| |
|
Empowering Men:
|
A Ministry for Men (slightly edited
and eighteen times updated)
Peter Zohrab 2019-2020 |
|
|
(This page originated as an Official Information
Act request to the Minister of Justice, who passed on part of it to
the Minister of State Services.)
|
| |
state
|
Since his letter suggested that I might like to discuss this response
with him, I phoned his office, requested a meeting
with him to discuss the evidence to support the establishment of a Ministry
for Men and also asked him where he had looked to find "evidence
of existing or imminent issues or needs which require dedicated resources
to address them" with respect to men (although I probably used
different words). |
This is the email which I received from his office in reply on 30th
October 2018: |
Dear Mr Zohrab,
Many thanks for your phone call requesting a meeting with Hon Chris
Hipkins to discuss evidence to support the establishment of a Ministry
for Men.
Unfortunately due to diary pressures we are unable to meet your request
at this time. However, we will be in touch should this change.
Thank you for your understanding.
Regards
Megan Bray
Acting Private Secretary
*Megan Bray | Acting Private Secretary *
Office of Hon Chris Hipkins |**Minister of State Services
Mobile 021 872 329
|
Here is the reply which I emailed to his office
(I have deleted some personal information which I included at the end
of my email): |
Subject: Re: Request for meeting with Minister Hipkins
From: Peter Zohrab <peter.zohrab@xtra.co.nz>
Date: 2/11/2018 3:09 a.m.
To: Megan Bray <Megan.Bray@parliament.govt.nz>, Christina.Connolly@parliament.govt.nz
Dear Megan Bray or Christina Connolly,
Thank you for your reply as to that question.
However, there were two questions which I put to you in my telephone
call. The other one referred to Mr. Hipkins' statement in his
undated letter to me:
"I have seen no such evidence for the establishment of a Ministry
for Men."
I asked, and I repeat the question under the Official Information
Act:
Where did he look to find "evidence of existing or imminent issues
or needs which require dedicated resources to address them" with
respect to men (although I probably used different words)?
I ask that question because it seems to me that Mr. Hipkins is a sincere
person, but it also seems obvious that he has
devoted no effort whatsoever to actually looking for such evidence.
Moreover, if he has relied on the State Services Commission to provide
such evidence, I can confidently advise him that the Commission is ideologically
opposed to, and incapable of producing such evidence.
Such evidence is readily available, however. If Mr Hipkins is
unable to meet with me, could I please email him a selection of such
evidence and ask him to comment on it, with repect to the need to set
up a Ministry of Men's Affairs?
Mr. Hipkins' list of reasons for the existence of the Ministry of
Women's Affairs itself is so one-sided and factually incorrect as to
constitute "evidence of existing or imminent issues or needs which
require dedicated resources to address" the rights of men.
He and the State Services Commission are subjected to one-sided advice
from the Ministry of Women's Affairs.
I will close by saying that I have quite a lot in common with Mr.
Hipkins, in that ... <SNIP>.
Regards,
Peter Zohrab
|
I mentioned above that I thought
that Mr. Hipkins was a sincere person, but that
is always a risky thing to assume with politicians! The sequence of
emails below casts doubt on the integrity of Mr. Hipkins' office, if
not on that of Mr. Hipkins himself. I had not received a reply from
him within the period of time stipulated in the Official Information
Act, so I contacted his office to say that I had not received it. The
following email from his office, dated 29 October 2018, had his
letter attached to it: |
Dear Mr Zohrab,
Please find attached the letter of response to your question to the
Minister of State Services about measures in place to create a Ministry
for Men. I acknowledge and apologise that there has been a delay between
the Minister signing this letter and it coming to you.
I am currently acting as the Minister’s Private Secretary for
State Services and I haven’t been able to confirm whether the
letter was emailed to you, or to explain why you haven’t received
it. I do note there were two email addresses on your letter and I have
sent this to both, just in case that was the problem.
My apologies again for this late response.
Kind regards,
Megan
*Megan Bray | Acting Private Secretary *
Office of Hon Chris Hipkins |**Minister of State Services
Mobile 021 872 329
|
I then emailed her as follows: |
From: Peter Zohrab [mailto:peter.zohrab@xtra.co.nz]
Sent: Monday, 29 October 2018 3:21 PM
To: Megan Bray <Megan.Bray@parliament.govt.nz>
Subject: Re: FW: Letter to Mr Zohrab
Dear Megan Bray,
Thank you for your two emails, both of which I have received.
I am a bit surprised that the letter has no date on it. Do you have
any comment on that, please?
Regards,
Peter Zohrab
|
I received the following reply on 1st November 2018: |
Hello Mr Zohrab,
Letters are date stamped in the office once signed and ready to send.
That suggests to me that the letter was signed and filed, without being
stamped and forwarded to you. I apologise again for this oversight.
Regards,
Megan Bray
|
That may have been an oversight.
However, someone in that office may have decided that they would avoid
sending the letter to me, in the hope that I would forget to chase it
up! Which of those two possibilities is more likely to be the truth
of the matter will -- I think -- be indicated by Mr. Hipkins' response
to my suggestion that I email him a selection of evidence on the need
for a Ministry for Men and ask him to comment on it. |
This is the response which I received: |
|
Some time later (on 4th January 2019), I responded
as follows: |
The Need for a Ministry for Men
(Open Letter to the Minister of State Services)
Dear Mr. Hipkins,
I am writing to reply to your letter dated 22 November 2018.
With respect, it has been hard for me to decide how to respond to
it, because it appears, at the very least, to contain many wrong-headed
unspoken assumptions which are hard to guess at.
You made the following point in the above letter:
That I had engaged regularly with a number of government agencies
“on this matter” and that you had received no advice from
any of those agencies “that there are issues for men that would
be better addressed by a dedicated Ministry for Men.”
You had previously made the following point in your undated letter:
“The Ministry for Women exists because there are still inequalities
for women in many areas, which, as a nation, we need to address.”
You then went on to mention the four issues of the so-called “gender
pay gap”, the number of women in leadership positions, family
violence and sexual violence.
“This Matter”
The first problem I have is with your phrase “this matter”.
The matter which I wrote to you about was the need for a Ministry for
Men, but I have seldom engaged with the Government about the need for
a Ministry for Men – and certainly not “regularly with a
number of government agencies”. Therefore, you must be using the
phrase “this matter” to mean something like “aspects
of men’s enslavement by the New Zealand Matriarchy”, which
is certainly something that I have engaged regularly with a number of
government agencies about.
Therefore, if you have received no advice from any of those agencies
that there are issues for men that would be better addressed by a dedicated
Ministry for Men, that could be partly because I have seldom raised
this matter with them. When engaging with these government agencies
about aspects of men’s enslavement by the New Zealand Matriarchy,
I have been engaging with the very people who enslave men and love doing
it – therefore it is hopelessly unrealistic for you write as if
there is any expectation that they will ever recommend to you the formation
of a Ministry for Men, which might make their job of enslaving men a
bit more difficult!
Therefore, I urge you actively to seek out information on Men’s
Issues which might collectively persuade you of the need for a Ministry
for Men. There is a huge amount of information available on that topic,
including my book, Sex, Lies & Feminism (free at http://blackribboncampaign.altervista.org/contents.html
and in hard copy in a few New Zealand libraries) and the Men’s
Rights Manifesto at http://blackribboncampaign.altervista.org/manifest.html
.
“Because,” “Still” and “Need”
Your statement that “The Ministry for Women exists because there
are still inequalities for women in many areas, which, as a nation,
we need to address” contains the problematic words “because,”
“still” and “need.”
1. Because. The Ministry for Women exists because of a political decision
by a government to create it and the lack of any decision by a subsequent
government to abolish it. You have stated (above) your reason for not
abolishing it. Logically, you would be bound to create a Ministry for
Men if you felt that there are (still) inequalities for men in many
areas, which, as a nation, we need to address. That is why you need
actively to seek out information on Men’s Issues
2. Still. This word implies that you are a believer in the Feminist
religion, according to which men have ruled over women and discriminated
against them. Read my book! I also point out that Feminism is not part
of the New Zealand Constitution, which outlaws discrimination based
on sex – including Feminist sexism.
3. Need. This word implies that there might exist inequalities which
we do not need to address. It is certainly obvious that our Feminazi
rulers are totally unimpressed by evidence of inequalities for men and
are not in the slightest interested in addressing them.
Falsehoods
Your statement alleging inequalities for women as regards the so-called
“gender pay gap”, the number of women in leadership positions,
family violence and sexual violence are false and prove that a Ministry
for Men is needed to provide people like you with facts, in order to
counteract women’s lies. There is plenty of information on these
issues on my website: http://blackribboncampaign.altervista.org/index.html
and I do not propose to turn this letter into a book in order to refute
your false statements.
Official Information Request
Under the Official Information Act, could you please tell me what
evidence you have that the issues (even if they were true) of alleged
inequalities for women as regards the so-called “gender pay gap”,
the number of women in leadership positions, family violence and sexual
violence are “better addressed by a dedicated Ministry”
(to use your words)? Then we will know that you have objective criteria
for your anti-male behaviour and are not just motivated by misandry
(hatred of men).
Thank you in advance,
Yours sincerely,
Peter Zohrab
|
I eventually received the following reply:
|
 |
 |
I then (on 24th February 2019) wrote to the Ombudsmen
as follows (slightly edited):
|
Dear sir/Madam,
Could you please investigate and review this reply from the Minister
of State Services, because it does not answer my question.
The correspondence which I have been having with the Minister (see
min4men.html) has centred on the issue of
whether there is a need for a Ministry for Men. He has said that no
official has advised him of any such need and he has also said that
some specific issues constituted a need for a Ministry for Women.
So I asked him the following question:
"Under the Official Information Act, could you please tell me
what evidence you have that the issues (even if they were true) of alleged
inequalities for women as regards the so-called “gender pay gap”,
the number of women in leadership positions, family violence and sexual
violence are “better addressed by a dedicated Ministry”
(to use your words)?"
The point is to discover whether he has a real set of criteria for
deciding whether a Ministry for Women or a Ministry for Men is needed
and what that set of criteria is.
His answer contained a lot of irrelevant material and even the Ministry
for Women's history page, which appears to be the most relevant, does
not answer my question to the Minister as to why those specific issues
require a dedicated Ministry, rather than being addressed by some other
mechanisms.
If he has a real set of criteria, then I can submit to him a list
of Men's Issues for him to apply those criteria to.
However, if he has no specific set of criteria for deciding whether
a Ministry for Women or a Ministry for Men is needed, he should admit
that fact.
Yours sincerely,
Peter Zohrab |
I later received the following reply by email from the Ombudsman's
office on 26 March 2019: |
Dear Mr Zohrab
I am writing concerning your complaint about the Minister of State
Services decision on your request for:
“…could you please tell me what evidence you have that
the issues (even if they were true) of alleged inequalities for women
as regards the so-called ‘gender pay gap’, the number
of women in leadership positions, family violence and sexual violence
are ‘better addressed by a dedicated Ministry’…”
The Minister’s response directed you to a number of sources
to find information around this issue, including details about the history
of the Ministry for Women and the Ministry’s Statement of Intent.
You have complained about this decision as you consider that the response
does not answer your question as to why a Ministry is required.
At this stage I was hoping to clarify what your concerns are about
the Minister’s response. As you may know, the OIA enables people
to make requests for information which is held by those subject to the
Act. The OIA is not, however, a mechanism to require agencies to enter
into debates about the justification for decisions. You have asked the
Minister for ‘evidence’ about whether these issues are better
addressed by a dedicated Ministry. The Minister appears to have directed
you to information which he holds that he considers is evidence of the
need for a dedicated Ministry. While you may disagree that this is evidence,
this does not necessarily mean that the Minister has not responded to
your request in terms of the OIA.
Are your concerns that the Minister’s response is incomplete,
in that other information is held by but was not considered for the
request?
I understand that you may be looking for ‘criteria’ for
why a Ministry is required to address these issues. If this is what
you are seeking, then you may want to specifically ask for that from
the Minister. The Minister is only required to provide information he
holds, and he has directed to what you consider is information held
within the scope of your request. Generally you can assume that if information
is not provided in response to a request, then that information is not
held (unless a response is incomplete, as mentioned above). If you are
seeking confirmation that such a set of criteria is not held, you are
able to ask for this.
I would be grateful for your comments on the above. I would appreciate
these by 2 April.
Kind regards
Nick Kennedy
Senior Investigator
Office of the Ombudsman | Tari o te Kaitiaki Mana Tangata
Phone 04 462 7858; 04 473 9533 | Fax 04 471 2254
Email Nick.Kennedy@ombudsman.parliament.nz | www.ombudsman.parliament.nz
PO Box 10152, Level 7, SolNet House, 70 The Terrace, Wellington
|
I then replied by email on the 28th of March 2019 as
follows:
|
Dear Mr.Kennedy,
Thank you for your email.
My question to the Minister contained the key phrase (which he had
used in a letter to me): "better addressed by a dedicated Ministry".
None of the documents he referred me to contained this vital phrase.
I did not ask him to refer me to a compendium of complaints and concerns
about so-called "Women's Issues".
The alleged issues might be dealt with separately in separate, relevant
ministries. Having one dedicated Ministry might be regarded as a bit
of flag-waving, indicating to women that they indeed deserved to have
their cherished "oppressed" self-image and that the Government
was doing something about their "oppression".
Indeed, the most relevant of the documents that the Minister refers
me to (https://women.govt.nz/about/new-zealand-women/history/ministry)
starts off by saying, "The decision to set up a Ministry of Women’s
Affairs (now called Ministry for Women) arose from developments in the
women’s liberation movement in New Zealand and the related increasing
political power of women." This indicates that women became powerful
and demanded a Ministry and therefore the Government gave them one.
That is incompatible with what the Minister had previously told me.
He had told me that his criterion for deciding to establish a Ministry
for Men would be "evidence of existing or imminent issues or needs
which require dedicated resources to address them" (undated letter).
He is the one who first used the word "evidence", so I used
it in my question to him. I could have used the word "information"
instead of the word "evidence" but the meaning of my question
would have been unchanged.
My question asks why an apparently haphazardly collected group of
Women's Issues require a dedicated Ministry to deal with them, so that
I can then apply the same standard, or criterion (to use your term)
to Men's Issues which I could later enumerate and describe to him.
If the truth is that the Minister has information that the power of
women is much greater than the power of men and if he has information
that that is the reason why there is a Ministry for Women but no Ministry
for Men, then he should have said so.
If women are much more powerful than men, then it is arguably men
who need a dedicated Ministry, rather than women.
I am not debating anything with the Minister, although I might do
so at some point in the future. I am merely asking him what the information
is which he uses for his decisions. The information which he has provided
has not answered my question and actually contradicts what he had told
me earlier.
If necessary, I am prepared to ask the Minister further questions
along the lines which you have indicated, but I do not think that that
ought to be necessary. I have shown how he has not answered my question,
which was quite specific, and I have shown that the information which
he has supplied contradicts what he had said earlier. In my view, the
Minister should admit that he has no relevant information with which
to answer my question, if that is the truth of the matter.
Regards,
Peter Zohrab |
I received the following reply from the Ombudsmen's Office.
|
 |
 |
I later replied by email on the 9th of April 2019 as follows:
|
Dear Mr. Kennedy,
Thank you for your letter.
I have complied with your suggestion and asked the Minister more specifically
about the particular points at issue. Nevertheless I would like to take
you up on some points which you make in your Analysis.
Please note that what I am doing here is debating with you. However,
if you look up the word "debate" in the dictionary, you will
see that I was not debating with the Minister. I have been accused before
occasionally by your office of "debating" with Ministers,
when I was doing nothing of the sort and I regard the accusation of
"debating" to be an indication of bias by the relevant members
of your Office. I have done some actual debating in the past, and I
am quite clear that asking genuine questions which require genuine answers
is not a form of debating.
At least, in a previous letter, you were kind enough to specify the
evidence which you felt indicated that I was "debating", which
consisted of my use of the word "evidence". I was therefore
able to show that it was the Minister who first used the word "evidence"
and that I could have used the word "information" instead
of "evidence", without changing the meaning of what I was
saying. It has been very frustrating, in the past, when the occasional
member of your Office has accused me of "debating", without
stating what their evidence was that I was debating.
Are you stating that the Office of the Ombudsmen has no jurisdiction
or interest in the matter of whether the information which a Minister
provides relates to the request that was made?
What is the relevant section of the Official Information Act, please?
Could I ask for information about pigfood and be given information about
horse-tails and you would consider that that was an appropriate response
by the relevant Minister?
In the present case, none of the information supplied by the Minister
contained the phrase "better addressed by a dedicated ministry"
and the Minister is perfectly intelligent enough to understand that
any answer by him would have to contain that phrase in order to be relevant
to my request.
I have had plenty of OIA requests if the past where the Minister has
replied that no relevant information was held. It is quite clear to
me that you can see that it would be embarassing to the Minister to
admit that he had no relevant information in this case and so you accused
me of "debating" with the Minister in order to protect him
from embarassment.
I hereby accuse you of bias. This has nothing to do with my views
on the relative disadvantages of men and women. This has to do with
your letting the Minister off the hook.
Yours sincerely,
Peter Zohrab |
I then received the following reply from the Ombudsmen's Office:
|
 |
 |
I had meanwhile written again to the Minister of State Services
on the 8th of April 2019as follows: |
Dear Mr. Hipkins,
In a letter dated 4 January 2019, I made the following Official Information
Request:
"Under the Official Information Act, could you please tell
me what evidence you have that the issues (even if they were true)
of alleged inequalities for women as regards the so-called “gender
pay gap”, the number of women in leadership positions, family
violence and sexual violence are “better addressed by a dedicated
Ministry” (to use your words)? Then we will know that you have
objective criteria for your anti-male behavior and are not just motivated
by misandry (hatred of men)."
In your reply, dated 21 Feb 2019, you made no reference to the crucial
phrase in my question, which was “better addressed by a dedicated
Ministry”. Instead, you referred me to some vaguely relevant "information
publicly available."
First, therefore, under the Official Information Act, could you please
clearly state whether you do or do not have information which specifically
deals with the issue of whether (to use your words) the so-called “gender
pay gap”, the number of women in leadership positions, family
violence and sexual violence are better addressed by a dedicated Ministry
(for women)?
You stated in your letter dated 21 Feb 2019 that:
"the Ministry for Women's history page (https://women.govt.nz/about/new-zealand-women/history/ministry)
outlines the reasons for their (sic) being a dedicated Ministry for
Women (previously the Ministry for Women's Affairs)."
However, what that page gives as the main reason for there being such
a Ministry is:
"developments in the women’s liberation movement in New
Zealand and the related increasing political power of women."
Secondly, therefore, under the Official Information Act, could you
please state what information you have that a Ministry for Men would
only be established if there were significant developments in the men’s
and fathers' movement in New Zealand and a related increasing political
power of men (e.g. in the media and education system)?
Thank you in advance.
Yours sincerely,
Peter Zohrab
|
I then received the following reply from Mr. Hipkins'
office on 8th April 2019:
|
Dear Mr Zohrab,
Thank you for your Official Information Act request to Hon Chris Hipkins,
Minister of State Services, requesting 'the evidence you have that the
issues (even if they were true) of alleged inequalities for women as
regards the so-called “gender pay gap”, the number of women
in leadership positions, family violence and sexual violence are “better
addressed by a dedicated Ministry” (to use your words)? Then we
will know that you have objective criteria for your anti-male behavior
and are not just motivated by misandry (hatred of men).'
The Minister is considering your request and you can expect a response
by Thursday 9 May 2019.
Kind regards,
Christina
Christina Connolly | Private Secretary| Office of the Minister of
State Services, Hon Chris Hipkins
6.3 Executive Wing, Parliament Buildings, Wellington
|
Mr. Hipkins' office seems determined
to prove to me that Mr. Hipkins is maximally hypocritical. She quoted
back to me a question which the Minister had already replied to -- presumably
so that the Minister could reply that he had already replied to it,
instead of replying to the questions which I had actually asked him.
I replied as follows on 9th April 2019:
|
Dear Christina Connolly,
I am afraid you have misstated the nature of my Official Information
request.
It had two parts and read as follows:
"First, therefore, under the Official Information Act, could
you please clearly state whether you do or do not have information which
specifically deals with the issue of whether (to use your words) the
so-called “gender pay gap”, the number of women in leadership
positions, family violence and sexual violence are better addressed
by a dedicated Ministry (for women)?"
and
"Secondly, therefore, under the Official Information Act, could
you please state what information you have that a Ministry for Men would
only be established if there were significant developments in the men’s
and fathers' movement in New Zealand and a related increasing political
power of men (e.g. in the media and education system)?"
Could you please make sure that the Minister is considering those
two issues and not anything else?
Thank you in advance.
Regards,
Peter Zohrab |
I received the following reply: |
From: Christina Connolly
Sent: Tuesday, 9 April 2019 7:38 AM
To: peter@zohrab.name
Subject: RE: OIA request re ministries for women and men
Dear Mr Zohrab,
My apologies - the response will include both parts of your OIA request,
as outlined in your email below.
Best Wishes,
Christina
|
In due course, I received the following reply:
|
 |
My first recourse was to the Ombudsman's office, but I later wrote
to the Minister as follows:
|
17 August 2019
Hon. Chris Hipkins
Minister of State Services
Parliament House
Wellington
Dear Mr. Hipkins,
I refer to your letter dated 7 May 2019, which failed to answer the
first of my two requests for Official Information. The paragraph of
your letter which purports to answer that question, but in fact does
not, states as follows:
In my response to you dated 21 February 2019 I provided you
with the links to the website that contains information, that I am
aware of, that specifically deals with the issue of whether the so-called
“gender pay gap”, the number of women in leadership positions,
family violence and sexual violence. The information captured in these
links are (sic) about the subject topics, and do not outline the machinery
of government requirements for these matters to be addressed.
Under the Official Information Act, therefore, could you please:-
-
complete the first sentence so that the conjunction “whether”
is actually followed by a verb at/near the end of the sentence,
so as to make that sentence meaningful. As it stands, it is incoherent
and conveys no information;
-
state whether the words in your first sentence “information,
that I am aware of” is intended to mean “all the information
that I am aware of”;
-
state whether the second sentence implies that you have no information
about the machinery of government requirements for these matters
to be addressed.
Yours sincerely,
Peter Zohrab |
Meanwhile, I had emailed the Ombudsmen on 12 May 2019 as follows: |
Dear sir/Madam,
Could you please investigate and review the failure of the Minister
of State Services to reply to one of my two questions in a coherent
manner? Given the manner in which he and his office have previously
carried out the correspondence between us, I am not convinced that this
failure is necessarily accidental.
My question was:
"First, therefore, under the Official Information Act, could
you please clearly state whether you do or do not have information which
specifically deals with the issue of whether (to use your words) the
so-called “gender pay gap”, the number of women in leadership
positions, family violence and sexual violence are better addressed
by a dedicated Ministry (for women)?"
His response does not address the question at all. Moreover, it contains
an incomplete/incoherent sentence, which contains the words "specifically
deals with the issue of whether", but does not contain any verb
which could complete the clause starting with "whether". If
he was intending to address my question, I would have expected the missing
part of the sentence to consist of the words, "are better addressed
by a dedicated Ministry (for women)". However, it is not for me
to put words in his mouth.
I attach my letter of 8 April 2019 and his reply of 7 May 2019.
Yours sincerely,
Peter Zohrab |
In due course, I received the following reply from the Ombudsmen:
|
 |
|
And eventually I received the following letter from
the Ombudsman:
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
On 14 December 2019, I replied as follows:
|
Dear Mr. O'Neill,
Thank you for getting the Minister of State Services to agree to reissue
his letter of 7 May 2019 to me with all sentences in it complete. However,
I have not yet received it. When will I receive it, please?
In your letter of 9 December 209, you quoted me as having said:
His answer contained a lot of irrelevant material and even the
Ministry for Women’s history page, which appears to be the most
relevant, does not answer my question to the Minister as to why those
specific issues require a dedicated Ministry, rather than being addressed
by some other mechanisms.
You then stated that "it appeared that in terms of the OIA
the Minister had in fact answered your question as you had framed it".
-
Could you please cite the sections of the OIA which you were referring
to by using the phrase in terms of the OIA?
-
Do you agree that even the Ministry for Women’s history
page, which appears to be the most relevant, does not answer my
question to the Minister as to why those specific issues require
a dedicated Ministry, rather than being addressed by some other
mechanisms?
-
Could you please tell me which paragraph of which page in which
of the documents which the Minister referred me to outlines any
arguments for having a dedicated ministry for women?
-
Are you claiming that the Minister is entitled to provide me with
random information, instead of information which answers the specific
question which I had asked?
Until you answer those questions, I will consider that your Office
has been deliberately obfuscating this matter for political reasons.
I reject the thrust of your letter, pending the receipt of answers
to the above questions.
Yours sincerely,
Peter Zohrab |
In due course, I received the following reply
from the Chief Ombudsman: |
|
|
See also:
|
| |
Webmaster |
|
Latest Update |
4 March 2024 |
|
|
|
