Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
Item 1
•
Suspension of the concession: This is a standard condition in all lease and
licence concessions that allows us to suspend the concession to manage
effects if required. Though rarely used, this is an important condition to
ensure we can adequately regulate the activity. We do not agree with WHL’s
position on this matter.
4. We also intend to discuss the condition Out of Scope
requiring the concessionaire to notify the Minister if there is a significant
financial change or risk. This condition sets out a process for the grantor and
concessionaire to discuss how this risk can be managed in respect of the Department’s
interests, and was included in lieu of a bond or parent company guarantee. We are not
Act
recommending a bond for WHL, in part due to Cabinet having agreed that WHL is not
responsible for the removal of existing infrastructure at the termination or expiry of its
concession. However, a condition Out of Scope
could help us to better manage financial risks to teh Department. We will
provide you with further advice, including whether we recommend a condition of this
nature is included in the concession, if granted, on this matter following this discussion.
5. We recommend you do not make your final decision until after we have met with WHL
and provided them with information about the changes that have been made to the draft
concessions since
Feedback from iwi and hapū
Information
6. We have continued to engage with iwi and hapū in the final stages of preparing this
advice. As part of this engagement, iwi and hapū have asked us to share the final advice
with them prior to you making your decision.
7. The Department’s position is we wil not share the final advice until after you have made
your decision. This removes the opportunity for iwi and hapū to provide further feedback
that could be incorporated into the documents, and protects your decision making role.
8. The exception to this position is we have agreed to share the parts of our advice that
Official
specifically discuss Te Kotahitanga o Ngāti Tūwharetoa’s (TKNT) position with TKNT
and the Office of Te Ariki on 15 April 2025, as they provided very specific feedback on 14
April 2025 to be included. We wil offer them the opportunity to provide any factual
corrections by end of day 17 April 2025, and advise you of any corrections that are
the
made.
9. We have offered to talk through your decision with iwi and hapū prior to this being
released more widely.
10. Ngāti Tūwharetoa has advised us they are writing to the Prime Minister about their
position about the Crown retreat from Tongariro Maunga. They are likely to discuss this
process in their letter. Ngāti Tūwharetoa have also requested information about this
under
process that we are providing urgently.
Additional matters to draw your attention to
Redundant infrastructure
11. Under the terms of its sale and purchase agreement, WHL is not taking over all ski
field infrastructure. The remaining infrastructure wil therefore become the
responsibility of the Department when RAL’s existing concession is surrendered if you
decide to grant a concession. The infrastructure this applies to, as listed in WHL’s
application, is:
Released
• Diesel tank (above ground),
• Schauss Haus Café,
• West Ridge Kiosk Café,
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
Item 1
22. If you wish to speak to any relevant parties on matters related to Whakapapa ski field
while making your decision, we wil provide advice on the most appropriate way to do
so.
23. We have agreed to share your decision with iwi and hapū before it is released more
widely, including offering to meet to discuss the decision.
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
Item 2
Concession application to operate
Whakapapa ski field
Date
23 April 2025
Security level
In confidence
To
Penny Nelson, Director-
General
docCM
DOC-
Act
Stacey Wrenn, Chief
From
Advisor, Regulatory
CC
Ruth Isaac, DDG Policy
Modernisation
and Regulatory Services
Addendum to Recommendation and Decision Report for Whakapapa
Subject
Holdings Limited’s concession application to operate Whakapapa ski
field
Attachment A: Letter from Te Kotahitanga o Ngāti Tūwharetoa – 16 April
2025
Information
Attachments
Attachment B: DOC response to Te Kotahitanga o Ngāti Tūwharetoa –
17 April 2025
Attachment C: Summary of discussion with Whakapapa Holdings Limited
– 22 April 2025
Purpose
Official
1.
This addendum provides you with additional advice to support your decision on
Whakapapa Holdings Limited’s (WHL) concession application to operate Whakapapa
ski field following our discussions with you, our meeting with WHL and ongoing
the
correspondence with Te Kotahitanga o Ngāti Tūwharetoa (Te Kotahitanga).
Background
2.
You received advice to support your decision making on WHL’s concession application
on 15 April 2025. We met with you on 17 April 2025 as you had questions and
requests for further information.
under
3.
Since providing you with the advice, we have:
• Had ongoing correspondence with Te Kotahitanga about their position on
WHL’s concession application and our process. We received a letter from Te
Kotahitanga on 16 April 2025, following our meeting on 14 April 2025, and
responded on 17 April 2025.
• Met with WHL on 22 April 2025 to discuss our position on its feedback on the
draft concession documents and the changes we have made as a result of its
feedback.
4.
We have also completed a final review of all draft concession documents. Minor
Released
changes have been made to ensure all documents are appropriately aligned. We wil
provide you with final versions of these documents once changes have been made
that reflect the discussions with WHL.
Item 2
Additional information requested
5.
You have asked for additional information about:
• The consultation undertaken through this process. This is being provided
separately directly by the DDG Treaty Relationships.
• An overview statement about the environmental effects of the proposed
activity, as compared to Ruapehu Alpine Lifts Limited’s (RAL) current
concession.
• An overview statement about the cultural effects of the proposed activity,
Act
including how this compares to RAL’s current concession.
• The potential costs of removing infrastructure from Whakapapa ski field that is
not included in WHL’s concession application and wil become the
responsibility of the Crown to remove.
• Whether walking tracks should be approved by DOC.
Environmental effects of the proposed activity
6.
WHL’s application is generally consistent with the activity authorised under RAL’s
current concession that has been in place since 2016. RAL has been operating at
Whakapapa ski field under approvals from the Crown since the 1950s.
7.
WHL has applied for a ten year concession term, with a review at five years. RAL’s
Information
current concession expires in 2051, with up to an additional five rights of extension of
five years each. The final concession expiry date available under RAL’s existing
concession is 2076.
8.
RAL’s current concession is broadly defined, with the activity permitted described as
alpine tourism and recreation activities. There are minimal special conditions in the
concession setting out how the activity can take place, and relies on RAL and DOC
working closely together over the term of the concession to ensure the activity is
Official
undertaken appropriately.
9.
The draft concessions you are considering have significantly more special conditions
that are designed to manage the effects of the activity in greater detail. These
the
conditions have been informed by our assessment of WHL’s application, feedback
from iwi and hapū, feedback from WHL, the Tongariro National Park Management
Plan, what we have learned from RAL’s current operations in recent years and what
we have learned from Pure Tūroa Limited’s concession that was approved in April
2024 (that includes similar special conditions to what is proposed in WHL’s draft
concessions).
10. A full analysis of the effects of the activity and how we are proposing to avoid, remedy
under
or mitigate these is included in the Recommendation and Decision Report (decision
report).
11. Overall, we consider that the special conditions proposed to manage the effects of the
activity wil result in the ski field activity continuing with similar or lesser/better
managed effects than what is currently authorised under RAL’s existing concession.
As the concession term is for ten years, there is a further opportunity to review the
impacts of the concession activity and how these are avoided, remedied or mitigated if
WHL applies for a new concession at this time.
Cultural effects of the proposed activity
Released
12. We have engaged with the following iwi and hapū to understand the cultural effects of
the proposed activity:
• Sec 9(2)(a)
Item 2
• Te Kotahitanga o Ngāti Tūwharetoa
• Ngāti Hikairo
• Ngā Tangata Tiaki
• Ngāti Hāua
• Ngāti Rangi
• Te Korowai o Wainuiārua
• Te Patutokotoko
Act
13. Outcomes of that engagement are described in the decision report.
14. RAL’s existing concession includes provision for a relationship agreement, Te Pae
Maunga, between the concessionaire and Ngāti Tūwharetoa. We understand from
WHL that it would like to develop a similar relationship agreement with Ngāti
Tūwharetoa and potential y other iwi. It is our view that relationship agreements with
iwi should be developed outside of the concession rather than defined within the
concession itself. RAL’s current concession includes that RAL’s compliance with Te
Pae Maunga wil be a principal factor in our decisions about whether to grant each five
year extension provided for in the concession. Some iwi and hapū are unhappy that
this isn’t incorporated into the proposed concession. However, this isn’t necessary as
there aren’t any rights of extension provided for in the proposed concession. RAL’s
current concession also only afforded this role to Ngāti Tūwharetoa through Te Pae
Information
Maunga, no other iwi.
15. Overall, we consider that the special conditions that have been proposed address the
cultural impacts of the activity as we have described in the decision report. The ten
year concession term also provides an opportunity for cultural effects to be reassessed
if WHL applies for a new concession, whereas RAL’s existing concession is currently
authorised until 2051.
Official
Costs of removing additional redundant infrastructure
16. We are commissioning an estimate for the removal of this infrastructure in the coming
weeks, prior to the end of the financial year. This estimate wil be undertaken
alongside work on the existing Ruapehu Redundant Infrastructure programme.
the
17. Both café buildings contain critical electrical equipment related to our volcanic alarm
network that wil require relocation. This wil be factored into the estimate for removal.
18. The Redundant Infrastructure programme currently has approximately Sec 9(2)(j)
of
funding to remove the redundant infrastructure identified in 2023, an additional chairlift
and diesel pipeline at Tūroa ski field, and two surrendered ski lodges.
under
19. While there wil be an iwi and public expectation that redundant infrastructure is
removed, we have discretion about when and how we undertake this work.
20. Operations is working with Finance on the financial treatment for this work.
Walking tracks
21. You asked how we treated walking tracks in Pure Tūroa Limited’s (PTL) concession.
There are no conditions in PTL’s concession related to walking tracks, but we advised
the decision maker that DOC does not encourage the development of new walking
tracks. This is consistent with the approach described in the WHL decision report,
Released
which is to consider approval for any walking tracks separately to your decision on the
concession application.
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
Item 2A
b. Secondly, while we appreciate your Department’s wil ingness to meet with us at short notice, we do
not consider a request for an 11th hour meeting reflects what is required of DOC as Treaty partner to Act
Ngāti Tūwharetoa. We do not expect our hui yesterday to make good what our 31 March letter to you
described as a lack of genuine engagement, nor should it be referred to as such in DOC’s final advice
to the decision-maker (which we request a copy of when you notify us of any further decisions on the
WHL application);
c. Thirdly, our legal representatives have requested the information you did not provide with your 8 April
letter or at our 14 April hui. Te Kotahitanga has had to dedicate significant resources to attempting to
fil the gaps left by this incomplete provision of information, which we understand is readily available
and not sensitive; and
d. Fourthly, as recorded at our 14 April hui, you are now aware that the engagement between WHL and
Information
Ngāti Hikairo was largely directly between WHL and three Ngāti Hikairo individuals rather than at the
DOC level. While this is largely a matter for Ngāti Hikairo, we understand the position expressed by
those individuals on behalf of Ngāti Hikairo was determined by a belief that DOC wil inevitably grant
the concession and that they were therefore under some duress to try to protect the position of the
hapū and Ngāti Tūwharetoa. More importantly, Ngāti Hikairo support the aspirations of Ngāti
Tūwharetoa in respect of Tongariro Maunga.
Official
e. Fifthly, we observe that engaging in this way on this kaupapa is not consistent with the mandate Te
Kotahitanga holds on behalf of al Ngāti Tūwharetoa hapū with interests in Tongariro Maunga to
engage with the Crown on significant kaupapa. The significant reliance on this engagement evident
the
in the Draft Report is no substitute for engagement with Ngāti Tūwharetoa and all of those with
interests in Tongariro Maunga. We note you are stil refusing to provide us with copies of the
engagement information or advice DOC is relying upon.
5. These procedural issues are symptomatic of our wider concerns that DOC’s engagement and decision-making
in relation to the WHL concession application does not give effect to the Treaty of Waitangi. Furthermore,
under
giving effect to the Treaty involves more than process: granting the concession would be contrary to the known
and acknowledged interests of Ngāti Tūwharetoa in Tongariro Maunga and therefore contrary to the Crown’s
Treaty obligations.
Substantive concerns
6. While the Draft Decision Report refers to the 1887 Tuku made by Horonuku Te Heuheu (paragraph 40), it does
so in a dismissive way:
Released
a. At paragraph 43, when referring to recommendations made by the Waitangi Tribunal in its National
Park District Inquiry Report that the Crown ought to honour its obligations to restore the partnership
intended by the tuku, the Draft Report suggests those recommendations are "not binding on the
Item 2A
Crown but are influential and can assist the parties in their Treaty settlement negotiations” which are
at an “early stage” (referred to again at paragraph 96);
Act
b. Similarly at paragraph 44, when noting that relevant Treaty settlement legislation and Deeds of
Settlement are “additional to but can help” DOC assess its Treaty of Waitangi obligations, the Draft
Report observes that “concluded iwi Treaty settlements have deliberately excluded cultural redress
relating to the Park”; and
c. At paragraph 45, when referring to Treaty settlements of mana whenua with interests in Tongariro
Maunga, the Draft Report specifies that while Ngāti Tūwharetoa and others have settled aspects of
their historical grievances with the Crown the legislation has no “specific provisions relevant to this
application”.
Information
7. Taken together, we regrettably infer that DOC’s approach to what it is required to consider when making
decisions on the WHL application is that any rights and interests in Tongariro Maunga held by Ngāti Tūwharetoa
(and others) wil be conferred only by a future Treaty settlement addressing the Maunga. That is of course
incorrect, and inconsistent with the Crown’s own acknowledgements in the Ngāti Tūwharetoa Deed of
Settlement as to the profound significance to Ngāti Tūwharetoa of Tongariro Maunga and the 1887 tuku. These
acknowledgments include:
Official
a. That “through his tuku in 1887, Horonuku Te Heuheu Tukino IV sought to create a shared responsibility
with the Crown to protect and preserve the mountains for Ngāti Tūwharetoa, for other iwi, and for al
New Zealanders” (cl 3.17);
the
b. That “Horonuku intended to retain the mana of Ngāti Tūwharetoa in relation to the maunga by
entering into a partnership with the Queen, and not to make an unconditional gift; however, legal
ownership of the mountains was vested solely in the Crown and it has not always honoured its
reciprocal obligations” (cl 3.17.1);
under
c. That “changes to the natural environment through commercial development and the introduction of
exotic species have caused great distress to Ngāti Tūwharetoa because they are unable to exercise
their kaitiakitanga to safeguard the tapu of the taonga within the Tongariro National Park from
physical and cultural degradation” (cl 3.18); and
d. That the Crown has not met its obligations to Ngāti Tūwharetoa and Tongariro Maunga, and
accordingly breached Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its principles (cl 3.17.2, 3.17.3, 3.19).
8. We consider that by acting in the way that it is currently acting the Crown is perpetuating the Treaty breach it
Released
acknowledges in those clauses.
Item 2A
9. For the avoidance of doubt, the 1887 Tuku made by Horonuku Te Heuheu was an invitation the Crown which
confirmed but did not sever any pre-existing rights held by Ngāti Tūwharetoa since the time of Ngātoroirangi. Act
That tikanga included tuku which was not an English-style gift, but an invitation to the Queen to share the
responsibility of protecting Ngā Pae Maunga Tapu, including Tongariro Maunga. In the words of Horonuku
recorded in 1887 when describing the tuku: “mō te Rāhui whenua ka whakatapua nei mō te Iwi ki Tongariro".
10. The source of the rights Ngāti Tūwharetoa holds is accordingly Ngāti Tūwharetoa tikanga, including the tikanga
of tuku. To date DOC has seriously misunderstood those rights, which would inevitably be impacted by any
final decision on the concession application. While we do not and cannot speak for other iwi, given the
centrality of Tongariro Maunga to al mana whenua in and around Tongariro, we do not understand how the
Draft Decision Report can apparently reflect “engaging properly with iwi/hapū”, “undertaking Treaty due
diligence” to “properly understand the nature of the rights and interests” and “making an informed decision”.
Information
11. It should now be abundantly clear that all of the representative iwi referred to in the Draft Report do not
support the granting of the concession application. In these circumstances, we encourage you to consider the
application in this light and respectfully suggest that much of the analysis in the Draft Report can no longer be
relied on due to the true nature of the interactions between WHL and Ngāti Hikairo. For example, the table
“Ngāti Hikairo expectations for Whakapapa Ski field concession” beginning on page 44 of the Draft Report can
no longer bear on the consideration of the application, nor can the Cultural Impact Assessment (which is
incorrectly attributed to Ngāti Tūwharetoa
and Ngāti Hikairo) referred to at paragraph 76 and forming part of
Official
the WHL application.
12. Once you have reviewed this letter and considered the kōrero at the 14 April hui, we accordingly encourage
the
you to provide us with a summary of what you intend to include in the final advice to the decision-making
which in your view “best reflects” the position of Ngāti Tūwharetoa.
13. Noting as you do that timeframes appear compressed, we request your response to this letter by
midday on
Thursday 17 April 2025. We reserve our rights in all other respects at this time.
under
Noho ora mai
Sec 9(2)(a)
Sec 9(2)(a)
Released
Copy to: Ruth Isaac, Deputy Director-General, Policy and Regulatory Services
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
Item 2B
To ensure we are engaging with Ngāti Tūwharetoa appropriately, I think it would be
helpful to have a further discussion about how the Department should engage with
Ngāti Tūwharetoa going forwards on regulatory matters. This wil ensure we are all
clear about the appropriate channels of communication.
I have responded to your legal representatives explaining that we are not able to
provide the information you have requested at this time, as this forms part of the final
Act
advice we have provided to the Director-General. I have noted your request to be
provided with the final decision report when we communicate the decision to you. We
wil provide this document to you at that time, subject to redactions as appropriate (for
example, commercially sensitive information).
In paragraph 7, you have noted that you infer the Department’s approach to decision
making on WHL’s application is that any rights and interests in Tongariro Maunga held
by Ngāti Tūwharetoa wil only be conferred by a future Treaty settlement. This is not the
Department’s position. Ngāti Tūwharetoa clearly have rights and interests in their
tupuna maunga, as do other iwi and hapū. Iwi rights and interests in the Tongariro
Information
National Park are not dependent upon the settlement of the National Park Treaty of
Waitangi claims. The Department recognises that these negotiations are outstanding
and wil likely create a new framework for the management of the National Park.
Final y, you note that it was unfortunate you were not informed the Minister had
delegated the decision making to the Director-General directly and proactively. I
advised you of this decision in my letter of 8 April 2025, after the Department was
Official
informed of the Minister’s delegation on 3 April 2025. Please let me know if you would
prefer we communicate this type of information differently in the future.
the
Thank you again for setting out your position clearly. We wil focus on ensuring our
advice appropriately reflects this position so this can be considered by the Director-
General.
Nāku noa, nā
under
Ruth Isaac Deputy Director-General
Policy and Regulatory Services
Released
Item 2C
Condition
Discussion
Outcome / Action
Concession fee review
WHL’s lawyers had
3 year fee reviews included in
questioned need for fee
concession
review
DOC explained this is a
statutory requirement
Act
Value of fee
DOC has proposed updated
Agree
[ Schedule 2 clause 6.1 (e);
wording in draft documents
clause 6.2 (b) (iv) ]
sent
Umpire re fee disputes
DOC has proposed new
Agree
[ Schedule 2 clause 6.2 (b)
wording noting the umpire is
(ii ) ]
to be a registered valuer
Cost recovery
DOC has proposed new
Agree
[ Schedule 2 clause 6.2 (c) ]
wording in draft documents
Information
sent
Assignment provisions
Discussed assignment
Sec 9(2)(g)(i)
[ Schedule 2 clause 8 ]
requirements and deed of
novation process under
current legislation
Sec 9(2)(g)(i)
Official
DOC confirming whether this
will be via a condition in the
the
concession (preferred) or a
separate acknowledgement
letter
Apart from this (potential)
condition, no change to
existing wording of
under
assignment provisions
Note WHL is reserving its
position here until reviewing
these clauses further
Sub-licencee provisions
Concession al ows for sub-
No change to conditions
licence agreements, with
approval from DOC; WHL to
provide sufficient time for
assessment from DOC
Released
Feedback about DOC
ensuring adequate induction
for sub-licencees
Item 2C
Suspension of concession
This is a standard condition
No change to conditions
[ Schedule 2 clause 18.2 ]
that ensures DOC can meet
its responsibilities as a land
manager and regulator
First point of call will always
be discussion between both
parties; this is a backstop
Act
and is not used often
DOC is obliged to act
reasonably
Termination clauses
DOC has proposed updated
Agree
[ clause 19 (c) and (e) ]
wording in the draft
No further change to
documents sent:
conditions
-
Reasonable
timeframe required
-
Added ‘… a
permanent and
Information
serious risk to public
safety …’
Concessionaire identification Discussion about whether
DOC to confirm position
cards required
this is necessary
Damage to Grantor’s
WHL questioned how this is
DOC to confirm position; if
structures
justifiable
recommending keeping this
Official
[ Schedule 2, Clause 16 ]
Noted this is a standard
clause, to provide more
condition
detailed rationale
the
Service levels
WHL asked to remove ‘during DOC to confirm
[ Schedule 3, clause 3 ]
the winter season’ and dates
– ie the condition would
apply all year round
Snow making
WHL asked:
DOC to confirm on both
under
[ Schedule 2, clause 56 ]
1. To extend start date
points
to 1 April for Happy
Val ey and Rock
Garden / lower
mountain
2. To remove
‘immediately’ from
56(b)(iv)
Events
Discussed developing a pre-
DOC to update conditions to
Released
[ Schedule 3, clauses 70-72 ] emptive events plan for
be clear about use of music
required approvals
DOC to confirm about small,
‘Music must be not be
low impact outdoor events
audible outside of buildings’
Item 2C
– agree for some events, but
and update wording if
for snow-related events this
required
may not be appropriate, eg a
DJ on the deck while people
are ski ng
Are small, low impact
outside events permitted
under current conditions? Eg
Act
star gazing for Matariki
Staff houses
1. Sec 9(2)(j), Sec 9(2)(b)(ii)
1. DOC to send
1. Concession fee
proposed fees for al
2. Replacement
houses to WHL
insurance
2. Draft concessions
3. Summer use as
updated to remove
backpackers
replacement
insurance
requirement
3. Backpacking use not
Information
included; WHL to
apply for a variation
2. DOC has proposed
in future if this is
replacement
sought
insurance is not
required, provided
concession fee is
Official
charged
3. Backpacking use not
clearly applied for or
the publicly notified
Concession fees
Sec 9(2)(j), Sec 9(2)(b)(ii)
Sec 9(2)(j), Sec 9(2)(b)
(ii)
under
Processing fee
Sec 9(2)(j), Sec 9(2)(b)(ii)
DOC to confirm
Released
Safety plan
Audit needs to be during
Agree position (four months)
winter months
WHL to confirm when its
board has ratified safety plan
Item 2C
Current proposal is that the
audit should take place
within four months
Note WHL can operate under
RAL’s audited safety plan
until 30 September
WHL is ratifying updated
Act
safety plan with its board
Information
Official
the
under
Released
Item 3
From:
Stacey Wrenn
To:
Penny Nelson
Cc:
Reid Walters; Ruth Isaac
Subject:
RE: Further advice about WHL
Date:
Wednesday, 23 April 2025 4:41:00 pm
Attachments:
2025-03-31 TKNT Letter to Tame Malcolm DOC.pdf
Tongariro Maunga - Letter to Te Kotahitanga - DDG PARS - April 2025 - DOC-10230900.pdf
118471-SKI - Meeting notes - Te Kotahitanga and Sec 9(2)(a)
- 14 April 2025 - DOC-10266338.docx
2025.04.14 Ltr to DOC.pdf
Whakapapa Holdings Limited concession application .msg
image001.png
DDG correspondence - letter to Tomkins Wake - TKNT - 16 April 2025 - DOC-10248156.pdf
Act
2025-04-16 TKNT Letter to DOC re WHL.pdf
DDG correspondence - Letter to TKNT - 17 April 2025 - DOC-10249473.pdf
Re Proposed Concession Whakapapa Ski Field .msg
25-B-0166 - Email - Advice about correspondence from Sec 9(2)(a)
- DOC-10248953.docx
Hi Penny,
I’ve attached the letters from Te Kotahitanga o Ngāti Tūwharetoa as discussed. As you’ll see, they
originally told us their position on engagement with Ngāti Hikairo on 31 March. We attempted to
set up a meeting with them following that letter that was cancelled; Ruth then responded to the
letter and asked to meet, which we did on 14 April.
Information
In terms of the information requested, we advised Te Kotahitanga on 14 April that we wouldn’t be
sharing the updated draft advice to you with them until after the decision is made – this is
consistent with our position on sharing the final advice with other iwi and hapū. We did share the
extract from the report with the updated information they provided.
Letters attached (hopefully in the order below!):Official
31 March 2025 – TKNT to DOC
8 April 2025 – Response from Ruth to 31 March letter
14 April 2024 – Meeting between Sec 9(2)(a)
Ruth and me – notes attached
the
14 April 2025 – Letter from TKNT’s lawyers requesting information from the final decision
report
15 April 2025 – Email from me with re-framing of Te Kotahitanga’s position in the advice
16 April 2025 – Ruth’s response to letter requesting information
16 April 2025 – Letter from Sec 9(2)(a) to Ruth (this was attached to the advice this
morning) under
17 April 2025 – Response from Ruth to 16 April letter (this was attached to the advice this
morning)
I have also attached:
The 2023 email confirming that we should engage directly with the Ngāti Hikairo delegates
Sec 9(2)(a)
about Whakapapa. We Sec 9(2)(g)(i)
had this message reinforced when Ngāti
Hikairo attended the meeting with the Minister on Whakapapa last year.
Released
Our advice to the Minister’s office about Sec 9(2)(a) letter to the Prime Minister. We were
asked for a one pager with background information to inform DPMC, who would be
considering the approach to take in response to the letter.
I’ll come back to you once I’ve spoken to Damian about the houses and the walking tracks.
Item 3
Cheers,
Stacey
From: Stacey Wrenn
Sent: Wednesday, 23 April 2025 12:01 pm
To: Penny Nelson <[email address]>
Act
Cc: Reid Walters <[email address]>; Ruth Isaac <[email address]>
Subject: Further advice about WHL
Hi Penny,
Attached is the further advice about WHL’s application, as well as three attachments –
Letter from Ngāti Tūwharetoa (TKNT)
Our response to TKNT
Summary of discussion with WHL and actions we are working through
Information
As Reid is away, I can bring printed copies up at about 1.
Cheers,
Stacey
Stacey Wrenn (she/her)
Chief Advisor, Regulatory Modernisation
Official
Whare Kaupapa Atawhai | Conservation House
Phone: Sec 9(2)(a)
www.doc.govt.nz
the
under
Released
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
6. Where the Draft Decision refers to and analyses engagement with iwi on WHL’s application, we note our
disappointment that Sec 9(2)(ba)(ii)
Act
Both
would be problematic. As you wil know, the Te Kotahitanga o Ngāti Tūwharetoa Deed of Settlement and
Trust Deed mandate Te Kotahitanga as the representative of Ngāti Tūwharetoa to express our mana and
rangatiratanga in dealing with the Crown. The Draft Decision at times appears to conflate Ngāti Tūwharetoa
and Ngāti Hikairo (for example at [76]), while also acknowledging Ngāti Hikairo claims were resolved in the
settlement for Te Kotahitanga o Ngāti Tūwharetoa (at [45]) and that Te Kotahitanga opposes further
development on the Maunga (at [84]). This clear inconsistency means it is difficult for Te Kotahitanga to
understand the observations the Draft Decision makes about the position of Ngāti Tūwharetoa, and how
that may factor in to the Minister’s final decision.
7. Sec 9(2)(ba)(ii)
Information
in the meantime request you provide us with the “full Treaty partner engagement summaries and
correspondence” noted at [75] of the Draft Decision, and in particular the 23 July 2024 document
“Whakapapa Ski field Concession expectations”.
8. We also note our broader concerns about DOC’s engagement on the WHL application given the positive and
Official
constructive relationship between WHL and Ngāti Haua, Ngāti Rangi and others described in the WHL
application. The Draft Decision refers to opposition by Ngāti Rangi and comments by Ngāti Haua that the
process has been rushed and inadequate. These changes in position appear to have occurred very recently.
the
The Draft Decision accordingly suggests that Ngāti Hikairo is the only Māori group who supports the WHL
application.
9. In this regard, we request an explanation as to how the above aspects of the engagement wil be taken into
account in the Minister’s decision-making on the concession application.
under
10. We request your response by
Friday 5 April 2025, together with the information specified at [7] above and
the notification requested at [3] above. We reserve our rights in al other respects at this time.
Noho ora mai
Sec 9(2)(a)
Sec 9(2)(a)
Released
Sec 9(2)(a)
Copy to: Hon Tama Potaka, Minister of Conservation; Lynette Trewavas, Senior Permissions Advisor
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
Item 3B
You have noted that you consider there is very little in the draft decision report
suggesting genuine engagement with Ngāti Tūwharetoa, and also that we have
Sec 9(2)(ba)(ii)
As you know, we have been working to a tight
timeframe for this concession application as directed by Cabinet. Within this timeframe,
DOC staff have shared information throughout the process with Te Kotahitanga and
attempted to engage directly on the application. While we are close to providing advice
to the decision maker, we would stil like to engage with Te Kotahitanga and ensure we
Act
better reflect your views in our advice.
The Director-General has asked me to meet with you this week, if you agree, to
discuss Te Kotahitanga’s position and ensure we are reflecting this position as best we
can in our advice. If we are not able to meet this week, DOC wil review where Te
Kotahitanga’s views have been reflected in the draft advice to ensure it best reflects the
position you have expressed in this letter. We wil also ensure the advice is clear that
the views expressed by Ngāti Hikairo are attributed specifically to Ngāti Hikairo and not
on behalf of Te Kotahitanga.
Information
I have asked that the Treaty Relationships Group work with you to provide the
information you have requested.
Please let me know if you would like to arrange a meeting this week.
Nāku noa, nā
Official
Ruth Isaac
the
Deputy Director-General, Policy and Regulatory Services
under
Released
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
Item 3D
Shortland & Fort Building
Level 17, 88 Shortland Street
DX EX 11148, Auckland
PO Box 258, Hamilton 3240
New Zealand
Ph: +64 9 558 0699
DDI: Sec 9(2)(a)
14 April 2025
Sec 9(2)(a)
BY EMAIL ONLY
Partner: Sec 9(2)(a)
File Ref: 394633
Department of Conservation | Te Papa Atawhai
Act
Conservation House
32 Manners St
WELLINGTON 6011
For:
Penny Nelson and Ruth Isaac
Email: [email address]
Whakapapa Holdings 2024 Ltd concession application
Information
1.
We act for Te Kotahitanga o Ngāti Tūwharetoa and have instructed Sec 9(2)(a)
and
Sec 9(2)(a)
as counsel (copied here). We refer to your 8 April 2025 letter addressed to Sec
9(2)
(a)
2.
We understand you have arranged to meet with Ngāti Tūwharetoa representatives today,
Monday 14 April.
Official
3.
In the meantime, by reference to the Recommendation and Decision Report (undated, but
provided in draft form to our client on 17 March 2025) we repeat our client’s requests made
in their 31 March 2025 letter to you:
the
(a)
the full Treaty partner engagement summaries and correspondence, referred to at
paragraph 75 of the Report;
(b)
the document entitled “Whakapapa Ski field Concession expectations” dated 23 July
2024, referred to at paragraph 79 of the Report.
under
4.
Please provide these documents to us without further delay, and by close of business on
Tuesday 15 April at the latest. That information is clearly readily available.
5.
Please also provide us with:
(a)
the Appendix entitled “Full Assessment of Effects” and “Proposed Schedule 3 Special
Conditions”, referred to in the list of “still to complete” appendices on pages 38 and
39 of the Report. If those Appendices are not yet complete, we request them in draft
and also by close of business on Tuesday 15 April;
(b)
a copy of the Minister’s delegation to the Director-General referred to in your 8 April
Released letter. We also request this by close of business on Tuesday 15 April.
394633
3443-0395-6025-V2
Auckl
A
and
a
Ha
H m
a i
m lton
Rotorua
orua
Ta
T urang
a
a
urang
tompkinswake.com
Item 3D
- 2 -
6.
Finally, we repeat our client’s request for assurances that DOC will give three working days’
notice in writing of the date of the Director-General’s final decision. If you are unable to give
those assurances, we request that you explain why not by close of business on Tuesday 15
April.
7.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Act
Ngā Mihi
TOMPKINS WAKE
Sec 9(2)(a)
Sec 9(2)(a)
Partner
Copy for your information:
Information
Sec 9(2)(a)
Barrister, Bankside Chambers Sec 9(2)(a)
Sec 9(2)(a)
Barrister, Bankside Chambers Sec 9(2)(a)
Official
the
under
Released
394633
3443-0395-6025-V2
Item 3E
From:
Stacey Wrenn
To:
Sec 9(2)(a)
Cc:
Ruth Isaac; Tame Malcolm
Subject:
Whakapapa Holdings Limited concession application
Date:
Tuesday, 15 April 2025 5:45:00 pm
Attachments:
image001.png
Kia ora Sec 9(2)(a)
,
Thank you again for meeting with Ruth and me yesterday to discuss Te Kotahitanga o Ngāti
Act
Tūwharetoa and the Office of Te Ariki’s position on Whakapapa Holdings Limited’s concession
application. Ruth is currently travelling so has asked me to email you.
As we discussed, we have reflected the views you shared into the advice that has now gone to
the Director-General as the decision maker. I have copied the relevant paragraphs relating to your
position, and the introductory paragraph to Ngāti Hikairo’s feedback, below. If you would like us
to make any changes to how we have presented your position, please let us know by midday
Thursday 17 April. If you provide feedback by this time, we will be able to provide updated advice
to the Director-General as she considers her decision.
Information
As you will see, Sec 9(2)(g)(i)
they were presented to us in this way through the engagement process we undertook
in good faith. However, we have been very clear about Te Kotahitanga o Ngāti Tūwharetoa’s
position Sec 9(2)(g)(i)
.
Official
Thank you again for meeting with us.
Ngā mihi,
the
Stacey
Te Kotahitanga o Ngāti Tuwharetoa (TKNT) and the Office of Te Ariki Tā Tumu Te Heuheu
engagement and concerns
1. TNKT and the Office of Te Ariki Tā Tumu Te Heuheu (Office of Te Ariki) did not publicly
under
submit in regard to this application or respond to the Department’s early invitations to
engage in the concession process. However, the Department has received information
from TKNT and the Office of Te Ariki pertaining to Whakapapa Ski Area including:
a. Two letters in 2023 from the Office of Te Ariki.
b. A meeting between the Minister of Conservation, Minister for Treaty of Waitangi
Settlement Negotiations, Sec 9(2)(a)
and Sec 9(2)(a)
TKNT in June 2024.
c. A letter from TKNT (noting it was also on behalf of the Office of Te Ariki) on 31
June 2025.
Released d.A meeting between DOC officials and Sec 9(2)(a)
, and
Sec 9(2)(a) on 14 April 2025.
e. Phone calls between DOC officials and representatives from TKNT and Te Ariki’s
office during the processing of the concession application.
2. Throughout this communication, TKNT and the Office of Te Ariki have stated their strong
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
Item 3E
Phone: Sec 9(2)(a)
www.doc.govt.nz
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
Item 3G
From:
Sec 9(2)(a)
To:
Damian Coutts
Cc:
Patai
Subject:
Re: Proposed Concession Whakapapa Ski Field
Date:
Friday, 4 August 2023 3:56:51 pm
Attachments:
image001.png
Thanks for the update Damian. I am comfortable for you to progress with the Hikairo Delegates.
They are the hapu at play in this circumstance. And the role of TKNT is to support hapu with their
aspirations.
Act
Sec 9(2)(a)
Te Kotahitanga o Ngati Tuwharetoa
Physical Address 130 Atirau Road, Turangi, Aotearoa New Zealand
| Postal Address PO Box 315,
Turangi 3353, Aotearoa New Zealand
Telephone Sec 9(2)(a)
| Emai Sec 9(2)(a)
| Website
www.tekotahitangaotuwharetoa.co.nz
CAUTION: This email and any attachment(s) contains information that is both confidential and possibly legally privileged. No reader
may make any use of its content unless that use is approved by Te Kotahitanga o Ngati Tuwharetoa in writing. If you are not the
intended recipient you are notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or data is prohibited. If you
received this email in error, please notify us immediately and erase all copies of the message and attachments. We apologise for the
inconvenience, kia ora.
From: Damian Coutts
Information
Date: Friday, 4 August 2023 at 3:48 PM
To: Sec 9(2)(a)
Cc: Patai
Subject: Proposed Concession Whakapapa Ski Field
Tēnā koe Sec 9(2)(a)
Official
I hope this finds you well.
As you will know, the Department of Conservation (DOC) has been working closely with Ngāti
Hikairo representatives, Sec 9(2)(a)
, on behalf of Te Kotahitanga o Ngāti
the
Tūwharetoa, on the proposed concession for any new operator of Whakapapa ski area.
The purpose of these discussions is to allow the DOC to gain a greater understanding of:
How you wish to be involved going forward
What ‘good would look like’ for Ngāti Tūwharetoa in terms of amended or altered
concessions
Whether the nature of the concession agreements might differ depending on the makeup
under
of the future operator
The information provided to us in our hui with your representatives, will assist us to begin
drafting concession documents for the potential purchasers. We are currently in the beginning
stages of this process, and we look forward to continuing to work with Ngāti Tūwharetoa as we
progress through the concession process, which will also include public notification once a draft
document is produced, and the potential purchaser identified.
We have been gathering the concerns raised at previous meetings with both iwi and
stakeholders which include:
Concession Term
Released
Protection and management of natural environment within the skifield
That activities conducted by the concessionaire are consistent with the values of iwi and
that cultural and environmental care is upheld
Ensuring a high degree of compliance is obtained in regards to duty of care in the
protection of the Maunga
Item 3G
Public access rights and compliance with legislation including traffic management
strategies and carparking
Processes for new infrastructure or activity requests throughout the term of the
concession
Climate Change strategies and integration into development plans
Redundant infrastructure removal, and environmental protection plans
Originally, we emailed Sec 9(2)(a) as Chair for Te Kotahitanga, but it has come to my attention that we
did not copy you into that correspondence. My apologies for this oversight. The purpose of this
email, therefore, is to check whether you are comfortable with us working directly with
Act
Sec 9(2)(a)
on behalf of Te Kotahitanga, or whether you would like us to involve you or other Te
Kotahitanga representatives in the discussions.
Ngā mihi
Damian Coutts
Regional Director Operations, Central North Island | Kaihautū Matarautaki Kāhui Matarautaki,
Taupō office | Taupō-nui-a-Tia Office
www.doc.govt.nz
Information
Caution - This message and accompanying data may contain information that is confidential or
subject to legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that any use,
dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or data is prohibited. If you received this
email in error, please notify us immediately and erase all copies of the message and attachments.
We apologise for the inconvenience. Thank you.Official
the
under
Released
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
Item 4
From:
Stacey Wrenn
To:
Penny Nelson
Cc:
Reid Walters; Ruth Isaac; Jonty Somers
Subject:
RE: Further advice about WHL
Date:
Thursday, 24 April 2025 4:49:00 pm
Attachments:
image001.png
118471-SKI - Addendum 2 to decision report.docx
Hi Penny,
Act
Here is an addendum to the report about the walking tracks. Jonty has reviewed this and I have
discussed this with Damian. To ensure we are clear about what is being authorised, we will
define the tracks this applies to in the concession documents on Monday.
I haven’t changed the decision making recommendation in the main advice from ‘decline’ to
‘approve’, as there are too many places we refer to this being declined and it would make the
record unclear. Instead, to approve the walking tracks, circle ‘no’ for this option and reference the
addendum.
Ruth will bring you a printed copy of this and a fresh copy of the decision report when she sees
Information
you in a bit.
Cheers,
Stacey
From: Stacey Wrenn
Official
Sent: Thursday, 24 April 2025 2:53 pm
To: Penny Nelson <[email address]>
Cc: Reid Walters <[email address]>; Ruth Isaac <[email address]>; Jonty Somers
<[email address]>
the
Subject: RE: Further advice about WHL
Hi Penny,
Here is the further advice requested about staff accommodation in Whakapapa Village and
under
walking tracks, which we’ll discuss with you when we meet at 3. I’ll print a copy of this for the
meeting (plus an overview of the draft communications approach).
Staff accommodation in Whakapapa Village
We have discussed whether there are further opportunities for staff accommodation in
Whakapapa Village.
Sec 9(2)(j)
Released
Item 4
Sec 9(2)(j)
Act
Information
Official
the
Walking tracks
We have discussed whether DOC can, or should be, formally approving existing walking tracks in
Tongariro National Park. This would make these tracks available to WHL to hold a concession
over.
Creating new tracks is not permitted by the Tongariro National Park Management Plan (TNPMP).
under
When making the decision, we would need to consider if formally approving existing tracks
constitutes creating a new track.
We would also need to consider:
PCBU responsibilities. Would these sit with us or with WHL (if they have a concession for
the tracks). For example, some of the tracks have steep ledges and may require some
structures in place.
Operational costs. Would approving these tracks be signing us up to additional costs?
Released
Risks to be aware of:
There are other concessionaires/potential concessionaires who are unable to undertake
activities due to the constraints in the TNPMP – taking a pragmatic approach here but not
in other situations may be criticised.
Item 4
Cheers,
Stacey
From: Stacey Wrenn
Sent: Wednesday, 23 April 2025 4:41 pm
To: Penny Nelson <[email address]>
Cc: Reid Walters <[email address]>; Ruth Isaac <[email address]>
Act
Subject: RE: Further advice about WHL
Hi Penny,
I’ve attached the letters from Te Kotahitanga o Ngāti Tūwharetoa as discussed. As you’ll see, they
originally told us their position on engagement with Ngāti Hikairo on 31 March. We attempted to
set up a meeting with them following that letter that was cancelled; Ruth then responded to the
letter and asked to meet, which we did on 14 April.
In terms of the information requested, we advised Te Kotahitanga on 14 April that we wouldn’t be
Information
sharing the updated draft advice to you with them until after the decision is made – this is
consistent with our position on sharing the final advice with other iwi and hapū. We did share the
extract from the report with the updated information they provided.
Letters attached (hopefully in the order below!):
31 March 2025 – TKNT to DOC
Official
8 April 2025 – Response from Ruth to 31 March letter
14 April 2024 – Meeting between Sec 9(2)(a)
Ruth and me – notes attached
14 April 2025 – Letter from TKNT’s lawyers requesting information from the final decision
the
report
15 April 2025 – Email from me with re-framing of Te Kotahitanga’s position in the advice
16 April 2025 – Ruth’s response to letter requesting information
16 April 2025 – Letter from Sec 9(2)(a) to Ruth (this was attached to the advice this
morning)
17 April 2025 – Response from Ruth to 16 April letter (this was attached to the advice this
under
morning)
I have also attached:
The 2023 email confirming that we should engage directly with the Ngāti Hikairo delegates
(Sec 9(2)(a)
) about Whakapapa. We haven’t received anything to the
contrary until the 31 March 2025 letter, and had this message reinforced when Ngāti
Hikairo attended the meeting with the Minister on Whakapapa last year.
Our advice to the Minister’s office about Sec 9(2)(a) letter to the Prime Minister. We were
Released
asked for a one pager with background information to inform DPMC, who would be
considering the approach to take in response to the letter.
I’ll come back to you once I’ve spoken to Damian about the houses and the walking tracks.
Item 4
Cheers,
Stacey
From: Stacey Wrenn
Sent: Wednesday, 23 April 2025 12:01 pm
To: Penny Nelson <[email address]>
Cc: Reid Walters <[email address]>; Ruth Isaac <[email address]>
Act
Subject: Further advice about WHL
Hi Penny,
Attached is the further advice about WHL’s application, as well as three attachments –
Letter from Ngāti Tūwharetoa (TKNT)
Our response to TKNT
Summary of discussion with WHL and actions we are working through
As Reid is away, I can bring printed copies up at about 1.
Information
Cheers,
Stacey
Stacey Wrenn (she/her)
Chief Advisor, Regulatory Modernisation
Whare Kaupapa Atawhai | Conservation HouseOfficial
Phone: Sec 9(2)(a)
www.doc.govt.nz
the
under
Released
Item 4A
Addendum (2) to Recommendation and Decision Report for Whakapapa
Holdings Limited’s concession application to operate Whakapapa ski field
Date:
24 April 2025
To:
Penny Nelson, Director-General
From:
Stacey Wrenn, Chief Advisor, Regulatory Modernisation
CC:
Ruth Isaac, Deputy Director-General, Policy and Regulatory Services
Subject:
Service and maintain walking tracks
Act
Context
1.
You have asked for additional advice about Whakapapa Holdings Limited’s (WHL)
application to service and maintain existing walking tracks (based on existing ski runs
and groomer tracks) within the ski field area as part of its wider application to operate
Whakapapa ski field. These tracks were informally formed, likely in the 1980s, and we
understand that there are existing trail markers on the tracks.
2.
The Recommendation and Decision Report recommends that you decline this portion
of the application on the basis that it is inconsistent with the Tongariro National Park
Management Plan (TNPMP) as the tracks have not been formally recognised by the
Department.
Information
Advice about granting approval to service and maintain existing walking tracks
3.
You have asked whether it is appropriate for you to authorise WHL to maintain and
service existing tracks, noting that the tracks currently exist, can be used by members
of the public and wil not allow new tracks to be developed. You have said that you do
not want the Department to be responsible for the operational management of these
tracks.
4.
The TNPMP does not allow new tracks to be developed beyond the marking of trails
Official
(rather than the construction of tracks). The TNPMP also does not allow tracks to be
created by anyone other than the Department.
5.
As these tracks already exist and did so at the time the TNPMP was approved, you
the
may take the view that these tracks do not constitute the development of new tracks
but rather by approving the service and maintenance of the existing tracks, you are
formalising an informal arrangement that has been in place for decades.
6.
If you make this decision, the Department wil work with WHL to ensure that the
responsibility for maintaining the tracks lies solely with WHL. We recommend you only
make this decision in respect of existing, formed tracks, such as where modification
under
has already occurred to allow access for ski field maintenance.
7.
For the avoidance of doubt, this decision would not allow the creation of new tracks or
modification of the landscape to create new tracks. It would simply allow the
maintenance of existing modified tracks that are already in use by walkers.
8.
This decision would not give WHL the right to offer guided walking on these tracks, as
that activity has not been applied for.
Next steps
9.
If you decide to approve the activity to service and maintain the existing tracks, we wil
Released
update the concession document to reflect this. We wil define these tracks this applies
to in the concession documents.
1
