9 February 2026
Ref: DOIA REQ-0025104
Stephen Prendergast
Email:
[FYI request #33165 email]
Tēnā koe Stephen Prendergast
Thank you for your email of 8 December 2025 to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment
(MBIE) requesting, under the Official Information Act 1982 (the Act), the following information:
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.
On 6 January 2026, MBIE wrote to you explaining that one email was in scope of your request, and that it
was being withheld in full under the fol owing sections of the Act:
• 9(2)(b)(ii), to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely
unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the
subject of the information;
• 9(2)(ba)(i), to protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any
person has been or could be compel ed to provide under the authority of any enactment, where
the making available of the information would be likely to prejudice the supply of similar
information, or information from the same source, and it is in the public interest that such
information should continue to be supplied.
On 8 January 2025, you responded with the fol owing:
Thanks for the prompt response, which is appreciated.
I am less comfortable with the response itself, however. And wil 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)(i ) 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)(i ) 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.
Thank you for taking the time to set out your concerns. We have reconsidered your request but
maintain our existing decision for the reasons outlined below.
Regarding scope
Firstly, the FYI.org request you refer to,
fyi.org.nz/request/31623-advice-and-communication-about-
turoa#comment-7308, had a wider timeframe than your request. While that request sought information
from 1 January 2024 to 17 July 2025, your request was for the period 1 September 2025 to 8 December
2025. The different timeframes reflect very different periods in the ongoing operations and
administration of funding for the ski fields on Mt Ruapehu.
As you will be aware, multiple briefings and cabinet papers were produced on this topic, starting in 2022
(when Ruapehu Alpine Lifts Limited (RAL) entered voluntary administration). This continued through 2023
and 2024 while a long-term commercial solution was sought and various loans requiring Ministerial
approval were granted. By May 2025, both ski fields had been sold, which saw a reduction in reporting by
Kānoa – Regional Economic Development & Investment Unit (Kānoa) to the Minister for Regional
Development on this matter. By September 2025, which is the starting point for your request, the loans
were being managed as part of Kānoa’s regular business as usual activities.
Secondly, the wording of the FYI.org request was much broader than yours. We understand you were
seeking information MBIE provided to other government agencies, and to Ministers, regarding the
operation of the ski fields on Mt Ruapehu. This was a helpful and clear scope, which enabled us to quickly
process your request, working with our subject matter experts who had existing knowledge of what had
been generated in that specific timeframe. This allowed a far more targeted search to relevant areas, as
we knew what to look for.
By comparison, the 3,400 items referenced in relation to the FYI.org request were not necessarily in
scope as a search of each item, to identify if it was in fact in scope, would have been required.
The combination of differing timeframes and different wording of the requests is why the number of
items varied dramatically.
We have careful y reviewed each weekly report from the period of your request and can confirm nothing
within these documents is in scope of your request. Likewise, MBIE sent no briefings on this topic in this
time.
We also careful y checked for any ad-hoc reports that may have captured either project as a line item. We
did find two additional results as part of this check, consisting of entries in two monthly reports, which
were emailed to the Minister for Regional Development’s office on 19 September and 17 October 2025.
We note these do not provide advice on the topic, and were included alongside a list of many other
projects; however, we think you wil stil find these relevant. We apologise for not locating these as part
of our original scoping, but are providing copies of these to you now.
Please note some information has been withheld under the following sections of the Act:
• 9(2)(b)(ii), to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely
unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the
subject of the information;
• 9(2)(ba)(i), to protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any
person has been or could be compel ed to provide under the authority of any enactment, where
the making available of the information would be likely to prejudice the supply of similar
information, or information from the same source, and it is in the public interest that such
information should continue to be supplied.
I do not consider that the withholding of this information is outweighed by public interest considerations
in making the information available.
Please note that in October 2025 this report ceased being produced and sent, therefore there are no
subsequent reports in scope.
As only a few officials would have sent emails on this matter, we are also certain that in the timeframe
relevant to your request, MBIE did not send any emails or advice to any other agencies or Ministers,
except for the one item previously identified, and the aforementioned reports.
Regarding the decision to withhold
We consider that the decision of 6 January 2026, to withhold the identified email, is consistent with
previous decisions MBIE has made, which have already been subject to investigation by the Ombudsman
(CASE-006997 and CASE-007149 refer). As you will be aware, the Ombudsman’s final opinions, issued 7
October 2025 and 10 October 2025, found that MBIE was entitled to withhold information pursuant to
sections 9(2)(b)(ii) and 9(2)(ba)(i) of the Act.
In making the decision to withhold this information, we did consider if partial release was an option. In
this case, due to the nature of the email, it was not. Further, when making these decisions, the public
interest in release is always weighed against the need to withhold. In this case, our view is that the public
interest in release of the specific information does not outweigh the need to protect the information.
Please note that section 28 refers to “Functions of Ombudsmen”, where section 28(3) states
“An
investigation and review under subsection (1) or subsection (2) may be made by an Ombudsman only on
complaint being made to an Ombudsman in writing or orally.” This does not mean that an agency must
provide full justification and specific reasons for the application of the stated grounds when
communicating its decision. Further, full justification and specific reasons for the need to withhold were
provided to the Investigating Officer as part of the aforementioned investigations, and would have been
considered by the Ombudsman in reaching their final opinion in our favour.
If you wish to discuss any aspect of your request or this response, or if you require any further assistance,
please contac
t [email address].
As you are aware, you have the right to seek an investigation and review by the Ombudsman of the
decision. Information about how to make a complaint is available at www.ombudsman.parliament.nz or
freephone 0800 802 602.
Nāku noa, nā
Tane Dewes
Manager Operations Support and Improvement
Kānoa – Regional Economic Development & Investment Unit
Kānoa – Portfolio At-Risk Update August 2025
Out of Scope
Kānoa Red Risk Projects as of 31 August 2025
Project Title
Recipient
Region
Fund / Contract Signed Date
Contracted Paid
Repaid
Risk Summary
Type
(Contract SD)
(P+I)*
Escalated date (Esc)
Red
Out of Scope
Pure Tūroa Limited - Tūroa Ski
Pure Tūroa Limited MW
RSPF
Contract SD: Mar 2024
$0.2m
$0.2m
N/A A judicial review has been filed chal enging the 2024 concession granted to PTL. s 9(2)(ba)(i)
Field
Equity Esc: Jun 2025
s 9(2)(b)(ii)
(Comprised of 3 Contracts)
RSPF
$2.3m
$2.3m s 9(2)(b)(ii) s 9(2)(b)(ii)
Loan
Out of Scope
*The column header
P+I refers to the total repayment amount, comprising both the principal and interest components of the loan.
Kānoa Amber Risk Projects as of 31 August 2025
Project Title
Recipient
Region
Fund / Contract Signed Date Contracted Paid
Repaid
Risk Summary
Type
(Contract SD)
(P+I) *
Escalated Date (Esc)
Amber
Out of Scope
Kānoa Amber Risk Projects as of 31 August 2025
Project Title
Recipient
Region
Fund / Contract Signed Date Contracted Paid
Repaid
Risk Summary
Type
(Contract SD)
(P+I) *
Escalated Date (Esc)
Amber
Out of Scope
Whakapapa Holdings 2024
Whakapapa
MW
RSPF
Contract SD: April
$5.0m
$5.0m s 9(2)(b)(ii) Judicial Review claims against DOC’s concession grant have introduced legal uncertainty, prompting escalation to
Limited - Ski Field Purchase
Holdings 2024
Loan
2024
Amber status. s 9(2)(b)(ii), s 9(2)(ba)(i)
Limited
Esc: Jul 2025
Out of Scope
Kānoa – Porffolio At-Risk Update September 2025
Out of Scope
Kānoa Red Risk Projects as of 30 September 2025
Project Title
Recipient
Region
Fund / Contract Signed Date
Contracted Paid
Repaid
Risk Summary
Type
(Contract SD)
(P+I)*
Escalated date (Esc)
Red
Out of Scope
Pure Tūroa Limited - Tūroa Ski
Pure Tūroa Limited MW
RSPF
Contract SD: Mar 2024
$0.2m
$0.2m
N/A
Legal Chal enges - The sale of the Tūroa ski field to Pure Tūroa Limited was completed in April 2024, but judicial
Field
Equity Esc: Jun 2025
review claims have since been lodged against DOC regarding the concession granted to PTL. s 9(2)(b)(ii)
(Comprised of 3 Contracts)
RSPF
$2.3m
$2.3m s 9(2)(b)(ii)
Loan
Out of Scope
Out of Scope
Kānoa Amber Risk Projects as of 30 September 2025
Project Title
Recipient
Region
Fund /
Contract Signed Date
Contracted Paid
Repaid
Risk Summary
Type
(Contract SD)
(P+I) *
Escalated Date (Esc)
Amber
Out of Scope
Kānoa Amber Risk Projects as of 30 September 2025
Project Title
Recipient
Region
Fund /
Contract Signed Date
Contracted Paid
Repaid
Risk Summary
Type
(Contract SD)
(P+I) *
Escalated Date (Esc)
Amber
Out of Scope
Whakapapa Holdings 2024
Whakapapa
MW
RSPF
Contract SD: April 2024
$5.0m
$5.0m
s 9(2)(b)(ii)
Legal Chal enges - Judicial Review claims against the concession granted by DOC have introduced uncertainty,
Limited - Ski Field Purchase
Holdings 2024
Loan
Esc: Jul 2025
prompfing escalafion to Amber status. s 9(2)(b)(ii), s 9(2)(ba)(i)
Limited
Out of Scope
Document Outline
- REQ-0025104 - Documents for release_Redacted.pdf
