Dear Ministry of Health,

Former Finance Minister Grant Robertson signed waivers of liability to Pfizer and BioNTech and specific associated persons in relation to the COVID-19 'vaccine', properly described as a 'synthetic gene, lipid nanoparticle injectable product' as follows:

"On 5 October 2020, I, Grant Robertson, Minister of Finance, on behalf of the Crown, gave an indemnity to Pfizer Inc and BioNTech and specific associated persons in relation to the supply of a COVID-19 vaccine. Dated at Thorndon this 22 day of November 2020.
AND
"On 22 December 2020 , I Grant Robertson, Minister of Finance, on behalf of the Crown, gave an indemnity to Pfizer New Zealand Limited, Pfizer Inc and BioNTech and specific associated persons in relation to the supply of a COVID-19 vaccine. Dated at Wellington this 11th day of February 2021. Hon Grant Robertson Minister of Finance"

You will be familiar with the explicit acknowledgement by Pfizer in their 'BNT162b2 5.3.6 Cumulative Analysis of Post-authorization Adverse Event Reports', 28 Feb 2021 released 30 Apr 2021, where you may have noted that the "vaccine" is referred to specifically as an "investigational" product, as written, "...investigational COVID-19 Vaccine (BNT162b2)" in the 'Pfizer/BioNTech’s proposal for the clinical and post-authorization safety data package for the Biologics License Application (BLA)'.

This above observation is extraordinary and appears of both public and legal concern as two separate liability waivers were extended to two separate commercial entities and their associated persons for an 'investigational' injectable product about which claims of 'safe and effective' could not be legitimately or scientifically asserted, let alone be allowed to extend to a notion of 'fully informed consent.

Furthermore, the 'investigational' product was to be used contrary to the Medicine Act of the day, which prohibited the use of an experimental measure as a wide scale public health intervention. Thus the Ministerial provision of liability waivers could be argued as an 'ultra vires' act by The Minister, further demonstrated by the ad hoc amendment later implemented of the Medicine Act in March 2021, by then Minister of Health, Trevor Little.

Please provide the un-redacted copies of the Pfizer and BioNTech Contracts for COVID-19 'vaccines' to which the liability waivers of October 2020 and December 2020 applied that were signed by Minister Grant Robertson. For the above stated reasons there is very significant public concern and concomitant legal interest.

Yours faithfully,

Dr Maurice McGrath PhD, MSc, DO(BCOM, Lon)

Dear OIA Requests,

Re: The information you have requested is withheld in full under the following
sections of the Act:

o Section 9(2)(b)(ii), where its release would likely unreasonably
prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied the
information;
o Section 9(2)(ba)(ii), to protect information that is subject to an
obligation of confidence and making it available would likely damage
the public interest; and
o Section 9(2)(c), to avoid prejudice to measures to protect the health
or safety of the public.

The above response appears an attempt at deflecting the reasonable discovery of information vital to public interest. An important need arises here for bureaucratic and governmental transparency.

The reasons laid out in the OIA were clear and reside firmly in the domain of public interest, health, well being and the maintenance of public confidence. On the other hand the response that alleges to 'prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied the information', to 'protect information that is subject to an obligation of confidence', and to 'avoid prejudice to measures to protect the health or safety of the public', collectively appear as obfuscatory and inconsistent with transparency.

In personally signing waivers of liability to Pfizer and BioNTech and their associates in October and December 2020, Minister Robertson assumed personal liability for his actions. Given the then allegedly unknown but now numerous and well established deleterious consequences (adverse events of special interest AESIs) causally associated with the use of the 'investigational' product, the a priori personal signature of Minister Roberston requires public scrutiny with regard to its foundational basis. Either he knew the consequential AESIs and accepted known predetermined outcomes, or he did not. Which is it to be? Either way, there appears a sound case here of public interest and the maintenance of public confidence.

Furthermore, the signing of waivers of liability in October and December 2020 appeared ultra vires. Minister Little overturned the established law of the Medicines Act (1981) in March 2021, AFTER Minister Robertson applied his personal signature to the waivers of liability. His personal signature on the waivers had the direct effect of instigated the implementation of an experimental public health measure not permitted by the former version of the Medicines Act 1981, which was post hoc amended in March 2021 to legalise the Governmental use of an 'investigational' product as a public health policy of mass measure.

Both Ministers' Robertson and Little would have known that fully informed consent by recipients of an investigational series of injections was as self-evidently impossible as was the uniformed participation by any recipient in an unconsented 'investigational' product used as a mass injection intervention in public health. Minister Little's support of this legislative action potentially considered ultra vires appears of considerable public interest regarding its legislative, scientific and medical basis.

The health and safety of the public appear to have been potentially undermined by Ministerial and public health actions predicated upon a series of Ministerial liability waivers and the ultra vires action of a pre-approved public health measure (de novo Pfizer/BioNTech injections) that neither appear to stand a post hoc scrutiny by science, logic, and legality, nor that of established ethics.

It thus becomes very difficult to understand how the public health intervention of 2021 could have been construed as a sound platform upon which a government narrative of 'safe and effective' was constructed and why since, the amendment of the Medicines Act 1981 has not been reversed? The public interest and confidence would be well served by the release of the information requested.

Yours faithfully

Maurice McGrath