Kia ora MBIE

This request is for all briefings, advice , and information provided to Ministers, and other Departments from 1 September 2025, on the ongoing operation of Turoa ski field by Pure Turoa and Whakapapa ski Field by WHL.

Regards

Stephen Prendergast

Kia ora MBIE

Thanks for the prompt response, which is appreciated.

I am less comfortable with the response itself, however. And will attempt to resolve this with you, directly, in the first instance.

It is surprising given the significant and ongoing correspondence documented in the Ferguson response, circa 3400 emails over the target period of that request, and the weekly reporting schedule that there was a single email considered to be within scope.

I consider you to have too narrowly scoped this request and excluded legitimate information that ought to have been considered in scope.

The decision to withhold the single identified email in full under sections 9(2)(b)(ii) and 9(2)(ba)(i) of the Official Information Act (OIA) is challenged on the grounds of insufficient justification and the high threshold for commercial prejudice. Under section 28(3) of the Act, MBIE must provide specific reasons why these grounds apply, yet the response relies on a blanket application of these sections without considering how partial release could be considered given the significant public interest.

Commercial Prejudice Threshold
The reliance on section 9(2)(b)(ii) to protect a "commercial position" requires MBIE to demonstrate that the prejudice is "unreasonable" and "likely" to occur. The Ombudsman has previously clarified that "likely" means a real and substantial risk, not just a remote possibility, particularly when the information relates to entities operating on public land or receiving government support.

Specific Detriment: MBIE must identify the specific commercial harm that would result from disclosing operational updates for ski fields that are matters of high public visibility.

Severability: Section 17(e) and the principle of availability in section 5 require that information be released unless there is good reason to withhold it. MBIE should have considered redacting sensitive commercial figures while releasing the substance of the briefing or advice.

Confidentiality and Supply of Information
The application of section 9(2)(ba)(i) is contested as it requires an "obligation of confidence" and a likelihood that disclosure would prejudice the future supply of similar information. In Case 175376, the Ombudsman noted that information provided to the government in the context of a regulatory or funding relationship often lacks the necessary quality of confidence to justify withholding in full.

Public Interest in Supply: It is often in the public interest for information regarding the management of public funds (the ski fields loans) to be transparent, ensuring that the funder and the receiving party remain accountable for the responsible use of the funds, particularly when there is a heightened risk to the repayment of the loan, and the consequential impact.

The response fails to adequately weight the section 9(1) public interest test, which overrides the withholding grounds if the interest in disclosure is greater. There is a profound public interest in the viability and operation of the Ruapehu ski fields given their impact on regional economies and the previous involvement of Crown funding and support.

For these reasons I am requesting a reconsideration of the decision.

Regards
Stephen Prendergast