Home > Issues > Gender Equity for Men > Ministry of Social Development's Report on WINZ Murderer

The Black Ribbon Campaign

Empowering Men:

fighting feminist lies

The Ministry of Social Development's Report on the WINZ Murderer (slightly edited and seven times updated)

Peter Zohrab 2016

Home Page Articles about Issues 1000 links
alt.mens-rights FAQ Sex, Lies & Feminism Quotations
Male-Friendly Lawyers, Psychologists & Paralegals Email us ! Site-map

Letter to Minister

Reply from Ministry

Email to Ombudsman

Letter from Ombudsman

Substantive Reply from Ministry

Censored Report

Second Email to Ombudsman

Second Letter from Ombudsman

Third email to Ombudsman

Third Letter from Ombudsman

My letter to Mr. Tully

 

 

I have had enough dealings with the Ministry of Social Development to form the view that it is to a large extent a bunch of moronic, man-hating women. See, for example, Minister, Stop Assaulting Me! , Why I admire Winston Peters and Incompetence of the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development. On 29 May 2016, I sent the following email to the Minister of Social Development, because I was suspicious of the ability of that organisation to review its own treatment of a mere male:

 

Dear Anne Tolley,

 

Under the Official Information Act, could you please send me a copy of the Work and Income report on its dealings with Work and Income killer Russell John Tully?

Thank you in advance.

 

Yours sincerely,

Peter Zohrab

 

In due course, I received the following reply:

 

 

I received nothing further, so on 14th August 2016 I sent the following email to the Ombudsman:

 

Dear sir/Madam,

 

In May 2016 I requested from the Minister of Social Development a copy of her ministry's report on its dealings with Russell John Tully. I received the email below on 27 June 2016 from the Ministry, but nothing further.

Could you please investigate and review the Ministry's failure to be more speedy and cooperative?

Thank you in advance.

 

Yours sincerely,

Peter Zohrab

 

Although I did not receive the usual automatic email acknowledgement from the Ombudsman, I rang up and was told that this email had received a case number of 435732, and this was later confirmed by email, upon my request for written confirmation.

In due course, I received the following letter from the Ombudsman:

 

 

And I received the following letter from the Ministry of Social Development on the same day:

 

censoredreport

 

I responded by emailing the Ombudsman as follows:

 

Dear Mr. Donnelly,


Thank you for your letter of 8 September 2016.

I do have concerns about the substantive response by the Ministry of Social Development to my Official Information Act request. Since there is no Ministry of Men's Affairs and no other Government agency which even purports to look after men's interests, men's rights and a men's point of view, I am basically all that men have in New Zealand to keep the Government even slightly honest on relevant matters. The point of my Official Information Act request was to obtain information which would bear on whether the Ministry had been treating Mr. Tully fairly, but its response has omitted so much information that it is impossible to come to a conclusion on that point.

Please investigate and review the following matters:

1. The Ministry's withholding of the entire report dated 1 September 2014. The issue in question is the anti-male bias which I feel is widespread within the Ministry, and this would come out in the way that it described Mr. Tully in this report. Mr. Tully has been sentenced to a long gaol term, so he has little or nothing to lose by disclosure. His interest would have to be that full disclosure be made, so that his actions are judged by the court of public opinion in their full context. There is also a huge public interest in avoiding such events in future and in preventing men from being ill-treated by female-dominated bureaucracies. All that the Government seems to be interested in doing is in beefing up security at WINZ offices!

2. All the instances where information has been withheld in the report dated 2 September 2014 under section 9(2)(a) of the Act (privacy of natural persons). Again, the issue in question is the anti-male bias which I feel is widespread within the Ministry, and this would come out in the way that it described Mr. Tully. Bias is already evident in the way it describes Mr. Tully as having supposedly negative emotions or behaviour. For example, the report states in paragraph 5 that "Mr. Tully was aggressive and threatening to staff," without treating Mr. Tully as a human being who had concerns about particular issues or saying what those issues were or how staff had handled them. With all the deletions, it is impossible to say whether Mr. Tully was justified in being angry (which staff would have interpreted as "aggressive"). This is a situation of obvious power-imbalance, where women have all the power and (typically) psychologise any adverse reactions by men, instead of looking at the issues from their point of view. Similarly, there is an incident described as follows: "The case manager notes the interview did not go well and each time they spoke Mr. Tully would ask her to be quiet and let him speak. Mr. Tully chose to leave the interview." Reading between the lines, it is obvious that the case manager was constantly interrupting Mr. Tully and not letting him finish what he wanted to say. Whether the case manager's behaviour was appropriate is impossible to judge, given all the deletions.

3. The Ministry's withholding of information under section 9(2)(g)(i) (free and frank expression of opinions). Since Mr. Tully committed murder in retaliation for what he thought was unfair treatment by these people, it is absolutely crucial that any such expressions of opinion be made public, so that the public can judge whether they betray bias against Mr. Tully or even against men in general. The fact that the Ministry is withholding this information indicates that it may agree with the sentiments expressed and that there may be systemic bias of this sort.


Thank you in advance.


Yours sincerely,

Peter Zohrab

 

In due course, I received the following letter from the Ombudsman by email:

 

 

I replied as follows:

 

6 September 2017

Ombudsman
by email: info@ombudsman.parliament.nz

Your ref: 435732

 

Dear Mr. Donnelly,

 

My comments on your provisional opinion

  1. You correctly state, “As a first step, it is necessary to identify the privacy interest in the information at issue.” You then find two privacy interests to be involved: that of Mr. Tully and those of staff members from the Ashburton Service Centre.

  2. As far as Mr. Tully’s privacy is concerned, you state “I accept that disclosure of information about an individual’s financial position, medical history and/or benefit status to others would infringe their privacy unless that person consented to release.” In that context, could you please inform me how I could contact Mr. Tully to ask him for his consent, please?

  3. As far as the privacy interests of staff members from the Ashburton Service Centre are concerned, you state: “I also consider that public debate of the type you propose would be extremely distressing to those individuals and their families, to the extent that disclosure of the information would detrimentally impact on their privacy interests.”

    I have downloaded the PDF versions of the Official Information Act (1982), the Ombudsmen Act (1975) and the Privacy Act (1993). I have searched these three Acts for the word “distress” but have not been able to find it. No doubt the next Labour-led government will enact a Feelings of Women Act (2018), and you will be able to use it to oppress men to your heart’s content, but it does not appear to be on the statute books at present.

    Under section 25 of the Ombudsmen Act (1975), the Ombudsman’s decisions cannot be appealed or reviewed, except on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Otherwise, your provisional opinion (were it to become final) would be reviewable on the grounds of irrationality/unreasonableness and irrelevant considerations.

You may not be aware that men are humans and have rights and feelings, even though Feminists do their best to ignore those facts. Mr. Tully was clearly extremely distressed by his powerless situation at the hands of one or more female staff members from the Ashburton Service Centre – to the extent that he committed murder. What I am trying to do is find out the facts of the situation which he found himself in, but I find that you are treating me in the same sort of way that Mr. Tully felt that he was being treated.

Neither High Court Justice Whata nor Worksafe New Zealand can conceivably have examined the issues from a Men’s Rights perspective, since the notion of men having rights vis-à-vis women is totally foreign to the New Zealand (in-)justice system, the New Zeland media and the New Zealand education system. Therefore there is a strong public interest in someone with my qualifications, experience and ability examining the issues from a Men’s Rights perspective – unless you deny that there is such a thing as a Men’s Rights perspective.

If there is an Ombudsman who does realize that men are humans and have rights and feelings, could you please hand my file over to that person?

 

Yours sincerely,

Peter Zohrab

 

In due course, I received the following reply:

 

 

A couple of weeks later, I sent the following email to info@corrections.govt.nz .

 

Dear sir/Madam,

 

I have been informed by the Ombudsman that I can write to Work and Income killer, Mr. Russell John Tully, care of you at this email address.

I would like to request his permission for me to be provided with the personal information relating to him which is contained in the Work and Income report on its dealings with Russell John Tully. I have received a copy of the report from which the personal information relating to him has been deleted.

I am a Men's Rights Activist and I feel that I need to assess the report to see how the Ministry treated Mr. Tully and to determine to what extent -- if at all -- Mr. Tully was entitled to be disappointed in how Work and Income, being a female-dominated organisation, treated him, as a male.

 

Yours faithfully,

Peter Zohrab

 

The Corrections Department promptly replied that Mr. Tully had given them permission to give me his prison address, so I wrote to him as follows:

 

Dear Mr. Tully,

Thank you for providing your written consent for Corrections to advise me of your address.

I am writing to request your written permission for me to be provided with the personal information relating to you which is contained in the two Work and Income reports (a) on you and (b) on its interactions with you. I have received a copy of the latter report from which the personal information relating to you has been deleted, but I have been refused access to the former report altogether.

I am a Men's Rights Activist and I feel that I need to assess the reports to see how the Ministry treated you and to determine to what extent -- if at all – you were entitled to be disappointed in how Work and Income, being a female-dominated organisation, treated you, as a male.

The Ombudsman has upheld the right of Work and Income to suppress private information in those reports if it relates to individuals other than yourself, but he has said that I can write to you to request permission to see the private information that relates to you.

I enclose a copy of the letter which I received from the Ministry of Social Development and of the censored report that Work and Income did release to me.

I look forward to your response to my request. It is all very well punishing people who commit crimes, but state institutions need to make sure that they treat people fairly, as well.

 

As at 7th November 2017, I have received no reply.

 

See also:

FAQ

Webmaster

Peter Douglas Zohrab

Latest Update

7 November 2017

Top