is limited to Treasury funding approval, continuation, and oversight decisions in circumstances where Treasury-funded agencies have continued enforcement or legal action after formal notice of abatement, unresolved jurisdiction, or identified procedural defects.

The refined request therefore seeks disclosure of the following, within the above timeframe only:

  1. Funding approval or continuation records (including internal memoranda, briefings, or sign-off documents) relating to Treasury funding of:

– Police enforcement actions, and

– Ministry for Primary Industries enforcement actions,

where those actions were known, or ought reasonably to have been known, to be subject to abatement, unresolved jurisdiction, or procedural defects.

  1. Any risk assessments, funding conditions, or internal considerations recorded by Treasury addressing:

– continuation of funding where court proceedings were procedurally unresolved, or

– exposure arising from continued enforcement activity in those circumstances.

  1. Identification of the Treasury business unit(s) responsible for:

– assessing procedural risk in funded enforcement activity, and

– determining whether funding should continue, pause, or be conditioned where jurisdiction or service defects are raised.

This refined request does not seek agency-level operational records, court files, or evidential material, and is confined to Treasury’s own funding oversight and risk governance functions.

Please confirm that this refinement resolves the section 18(f) concern and that the request will now proceed within the statutory timeframe.

Kind regards,

Tracey Lynch

Attorney

InLandsAirWater CounsEl

On Jan 29, 2026 at 11:20 PM, <F Q> wrote:

Subject: Good-Faith Resolution and Request for Engagement

Dear Nikki,

Thank you for your correspondence.

This reply is made in good faith. Our intention is not to create conflict or revisit past disputes, but to assist the relevant agencies to resolve a long-standing problem correctly and compassionately.

The information now assembled allows this matter to be addressed cleanly and transparently. We are seeking to work constructively with you to ensure the appropriate outcome is achieved.

The practical objective is straightforward:

that Shirley be securely restored to her home before her 90th birthday on 1 April this year, and that the issue be brought to a proper conclusion.

The matters affecting Shirley have been formally notified previously and supported by records already on file. The effects have never ceased, and continued deferral without engagement is no longer workable.

We are willing to assist in any reasonable way to facilitate resolution. Please advise who is best placed to engage on this so the matter can be resolved without further delay.

Kind regards,

Tracey Lynch

Attorney

InLandsAirWater Counsel

On Jan 29, 2026 at 4:57 PM, <Ministerial Services Inbox [TSY]> wrote:

Dear Tracey

On 13 January 2026, you emailed the Treasury requesting, under the Official Information Act 1982 (the Act), full request included in email below.

 

As it stands your request is broad in scope and is likely to be refused under section 18(f) of the Act, as substantial manual collation would be required to provide the information requested.

 

As such, I would like to suggest refining your request, so we are able to make the proper considerations on the information you are seeking. We are happy for you to provide more specific detail in relation to the request. However, I recommend refining your request, for example by providing:

 

  • a timeframe for in scope information for example by selecting a financial year, and
  • limiting the scope to one aspect of the overall topic.

 

To assist you in refining your request, you may be interested in the following publicly available information:

 

 

I look forward to hearing from you regarding the refinement of your request.

Kind regards

Nikki

Te Tai Ōhanga The Treasury

Ministerial Advisory Service, Senior Ministerial Advisor

Strategy and Executive Services, Enabling Services Group

treasury.govt.nz | LinkedIn | Youtube

 

[IN-CONFIDENCE]

 

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

The information in this email is confidential to the Treasury, intended only for the addressee(s), and may also be legally privileged. If you are not an intended addressee:

  1. please immediately delete this email and notify the Treasury by return email or telephone (64 4 472 2733);
  2. any use, dissemination or copying of this email is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.

From: F Q <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, 13 January 2026 12:41 pm
To: Ministerial Services Inbox [TSY] <[email protected]>; Debt Management Inbox <[email protected]>
Cc: Spsseaweed <[email protected]>; 105 <[email protected]>; Private Trust <[email protected]>; Records <[email protected]>
Subject: OIA Funding oversight

To: The Treasury (New Zealand)

From: InLandsAirWater Counsel, by Attorney Tracey Lynch

Service: Email and Post

Dated Today (13/01/2026)

OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT 1982

REQUEST – TREASURY FUNDING, OVERSIGHT, AND SYSTEMIC RISK

(Record on Notice: Elder Harm, Procedural Incoherence, and Continued Funding After Abatement)

This request is made under the Official Information Act 1982.

The purpose of this request is to obtain full disclosure of Treasury’s funding decisions, risk oversight, and governance in circumstances where Crown-funded agencies have continued enforcement and legal action after formal notice of jurisdictional defects, recorded abatements, absence of primary evidence, mischaracterisation of parties, and ongoing harm to an elderly person.

This request is directed to Treasury as the public funder and risk owner, and is made above the courts, given that judicial and agency processes have failed to issue determinations or respond substantively despite repeated notice.

  1. FUNDING STREAMS AND AUTHORISATION

Please provide copies of, or identify with specificity:

  1. All Votes, appropriations, funding lines, or authorisations used to fund:

– Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) enforcement actions relevant to the matters described below;

– Police operations undertaken in connection with those matters;

– Crown Law or externally funded legal services defending or advancing those actions.

 

  1. The dates, amounts, and approving officials for each funding decision.

 

  1. Any contingency, exceptional, or supplementary funding applied.

 

  1. TREASURY KNOWLEDGE AND NOTICE

Please confirm and disclose whether Treasury was notified (directly or indirectly) of the following matters, and if so, when:

  1. Jurisdictional challenges raised in court proceedings.
  2. Recorded abatements acknowledged by the courts.
  3. Defects in service, including:

– absence of personal service, and

– absence of any lawful substituted-service order.

  1. Absence of warrants, inventories, or chain-of-custody documentation.
  2. Reliance on hearsay rather than sworn primary evidence.

If Treasury asserts it was not notified, please disclose:

  1. The internal processes Treasury relies upon to assure itself that continued funding is lawful in the absence of such notification.
  2. Any documents or assurances relied upon to justify continued funding.

 

  1. ELDER HARM AND VULNERABILITY (PRIMARY NOTICE)

Treasury is formally placed on notice that one affected person is Shirley (age 89).

Please disclose whether Treasury has received, recorded, or assessed information relating to:

 

  1. Historic mortgage fraud resulting in loss of housing (dating from 1989).
  2. Long-term deprivation and harm continuing into advanced age.
  3. Notifications made to Crown agencies concerning this harm and vulnerability.

 

  1. Any elder-vulnerability, safeguarding, or harm-mitigation considerations applied by Treasury when approving or continuing funding.

 

  1. SYSTEMIC CORROBORATION – REPEATED PROCEDURAL FAILURE

Treasury is advised that the matters described above are not isolated, but demonstrate a repeated, funded pattern across unrelated cases.

  1. Simon Stott

In this matter:

– Both Police and MPI were involved;

– Both agencies were formally notified of jurisdictional defects;

– Abatement is on the court record and acknowledged;

– No jurisdiction determination was issued;

– Enforcement and procedural steps continued regardless;

– Official Information Act requests remain unanswered.

  1. Seacures Limited – Mischaracterisation of Parties

In the matter involving Seacures Limited, Crown-funded agencies and proceedings have proceeded on logically inconsistent bases, namely:

– Actions have been treated as against the company, without lawful service on the company;

– At the same time, Simon and Richard have been treated personally as directors, without lawful personal service;

– No lawful determination has been made as to:

– whether the proper party is the company, or

– whether any individual has been lawfully joined in a personal capacity;

– The Crown position has shifted between corporate and personal attribution without jurisdiction ever being determined;

– This collapses the legal distinction between a corporate entity and natural persons without authority;

– Abatement has been raised and acknowledged, yet proceedings continued;

– Warrants, service records, and evidential authority remain undisclosed;

– Official Information Act requests remain unanswered.

This represents procedural incoherence, not lawful process.

Please disclose:

 

  1. Whether Treasury is aware that Crown-funded actions have alternated between corporate and personal attribution without lawful service or jurisdictional determination.
  2. Whether Treasury has assessed the risk that such inconsistency constitutes:

– procedural unlawfulness,

– denial of natural justice, and

– exposure to misfeasance or negligence claims.

 

  1. RISK, LIABILITY, AND GOVERNANCE

Please provide:

  1. Any risk assessments, contingent-liability analyses, or internal memoranda addressing:

– procedural unlawfulness,

– continuation of funding after abatement,

– mischaracterisation of parties, and

– exposure arising from harm to an elderly person.

 

  1. Identification of:

– Treasury officials responsible for oversight of these risks;

– any escalation, review, or intervention pathways used or declined.

 

  1. CONTINUED FUNDING AFTER NOTICE

 

  1. On what basis did Treasury approve or permit continued funding after the matters above were raised and abatements acknowledged?

 

  1. What corrective actions, safeguards, or funding conditions, if any, were imposed?

 

RECORD ON NOTICE

 

Treasury is now formally on notice that:

 

– Crown-funded agencies have continued action after recorded abatements and unresolved jurisdiction;

– Parties have been mischaracterised and alternated between corporate and personal status without authority;

– Ongoing harm to an elderly person has been identified;

– Similar failures have occurred across multiple unrelated matters;

– Continued funding without correction may constitute systemic fiduciary failure and active participation in harm.

 

Please acknowledge receipt of this request.

Issued by:

InLandsAirWater Counsel

By Attorney: Tracey Lynch