Gordon Holmes v Police and Housing NZ Corporation:

Below are four published decisions of the Human Rights Review Tribunal regarding complaints from Gordon Holmes.  These decisions illustrate the futility of making complaints through a flawed system to a faulty and ineffective Tribunal which is a waste of taxpayers' money and a damning indictment on the colonial "justice system".

These decisions are relevant to the manner in which the Tribunal is dealing with Te Ringa Mangu (Dun) Mihaka, the complaints bear remarkable similarity - they refer to information sharing between Police and Housing NZ Corporation and unfair policies and practices, and both include the involvement of General Counsel Karaka Tuhakaraina and raise serious questions regarding the integrity and competence of Karaka Tuhakaraina and the Tribunal.

The decisions are a damning indictment on the imbalance and disconnection from reality infecting the echelons of colonial legislative and judicial power.  From the report of the Privacy Commissioner:

The decision below is interesting for several reasons, no the least is the fact that the Chairperson of the Tribunal recused himself in response to Mr Holmes expressing in "somewhat frank terms, dissatisfaction with the way in which he considers the previous Chairperson of the tribunal conducted the first proceedings held at Dunedin on 15 June 2009.":

Paragraph 39 is particularly poignant:

This matter started when Housing NZ Corporation implemented a policy of closing their offices and forcing clients to phone a call centre - assuming their homeless clients have phones.

About three months after implementing the decision the government made an abrupt about turn.

This "Mr Bean" type management resulted in Housing NZ Corporation losing Mr Holmes's letter, but General Counsel and the designated Privacy Officer for Housing New Zealand Corporation, Karaka Tuhakaraina, the only witness called by Housing New Zealand Corporation, 

 



Readers of the Privacy Commissioner's blog can view the official spin doctored success story - Mr Holmes was awarded the grand sum of $400 after his claim for $20,000 was refused.  Let's have some transparency into the remuneration paid to Mr Haines, Ms Gilchrist, Ms Scott, Ms Paterson, Mr Tuhakaraina and the staff of Housing New Zealand Corporation and an objective evaluation of the performance of the Human Rights Review Tribunal.



Here is the decision regarding the matter of the Department of Corrections and their medical treatment and record keeping, which is a damning indictment on the care of prisoners in this country, and the outrageous incompetence of prison staff regarding this man's medication and treatment and the standard of information recording, which was described by an expert witness as demonstrating "a level of incompetence to a standard that is professionally embarrassing", and not only did it fall below acceptable standards, but that "the nursing care in relation to safe medical administration was a severe departure from the expected standards."