Attn Accident Compensation Corporation,

Following an Official Information Act Request to The Ministry of Health, their reference H2021111261, details of liability waivers have been released. This Official Information Act Request mostly involves the "Request that the Minister of Finance give an indemnity in favour of Pfizer and BioNTech under section 65ZD of the Public Finance Act 1989" - https://fyi.org.nz/request/16547/respons...

Similar liability waivers for other developers, manufacturers and/or suppliers can be found here - https://fyi.org.nz/request/16547-has-the...

The following questions apply to those liability waivers, and any other liability waivers which ACC may be aware of, which are relevant to these types of COVID-19 treatments (aka "vaccines").

Some of the following questions may be interpreted as requests for opinions or attempts to engage in debate. Respectfully, they are neither requests for opinions nor attempts to engage in debate, but rather they presume that such matters have been considered, and that relevant information exists on that basis. In the event that such matters have not been considered, please explain why they have not been considered.

According to that agreement:

• "ACC will cover most of the Crown’s liability for adverse effects associated with use of the vaccine".

• "ACC can cover personal injuries arising from the administration of a vaccine by a registered medical professional. Costs to ACC related to use of the vaccine in New Zealand will arise regardless of the provision of contractual indemnity."

Was ACC involved in negotiations for these, or similar, liability waivers? If so, what position did ACC take, and how was that position advocated?

If ACC was not involved in these negotiations, is it legal and ethical for ACC to be named as a liable party to this agreement? If this issue has not been considered by ACC, then why has it not been considered by ACC?

Do these agreements prevent or impede ACC from recovering costs, eg via subrogation or similar processes, from treatment developers, manufacturers, suppliers and/or other parties? Might these agreements shift liability under subrogation to The Ministry of Health, and/or other parties to these agreements? How has ACC considered managing these issues?

It seems that these liability waivers obligated The Ministry of Health to conduct a cost/benefit analysis relating to the use of these treatments, but recent OIA Requests reveal that this has not been done. How has ACC considered this to be a breach and/or act of negligence which may cause ACC to suffer material losses? If this has not been considered, then why has this not been considered?

It seems that these liability waivers obligated The Ministry of Health to establish active safety monitoring beyond what has been typical for medical treatments. There is no evidence that such active safety monitoring has been implemented. How has ACC considered this to be a breach and/or act of negligence which may cause ACC to suffer material losses? If this has not been considered, then why has this not been considered?

These liability waivers show that The Ministry of Health recognised the possibility of unknown risks, and noted, "Due to the relative newness of this platform, and truncated clinical trials (which means a reduced ability to identify rare or long-term side effects), we are unlikely to want to immunise the entire population using solely this vaccine candidate". As of this writing, The Ministry of Health is boasting 92% of eligible people are "fully vaccinated" and 95% of eligible people are "partially vaccinated", while very actively "encouraging" (ie coercing) all eligible people to be subject to this same experimental treatment. The "eligible population" will again be expanded on 17 Jan 2022; "Medsafe has granted provisional approval for the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine for children aged 5 to 11 years old". How has ACC considered this to be a breach and/or act of negligence which may cause ACC to suffer material losses? If this has not been considered, then why has this not been considered?

COVID-19 vaccines
https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/dise...

Paediatric COVID-19 vaccine receives provisional approval
https://www.health.govt.nz/news-media/me...

These liability waivers show that The Ministry of Health provided a waiver for a two dose treatment; "The vaccine consists of two doses". As of this writing, The Ministry of Health is very actively "encouraging" (ie coercing) all eligible people to be subject to "booster shots". How has ACC considered this to be a breach and/or act of negligence which may cause ACC to suffer material losses? If this has not been considered, then why has this not been considered?

COVID-19: Vaccine boosters
https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/dise...

To date (as near as practicable to the release of this requested information), what have been the costs that ACC has paid out in claims resulting from injuries related to these COVID-19 treatments? What projections has ACC made, relating to future costs resulting from injuries related to these COVID-19 treatments (including any best-case/worse-case scenarios)? If ACC has not made cost projections relating these COVID-19 treatments, then why has ACC not done so? How are these projections accounting for types of injuries, and ages of those injured?

To date (as near as practicable to the release of this requested information), how many claims have been submitted to ACC related to these COVID-19 treatments? How many of those claims have been approved? How many of those claims have been rejected? How many of those claims are pending? So far as it is practicable, I would appreciate this information be sorted by month, type of injury, and age-range.

What guidelines has ACC (and any 3rd party contractors) developed and/or implemented, formally and informally, regarding assessment of claims relating to these COVID-19 treatments? If ACC (and any 3rd party contractors) have not developed and/or implemented assessment guidelines relating to these COVID-19 treatments, then why has that not been done?

If a person suffers an unusual and/or severe reaction to these COVID-19 treatments, or if they have reason to believe that they will likely suffer an unusual and/or severe reaction to these treatments, will injuries from such treatments or subsequent treatments be covered by ACC? What legislation and policies guide these decisions? How is this affected when a person is coerced or otherwise pressured into having these COVID-19 treatments (eg, their income or access to other resources is dependent on being "fully vaccinated")?

Regarding these types of claims, has ACC received any influence, pressure, or unsolicited advice from any government or international organisation regarding the assessment, handling, or other management of claims relating to these COVID-19 treatments? If so, what has been the nature of that advice? How has such advice been considered and/or actioned?

Thank you
ASE