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

Tēnā 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 Tūroa sale date

The sale and settlement of the Tūroa assets to Pure Tūroa 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 Tūroa sale date, including:

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

Further briefings and officials’ action emails in mid-2025 addressing Tūroa-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 Tūroa—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 Tūroa 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