new zealand defence force personnel filed a judicial review in the high court at wellington challenging a directive from the chief of defence force air marshal kevin short that servicemembers refusing vaccination would be discharged. their barrister christopher griggs claimed the directive was unlawful and breached the group's right to refuse medical treatment under the new zealand bill of rights act 1990. in mid october 2021, ten of the 63 registered midwives employed by the taranaki district health board indicated that they would quit their jobs rather than be vaccinated against covid-19. in response, covid-19 response minister hipkins defended the government's vaccine mandate, stating that "it's essential that people who work with children are vaccinated in order to keep them safe." on 8 november 2021, the new zealand doctors speaking out on science (nzdsos), new zealand teachers speaking out on science (nztsos) and a group of midwives represented by lawyer christopher griggs sought a judicial review of the government's covid-19 vaccine mandate for education and health professionals. the plaintiffs challenged the ruling that education and health workers refusing to get vaccinated could lose their vocations, claiming it was an abuse of civil liberties and state power. on 12 november, justice matthew palmer rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the government's vaccine mandate violated the right to refuse medical treatment and declined to stop the mandate being enforced pending a further court hearing by the plaintiffs on november 22. on 18 january 2022, a group of parents represented by a group called the "hood" challenged medsafe's decision to roll out the pfizer vaccine to children aged 5 to 11 years old. the plaintiffs' submission was heard by justice rachel ellis at the wellington high court. while ellis granted anonymity to the plaintiffs and their families, she declined their application for an immediate preliminary order to halt the rollout for children. at a subsequent high court hearing, justice ellis declined to make an interim order to halt the rollout of vaccines for children, pending a full judicial review hearing. on 25 february 2022, high court justice cooke ruled that the government's vaccine mandate for the police and defence force violated the right to refuse medical treatment under the new zealand bill of rights act 1990. he also criticised the vaccine mandate for not allowing other ways of keeping people safe such as remote work or regular covid-19 testing. on 6 january, three unvaccinated staff members had sought a judicial review of the vaccine mandate, which affected 164 police personnel and 115 defence force personnel. while ruling in favour of the plaintiffs, cooke also clarified that vaccination has helped to reduce the risk of serious illness or death from covid-19. on 8 april, high court justice cooke rejected a judicial review by the groups "new zealand doctors speaking out on science" and "new zealand teachers speaking out on science" claiming that the government's vaccine mandate for health and education workers breached the right to refuse medical treatment under the bill of rights act 1990. cooke ruled that the mandates were a "demonstrably justified limit" on the right to refuse medical treatment. on 28 june, the hood mounted a second effort to seek judicial review of the vaccine rollout for children aged between 5 and 11 years. justice rebecca ellis had earlier denied the group's bid for an immediate halt of the vaccine rollout for children in february 2022. in his legal arguments, the group's lawyer david jones qc had cited several anti-vaccination doctors including american doctor robert w. malone. on 19 september, a group of unvaccinated caregivers represented by lawyer matthew hague sought a judicial review of the government's vaccine mandate for health workers, claiming they had lost thousands of dollars in income. though the health ministry had initially exempted home caregives from the health workers' vaccine mandate, it subsequently extend the mandate to home caregivers. disability advocate jane carrigan argued that the inclusion of home-based care givers in the vaccine mandate for health workers was unjust since the health ministry had denied them the same rights as other health workers for years. on 10 march 2023, high court judge van bohemen ruled that the decision by the-then covid-19 response minister chris hipkins to extend the vaccine mandate to family carers was invalid. he also stated that the caregivers were entitled to compensation for lost income and urged prime minister hipkins to apologise to them. in late march 2023, former tertiary student tahi ricks sought nz$1 million in compensation from the polytechnic ara institute of canterbury. ara had required all students and staff to be fully vaccinated by 14 february 2022. unvaccinated people with the exception of individuals without ministry of health vaccine exemptions, were barred from entering ara's campuses from that date. ricks alleged that the vaccine mandate had disrupted his study plans and that ara had denied him distance learning options. ricks represented himself during the hearing at the christchurch high court. ara was represented by lawyer olly peers, who defended ara's vaccine requirement policy as part of the government's covid-19 protection framework. vaccination disputes on 16 july, judge penelope ginnen of the pukekohe family court ruled in favour of a five-year-old boy's mother who wanted her son to receive the pfizer vaccine. the child's father had opposed vaccination on the grounds that the risks outweighed the benefits of the vaccine. in justifying decision, judge ginnen said that she was satisfied the vaccine was safe, citing clinical trials which found that children receiving the pfizer vaccine had received only mild symptoms such as a sore arm, headache, and fatigue. "baby w" blood donations controversy in late november 2022, te whatu ora—health new zealand sought legal guardianship of a baby boy (dubbed "baby w") in need of heart surgery after the boy's parents refused to allow blood from covid-19 vaccinated people to be used in the operation. the court case was heard at the auckland high court on 30 november by justice layne harvey. per policy, the national blood bank new zealand blood service does not separate vaccinated and unvaccinated donated blood. health nz was represented by paul white while baby w's parents were represented by anti-vaccination activist and lawyer sue grey. in addition, the parents were supported by former tvnz broadcaster and anti-vaccination activist liz gunn. the initial hearing was picketed by 100 anti-vaccination protesters. harvey scheduled an urgent hearing for 6 december 2022. on 7 december, gault j of the auckland high court ruled on te whatu ora, health new zealand, te toka tumai v c and s. in his ruling, gault j ruled that baby w was to be under the guardianship of the court and two doctors would be appointed as agents of the court to provide consent for surgery, and thus the surgery would be held. on 8 december, grey and gunn initially confirmed that the parents would not be appealing the judge's decision to hand over guardianship of baby w to health new zealand, citing the urgent medical needs of the baby. later that night, police were dispatched to starship hospital to enforce the high court's ruling after the parents attempted to prevent medical personnel from preparing baby w for the heart surgery operation. gault also issued an emergency order allowing the police to use reasonable force to remove baby w from his parents' custody and prevent them from obstructing surgical proceedings. in response to the planned operation, anti-vaccination protesters gathered outside the auckland high court, starship hospital, and auckland city hospital on 9 december. on 9 december, grey confirmed that baby w had undergone a successful heart surgery operation and was recovering well. on 10 december, grey and the parents confirmed that they would continue challenging the court's decision through the legal system. 2021 māori vaccination access code controversy following the auckland august 2021 community outbreak, the māori social services volunteer agency whānau waipareira launched a programme to boost māori and pasifika covid-19 immunisation rates by giving them a priority access code at the trusts arena in west auckland. due to long-standing socio-economic disparities, māori have recorded lower covid-19 vaccination rates than other new zealand ethnic groups, even when accounting for the māori population being younger than the new zealand average. as of 3 september 2021, only 19.5% of māori aged 12 and over had been fully vaccinated, and 37.9% had received one dose. on 6 september 2021, act party leader david seymour drew media coverage when he released the māori vaccination access code to his followers on twitter. his actions were criticised for allegedly sabotaging a campaign to improve māori vaccination access and stirring racial tensions. his critics included national hauora coalition director dr rawiri jansen, whānau waipareira ceo john tamihere, māori party co-leader debbie ngarewa-packer, and green party co-leader marama davidson. in response to criticism, seymour refused to apologise and pushed back on the allegations, telling media that "the virus doesn't discriminate on race, so neither should the roll out." traffic light system several māori leaders and civil society organisations including māori party co-leaders ngarewa-packer and rawiri waititi, and the national iwi chairs forum have criticised the government's new "traffic light" system for lifting lockdown restrictions based on vaccination rates, claiming that it does not address the lower māori vaccination rates. māori vaccination information dispute on 26 october, the whānau ora commissioning agency (woca), which represents māori providers in the north island, challenged the ministry of health's refusal to hand over māori vaccination information at the high court in wellington. the health ministry has only agreed to release the data of individuals who have registered with a whānau ora provider and other information that is anonymised. the commission agency responded that this level of information made it difficult to reach hard to reach communities and also claimed that the ministry's refusal to share this information breached the treaty of waitangi. the government countered that releasing the information would be a breach of privacy that could derail the māori vaccination effort. by 31 october, 72% of māori had received one covid-19 vaccine dose while 53% had received both doses, compared with 88% and 75% respectively for the total eligible population. on 6 november 2021, the ministry of health declined to share māori vaccination data with the whanau ora commissioning agency. the agency had sought the contact details of all unvaccinated māori living in the north island so it could target areas with low vaccination rates. the agency's chief executive tamihere criticised the health ministry for obstructing its efforts to increase māori vaccination rates. in response, director-general of health bloomfield defended the ministry's decision, stating that they had proposed an alternate way of sharing the personal health information of individual māori with the commissioning agency. on 24 november, the health ministry agreed to release a portion of the data relating to māori. this included information that showed that over 52,000 māori living between auckland and waikato were unvaccinated. on 25 november, the commissioning agency filed a second challenge at court to obtain information of all eligible maori who had not yet been vaccinated. tamihere accused the health ministry of being unwilling to help māori communities. on 19 november 2021, several members of the new zealand māori council including archdeacon harvey ruru and tā edward durie filed an application for an urgent inquiry by the waitangi tribunal into government's response to the covid-19 pandemic in māori. the plaintiffs argued that the government's vaccination rollout policies and plans to ease lockdown restrictions made māori more at risk of contracting covid-19. on 21 december, the waitangi tribunal ruled that the government's vaccination rollout breached the treaty of waitangi's principles of active protection and equity. the tribunal criticised the government's decision to prioritise those aged over 65 years during the vaccine rollout, finding that it failed to account for the youthful nature of the māori population and its health vulnerabilities. the tribunal also ruled that the government's transition to the "traffic light system" failed to take into account the lower māori vaccination rate and health needs. the tribunal also found that government had not adequately consulted with māori health providers and leaders and determined that efforts to address māori needs such as the "māori communities covid-19 fund" were inadequate. the waitangi tribunal recommended that the government improve data collection, improve engagement with the māori community, and provided better