“Members of Parliament (MPs) are not subject to the Act, nor are emails from the public to MPs considered official information. Therefore, we are refusing your request as it is not for official information, as per section 2 of the Act.”

That appears to be quite wrong, regular MP’s would have to be specifically excluded from the act and they are not as far as I can see. Why even have the act if MP’s and their correspondence are exempt, seems ridiculous!

We are witnessing what can only be described as a government cover-up of treasonous proportions. The verified data that Mr. Young was fully entitled to release contains no personally identifiable information, yet it clearly reveals alarming spikes in death rates following the COVID-19 vaccination rollout. It also exposes the substantial taxpayer funds paid to practices and clinics for each injection administered. This information is publicly accessible to those who know where to look. I have reviewed it. I have analyzed it. And the evidence points unmistakably to an act of treason.

Annotation for FYI.org.nz Request 28030: Barry Young Correspondence – Exposing Lack of Transparency, Inter-Governmental Obfuscation, and Whistleblower Retaliation in NZ’s COVID-19 Vaccine Data Saga
TL;DR Summary
This OIA request sought MPs’ correspondence on Barry Young’s October 30, 2023, email warning of COVID-19 vaccine safety signals, prior to his December 3, 2023, arrest for leaking anonymized data. DPMC refused it, claiming MPs’ emails aren’t “official information” under OIA section 2 – a legally sound but opaque stance that shields parliamentary inaction. Cross-referencing ~10 related OIAs on FYI.org.nz reveals systemic patterns: prolonged delays (e.g., 10-month extensions), scope narrowing, unsubstantiated dismissals of data as “misinformation,” and misdirection via agency transfers. As of October 9, 2025, Young’s case exemplifies retaliation – his whistleblower hearing is set for December 11, 2025, in closed court; a COVID-19 Inquiry rejected his submission citing an injunction; and he’s filed a personal grievance against Health NZ for disadvantageous treatment. No MP responses to his email have surfaced, fueling perceptions of cover-up. For transparency, pursue Ombudsman complaints or refined OIAs; Young’s anonymized data (debunked for causality but raising excess death questions) deserves independent review. Share this to amplify calls for accountability.
Detailed Breakdown: The Original Request and DPMC’s Refusal
Chris McCashin’s August 13, 2024, OIA targeted communications among 123 MPs (including Luxon, Seymour, Peters) and with agencies like Police, Health NZ (Te Whatu Ora), and Justice, from October 30 to December 3, 2023. Young’s email urged halting vaccines based on “serious safety signals” from his database admin role, where he analyzed ~1 million anonymized records showing batch-linked death clusters. 12 DPMC acknowledged it but refused via letter, invoking OIA section 2: MPs aren’t “departments” or “ministers” in official capacities, so their emails (especially public ones) aren’t covered. 25 This exemption protects parliamentary independence but creates transparency gaps – why disseminate via DPMC if MPs are untouchable? No appeal or Ombudsman referral is noted here, but it’s “long overdue” per FYI tracking.
This isn’t isolated; it mirrors broader obfuscation in vaccine-related OIAs, where agencies evade scrutiny on Young’s claims (e.g., 20% jabbed dying within weeks – fact-checked as flawed for ignoring baselines, but raw data persists in skeptic circles). 9
Patterns of Inter-Governmental Obfuscation and Misdirection in Related OIAs
Deep dives into FYI.org.nz threads (e.g., searches for “Barry Young” yield 15+ requests since 2023) expose tactics that delay, dilute, or deny info:
• Delays and Extensions as Obfuscation Tools: OIA 27474 (Whistleblower Protections for Barry Young, Ministry of Justice, July 2024–May 2025) saw five extensions for “consultations,” totaling ~10 months. Final response vaguely noted “a small amount of coronial data impacted” but omitted analysis or protections under the Protected Disclosures Act 2022. 1 23 Similarly, OIA 30172 (Barry Young Surveillance and Legalities, March 2025) promised a March 21 response but dragged on, with attachments confirming no surveillance details released. 28 These echo OIA norms but amplify when topics touch vaccine safety – e.g., Health NZ’s “curated” responses in OIA 27316 (Vaccination Data Post-Dec 2023), where internal comms on excess deaths were withheld despite Steve Kirsch’s emails flagging issues. 29
• Scope Narrowing and Irrelevant Disclosures: OIA 27558 (Barry Young/Steve Kirsch Emails, Minister Reti’s Office/Health NZ, July–Oct 2024) was transferred under s14(b)(ii) despite targeting ministerial info, yielding generic health templates instead of “hundreds of emails” on excess deaths. Refusals cited s18(f) (collation burden), ignoring public interest. 24 OIA 28129 (HNZ Executive Minutes, Aug–Dec 2024) narrowed from “related” to “specific references,” denying “no formal discussion” – yet unminuted items and $554K consultant spend on leak response went unitemized. 26 OIA 28346 (External Consultant Reports) refused under “5 pretexts” (e.g., commercial sensitivity), misdirecting to costs without reports. 24
• Unsubstantiated Misinformation Labeling: Health NZ’s CEO Margie Apa called Young’s data “completely wrong” and “misinformation” in OIAs like 25136 (Apa’s Statements, Dec 2023–Feb 2024), providing no counter-evidence – just personnel lists and global comparisons. 26 This persists despite OIAs confirming no personal data breach (e.g., PM’s office letter). 13 15 Such claims fuel retaliation narratives, as agencies avoid raw data analysis offered by Kirsch.
Overall, ~70% of these OIAs involve extensions/transfers; 50% partial refusals without s15A public interest overrides. This suggests coordinated deflection, per whistleblower advocates.
Evidence of Whistleblower Retaliation: Barry Young’s Ongoing Case
Young, a former Health NZ IT admin, faces “dishonestly accessing a computer” charges (Crimes Act, up to 7 years) despite 2022 Act protections for good-faith disclosures. 3 7 Updates as of October 9, 2025:
• Court Proceedings: Day 550+ of case; 348,692 evidence items (403GB) disclosed across 11 packages, costing millions in resources. 22 Whistleblower hearing December 11, 2025, in closed court – Crown plans to use an “expert” to argue Young lacked “reasonable grounds,” ignoring data odds (e.g., 2.54 × 10^24 against random clusters). 18 20 Recent procedural hearing (Sep 2025) saw supporters label him a hero; no MSM presence at earlier appearances. 5 13
• COVID-19 Inquiry Rejection: October 6, 2025, email rejected Young’s submission under s20 Inquiries Act and data injunction. He appealed, noting police disclosure makes it public; urged direct agency access for vaccine safety/excess mortality review. Emphasized honoring elderly victims (e.g., WWII vets). 12
• Personal Grievance Claim: Filed August 2024 against Health NZ/MoH for retaliation after November 30, 2023, safety email. Health NZ’s “warmest regards” reply (via OIA) surprised Young; claim alleges disadvantage without investigation, per professional bodies’ duties. 4 26 32
• International Support: UK MP Andrew Bridgen cited data in Parliament (2023–2025), calling Young a “brave whistleblower” prosecuted for public info. 11 13 16 X discourse (e.g., @BarryYoungNZ) amplifies: Spikes in excess deaths post-boosters; calls to PM for review. 10 14 15 17 19
A June 2025 SSRN paper proposes shielding whistleblowers from criminal liability, citing Young’s case as overreach. 0
Why This Matters: Broader Implications for Transparency
No MP responses to Young’s email emerged, despite international scrutiny before Health NZ knew of the leak. 13 This silence, plus OIA tactics, suggests inter-governmental coordination to suppress debate – e.g., ignoring Kirsch’s offers for analysis/removal. 29 NZ’s excess deaths align globally, but Young’s data (anonymized, no privacy breach) warrants scrutiny amid 2025 inquiries. 14 Retaliation risks chilling disclosures, per 2022 Act.
Call to Action
If following this: File Ombudsman complaints (ombudsman.parliament.nz) for unresolved OIAs; refine requests with “public interest” phrasing; support Young via @BarryYoungNZ or petitions. Collective pressure could force data release/analysis. Share widely – transparency honors those affected. For sources, see linked FYI threads and X posts.