Kia ora Stephen Prendergast,
 
On behalf of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment I
acknowledge your email of 8/12/2025 requesting, under the Official
Information Act 1982, the following:
 
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.
 
We will endeavour to respond to your request as soon as possible, and no
later than 27/01/2026, being 20 working days after the day your request
was received. If we are unable to respond to your request by then, we will
notify you of an extension of that timeframe. Please note that the days
from 25 December 2025 to 15 January 2026 (inclusive) are defined as
non-working days in the Act and are not counted in the calculation for the
response due date. This will affect the time period for responding to your
request. If you have any enquiries regarding your request feel free to
contact us via email to [1][MBIE request email].
 
Nāku noa, nā
Ministerial Services
Strategy and Assurance
Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment
15 Stout Street, Wellington 6011 |  P O Box 1473 Wellington 6140

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[MBIE request email]

Kia ora Stephen

 

Please find attached your response letter in regard to your Official
Information request (Ref: DOIA REQ-0025104).

 

Ngā mihi,

Ministerial Services 

Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment

15 Stout Street, Wellington 6011 | PO Box 1473, Wellington 6140

 

------------------- Original Message -------------------
From: [FOI #33165 email]; 
Received: Mon Dec 08 2025 12:02:13 GMT+1300 (New Zealand Daylight Time)
To: OIA <[MBIE request email]>; 
Subject: Official Information request - Briefings to Ministers on Ruapehu
Ski Fields

[Some people who received this message don't often get email from
[FOI #33165 email]. Learn why this is
important at [1]https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentific... ]

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

-------------------------------------------------------------------

This is an Official Information request made via the FYI website.

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #33165 email]

Is [MBIE request email] the wrong address for Official Information requests to
Ministry of Business, Innovation &amp; Employment? If so, please contact
us using this form:
[2]https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[3]https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...

If you find this service useful as an Official Information officer, please
ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's OIA or LGOIMA
page.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

References

Visible links
1. https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentific...
2. https://fyi.org.nz/change_request/new?bo...
3. https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers

hide quoted sections

Dear Stephen Prendergast

 

Please find attached a response to your request for us to reconsider our
recent decision.

 

Kind regards,

Ministerial Services
 

 

------------------- Original Message -------------------
From: Stephen Prendergast
<[FOI #33165 email]>; 
Received: Thu Jan 08 2026 14:27:56 GMT+1300 (New Zealand Daylight Time)
To: Ministerials MBIE <[email address]>; 
Subject: Re: Decision on your Official Information Act request (Ref:
REQ-0025104) CRM:0829066

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

-----Original Message-----

Kia ora Stephen

  

 Please find attached your response letter in regard to your Official
 Information request (Ref: DOIA REQ-0025104).

  

 Ngā mihi,

 Ministerial Services 

 Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment

 15 Stout Street, Wellington 6011 | PO Box 1473, Wellington 6140

  

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #33165 email]

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[1]https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...

If you find this service useful as an Official Information officer, please
ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's OIA or LGOIMA
page.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

References

Visible links
1. https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers

hide quoted sections

Kia ora Stephen,

 

We are writing to acknowledge your email, but advise that we are engaging
with the Office of the Ombudsman on your complaint.

 

Kind regards,

MBIE

 

------------------- Original Message -------------------
From: Stephen Prendergast
<[FOI #33165 email]>; 
Received: Wed Feb 11 2026 11:00:09 GMT+1300 (New Zealand Daylight Time)
To: Ministerials MBIE <[email address]>; 
Subject: Re: Decision on your Official Information Act request (Ref:
REQ-0025104) CRM:0829066

Tçnâ koe Tane Dewes

Thank you for your response of 09 February 2026.

I do not accept that MBIE has met its obligations under the Official
Information Act in either (a) the adequacy of its search and scope
determination, or (b) the transparency required to justify withholding.

1. Scope and search adequacy: reporting well past the Tûroa sale date

The sale and settlement of the Tûroa assets to Pure Tûroa Limited occurred
on 1 April 2024. This date is the relevant anchor point for assessing
whether subsequent reporting was merely “business as usual” and minimal,
or whether it reflected ongoing oversight and risk management.

Material released under the Ferguson OIA (OIA364) demonstrates that weekly
and ad-hoc reporting to Ministers continued well beyond the Tûroa sale
date, including:

Kânoa weekly reports through to at least 18 June 2025 and 9 July 2025; and

Further briefings and officials’ action emails in mid-2025 addressing
Tûroa-related matters.

This sustained flow of information more than a year after settlement is
inconsistent with the proposition that matters had reduced to routine BAU
reporting. In particular, the continued reporting on Tûroa—separate from
Whakapapa—indicates that it remained an active issue requiring monitoring,
escalation, and advice.

Against that background, MBIE’s assertion that only a single email fell
within scope for my later period is implausible unless supported by a
clearly articulated and demonstrably reasonable search methodology. The
Ombudsman has consistently held that agencies must be able to demonstrate
the adequacy of their searches, not rely on assumptions about what “would
have been generated” (e.g. Ombudsman Case 176392; Case W47675).

The fact that additional relevant material was only identified after
reconsideration further supports the conclusion that the original scoping
was inadequate.

2. Commercial sensitivity: contradicted by subsequent releases

MBIE relies on section 9(2)(b)(ii) and section 9(2)(ba)(i) to withhold
information on the basis of commercial sensitivity and confidence.

However, both Ombudsman complaints referenced by MBIE ultimately resulted
in further disclosure, including release of the assessment criteria used
to determine which parties could operate on a sustainable basis. Those
criteria were initially characterised as commercially sensitive, yet were
later released without the predicted harm eventuating.

That outcome directly undermines the claim that disclosure of such
material would be likely to unreasonably prejudice commercial positions,
or prejudice the future supply of information. The Ombudsman has
repeatedly confirmed that:

“Likely” requires a real and substantial risk, not conjecture; and

Assertions of commercial sensitivity must be supported by evidence, not by
generalised claims (e.g. Ombudsman Case 179067; Case 174425).

MBIE has not explained why the withheld email in this case is materially
different from information already released in those earlier matters.

3. Confidentiality claims remain unsupported

MBIE has also failed to demonstrate the necessary elements of an
enforceable obligation of confidence. Information generated or supplied
within a funding, receivership, or regulatory context—particularly
involving public land and public money—often lacks the quality of
confidence required to justify withholding (see Ombudsman Case 175376;
Case 182234).

Assertions that disclosure would prejudice future information supply
remain speculative, especially where similar information has continued to
be provided notwithstanding earlier releases.

4. Public interest in transparency

The section 9(1) public interest test has not been properly applied. The
information relates to:

Ongoing Crown exposure and oversight following the Tûroa sale;

Continued financial and operational risk management well past settlement;
and

Decision-making concerning assets of major regional and economic
significance.

The Ombudsman has consistently recognised a strong public interest in
transparency around the management of public funds and post-transaction
oversight, even where some commercial sensitivity exists (e.g. Ombudsman
Case 176001; Case 180541).

5. Prior Ombudsman cases are not determinative

MBIE’s reliance on CASE-006997 and CASE-007149 is misplaced. Ombudsman
opinions are fact-specific and not binding precedents. MBIE must still
explain how the statutory tests apply to the particular information
withheld here—especially in light of the subsequent disclosures that
contradict earlier sensitivity claims.

6. Minimum transparency required

Consistent with the Ombudsman’s guidance and the recommendations
previously outlined, MBIE should, at a minimum, provide:

A proper search narrative (systems searched, custodians, date ranges, and
keywords used);

A schedule entry for the withheld email, including date, sender and
recipient roles, subject line, and a high-level description of content;
and

A clear explanation of why partial release, redaction, or a summary is not
reasonably practicable.

Absent this level of transparency, the decision does not meet the Act’s
accountability objectives.

For these reasons, I maintain my request that MBIE reconsider its
decision. Failing that, I will refer the matter to the Ombudsman for
investigation and review.

Regards,
Stephen Prendergast

-----Original Message-----

Dear Stephen Prendergast

  

 Please find attached a response to your request for us to reconsider our
 recent decision.

  

 Kind regards,

 Ministerial Services
  

  

 ------------------- Original Message
 
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
 [FOI #33165 email]

 Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
 the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
 [1]https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...

 If you find this service useful as an Official Information officer,
please
 ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's OIA or LGOIMA
 page.

 -------------------------------------------------------------------

  

References

 Visible links
 1.
[1]https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #33165 email]

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[2]https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...

If you find this service useful as an Official Information officer, please
ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's OIA or LGOIMA
page.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

References

Visible links
1. https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers
2. https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers

hide quoted sections