The New Zealand Defence Force has responded to a Court of Appeal ruling against the Chief of Defence Force last week by claiming that it has no Covid-19 vaccine mandates.
A judge on Friday found that the military’s requirement under a TDFO (Temporary Defence Force Order) that members of the NZDF be vaccinated against Covid was unlawful, and upheld an appeal by four servicemembers who were partially or not vaccinated.
The court found that the NZDF had failed to show that it was justified in imposing more serious penalties for refusing Covid-19 vaccinations than those for other illnesses, and urged the Chief of Defence to review the measures it prescribes under the TDFO.
The NZDF did not respond for three days, but on Tuesday released a statement criticising the limited reporting of the case outcome for calling its Covid vaccine requirements a “mandate”, even though its rules fit the dictionary definition of mandate: “An official order or commission to do something”.
“It’s important to clarify what this ruling means, and more importantly what the ruling doesn’t mean in the context of NZDF Covid-19 vaccination requirements,” the NZDF said.
“In some reporting this has been confused with Covid-19 vaccine mandates, which is incorrect. There are currently no Covid-19 vaccine mandates in the NZDF.
The statement went on to admit that “being fully vaccinated is a condition of service”, but then argued that because NZDF requirements cover all vaccinations, including those for Covid, their rules are “not equivalent to a government mandate”.
Also on Tuesday New Zealand Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters was critical of the country’s major news outlets for failing to mention a ruling “which clearly identifies that people’s rights and freedoms were significantly eroded by an unlawful direction from the previous government”.
“It is unbelievable that nothing was mentioned on the television main news channels, radio, or other online platforms,” Mr Peters wrote on X.
“It is deeply concerning that New Zealand’s mainstream media has neglected to inform New Zealanders of this important and significant finding that directly affects New Zealanders’ rights and freedoms in our democracy.”
