This is a copy of reply to a MSD claim. Take note of the evasive behaviour of the CEO of the MSD

 

Ms Graham,

 

I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated February 2026, issued on behalf of the Chief Executive .

 

This response corrects the record and clarifies the nature of the issues raised, which your letter has materially misconstrued.

 

 1. Nature of the request — not a “service”, but an evidential obligation

 

My request was not for the Ministry to provide a forensic accounting service.

 

It was a request for the records, calculations, authorisations, and transactional basis relied upon by the Ministry in making deductions, allocations, or adjustments to payments affecting me.

 

That is not a discretionary service.

It is an evidential obligation.

 

Where a public authority alters, withholds, reallocates, or offsets funds, it must be able to:

– identify the legal authority relied upon,

– disclose the calculation methodology used, and

– produce the underlying ledger entries evidencing the movement of funds.

 

A refusal framed as “we do not provide forensic accounting services” does not answer that obligation and does not discharge the Ministry’s duties under public law.

 

 2. Privacy Act processing does not displace evidential accountability

 

You indicate the request is being processed under the Privacy Act 2020.

 

That does not limit disclosure to raw data extracts while withholding:

– decision-making logic,

– internal accounting references,

– authorisation instruments, or

– reconciliation records used to justify deductions.

 

If funds have been altered or withheld, the Ministry must be able to show how and why, not merely that an entry exists.

 

 3. Review of Decision process is not engaged

 

Your reference to the Review of Decision (ROD) process is misplaced.

 

No lawful “decision” has been identified, served, or particularised.

Absent:

– a defined decision,

– statutory grounding,

– notice of rights,

– and disclosure of the evidential basis,

 

there is nothing capable of review.

 

ROD cannot be used as a substitute for first producing the material relied upon.

 

 4. Legal process versus lawful authority

 

This correspondence highlights a critical distinction the Ministry appears to have overlooked.

 

Legal process is administrative.

Lawful authority requires:

– transparency,

– evidential proof,

– and consent or jurisdiction properly established.

 

An assertion of administrative process without production of the evidence relied upon is not lawful authority. It is merely internal procedure.

 

Where public funds are administered without evidential disclosure, harm is not hypothetical — it is measurable, personal, and ongoing.

 

 5. Required next steps
 

 

Accordingly, please now provide:

 

1. The statutory authority relied upon for each deduction or adjustment made.

2. The internal ledger entries evidencing those movements.

3. The calculation method applied.

4. The authorisation pathway by which those actions were approved.

5. Confirmation of whether Treasury funding or clawback mechanisms are engaged in relation to these actions.

 

If the Ministry is unable to produce these materials, that position should be stated expressly.

 

 6. Notice of escalation

 

In the absence of substantive disclosure, this matter will be escalated for independent funding and governance review, including to Treasury, on the basis that administrative actions causing demonstrable harm are being undertaken without lawful evidential foundation.

 

This correspondence is issued to clarify the record and preserve rights.

 

Shirley Stott  

Authorised Correspondent