Printed from https://fyi.org.nz/request/33166-request-for-briefing-on-ruapehu-ski-fields on February 08, 2026 04:30

Request for Briefing on Ruapehu Ski Fields

AnonSkiGuy made this Official Information request to Department of Conservation

The request was refused by Department of Conservation.

From: AnonSkiGuy

Kia ora DOC

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

Link to this

From: do-not-reply
Department of Conservation

Kia ora Stephen,
Thank you for your official information request to the Department of
Conservation, received on 08/12/2025.
Your reference number is OIAD-5934.
 
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 also note the days in the period from 25 December to 15 January are
not counted as ‘working days’ under the OIA. More information on this is
available on the Ombudsman’s website here: [1]OIA and LGOIMA requests over
the holiday period | Ombudsman New Zealand.
If you have any queries email us at [2][email address].
Ngā mihi
Government Services
Department of Conservation
Te Papa Atawhai
Privacy: Your details have been recorded in DOC's workflow system and will
be used to provide you with a response to, and communicate with you about,
your request. Records are retained, used and disposed of in accordance
with the Privacy Act 2020 and the Public Records Act 2005. See our
[3]privacy statements for more information about how DOC manages personal
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.

References

Visible links
1. https://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/news...
2. mailto:[email address]
3. https://www.doc.govt.nz/footer-links/pri...

Link to this

From: do-not-reply
Department of Conservation

Attachment OIAD 5934 Response Prendergast.pdf
94K Download View as HTML

Kia ora Stephen,

Please find attached the Department of Conservation’s response to your
request, which we received on 08/12/2025.

If you have any queries email us at [1][email address]. 

Ngā mihi

Government Services

Department of Conservation

Te Papa Atawhai

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.

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]

Link to this

From: AnonSkiGuy

Kia ora DOC

Thank you for your response dated 21 January 2026. I am writing to express my profound dissatisfaction with the Department’s decision to refuse my request in full. I find the reliance on a "blanket" claim of legal professional privilege—without any attempt to separate factual information from legal advice—to be a textbook example of administrative overreach that has been repeatedly corrected by the Ombudsman.

The Failure of the "Blanket" Refusal
Your letter asserts that "all information" in scope is connected to litigation and thus privileged under section 9(2)(h). This approach is legally untenable. The High Court in Kelsey v The Minister of Trade NZHC 249 explicitly ruled that a "blanket" approach to withholding information is at odds with the OIA. The Department has an obligation to assess each individual piece of information; it cannot simply assume that because a topic is subject to litigation, every briefing, status update, or factual report becomes magically privileged.
​

Misapplication of Litigation Privilege
For information to fall under litigation privilege, its dominant purpose must be for the conduct of litigation.

Factual Updates: Routine briefings on the "ongoing operation" of the ski fields (as requested) are operational in nature.

Ministerial Advice: Advice provided to Ministers regarding the management of public land is distinct from legal strategy.
​

Precedent: The Ombudsman has previously overturned similar refusals where agencies failed to prove the "dominant purpose" test. For instance, in Case Note 282431, the Ombudsman noted that merely being "relevant" to litigation is insufficient to satisfy the high threshold of section 9(2)(h).

Public Interest and Transparency
Even if some information were privileged, you have failed to provide a robust assessment of the public interest under section 9(1). The future of the Turoa and Whakapapa ski fields is a matter of immense public, economic, and environmental significance to the Ruapehu region. The public has a right to know how the Crown is managing these assets, regardless of concurrent litigation.
​

Unless this decision is revisited and a schedule of documents (including those where privilege can be severed) is provided within ten working days, I will be escalating this matter to the Office of the Ombudsman for a formal investigation.
​

Regards

Stephen Prendergast

Link to this

From: OIATeam
Department of Conservation

Kia ora Stephen,

 

Thank you for your feedback and for outlining your concerns regarding our
response to Official Information Act request OIAD‑5934. We have considered
your concerns and our decision on your request, but our decision remains
unchanged.

 

For context, your request was refused in full under section 18(a), by
virtue of section 9(2)(h), as the three documents in scope are directly
connected to the Crown’s conduct of its defence to litigation underway,
and are therefore subject to legal professional privilege.

 

The legally privileged information was not contained within broader
correspondence or documents from which information could be separated and
released. There were no other in-scope documents relating to ‘the ongoing
operation of Turoa ski field by Pure Turoa and Whakapapa ski field by
WHL’.

 

We do not consider that public interest on this matter outweighs the
withholding of the information. If you are not satisfied with our
response, you are entitled to seek an investigation and review by writing
to an Ombudsman, as provided for under section 28(3) of the OIA.

 

Ngā mihi

 

OIA Support Team

Department of Conservation

Te Papa Atawhai

 

 

show quoted sections

Link to this

Things to do with this request

Anyone:
Department of Conservation only: