Judicial Review for the NZ Pfizer Contract Heads to Wellington High Court

From our friends at Reunite New Zealand

WELLINGTON—The push for transparency surrounding New Zealand’s Pfizer contract has reached a critical juncture, now advancing to the Wellington High Court for judicial review. Advocates argue that disclosure is paramount for public trust and accountability, asserting that the contract must be examined as part of the Royal Commission’s COVID-19 lessons learned inquiry.

A Journey for Transparency

Since early 2024, citizens and advocates have repeatedly sought access to the Pfizer contract through Official Information Act (OIA) requests—all of which were denied. Even the Ombudsman, overwhelmed by complaints, publicly discouraged further requests. This persistent secrecy surrounding the contract has intensified concerns over government accountability and public interest protections.

Legal efforts to obtain the contract began on April 4, 2024, with three plaintiffs—Erika Whittome, John Armstrong, and Chris McCashin—filing an application at the Auckland High Court. However, initial judicial responses dismissed the case, stating it did not meet the threshold of genuine public interest.

After subsequent filings in May and September 2024, Justice Jagose ruled on December 4, 2024, that the case should be transferred to Wellington High Court due to the involvement of government entities. With tentative hearing dates set for June 2025, Crown Law is representing the respondents, including the Minister of Health, Minister of Finance, the Ombudsman, Minister for COVID-19 Response, and Pharmac.

Why the Pfizer Contract Matters

Advocates argue that public access to the contract is essential for a range of reasons, including:

1. Taxpayer Accountability: Transparency is critical for understanding how public funds were spent and ensuring informed public participation in the Royal Commission’s inquiry.

2. Corporate Responsibility: As a profit-driven entity, Pfizer is subject to consumer protection laws. If misrepresentations occurred, the government may have grounds for legal action.

3. Historical Precedent: Pfizer has faced significant criminal fines for safety-related violations, reinforcing concerns about the integrity of undisclosed agreements.

4. Mandates and Public Rights: The government imposed mandates under emergency executive powers, allegedly based on claims that Pfizer’s vaccine stopped transmission.

5. Indemnities and Liability: Global examples suggest Pfizer contracts included indemnification clauses acknowledging unknown long-term safety and efficacy data.

6. Informed Consent: If the contract contains clauses affecting individual rights to informed consent, this raises ethical and legal concerns.

The case draws parallels to Kelsey v Minister of Trade (2015), where the courts ruled that international confidentiality agreements cannot override New Zealand’s transparency laws.

A Call for Public Support

Advocates urge citizens to engage with the Royal Commission to demand access to the contract, reinforcing the need for full disclosure and accountability. As judicial proceedings continue, public participation remains a crucial force in ensuring government transparency and protecting New Zealand’s democratic principles.