There is no doubt that MPI is out to destroy the primary Industries now.

Ombudsman Complaint – MPI OIA25-0756

Office of the Ombudsman

PO Box 10152

Wellington 6143

Aotearoa New Zealand

19 November 2025

Greetings,

Re: Complaint under the Official Information Act – MPI response OIA25-0756

This complaint concerns the Ministry for Primary Industries’ refusal to release information sought on 21 October 2025 relating to seaweed tonnage, compliance processes, enforcement prioritisation, and data-handling in matters involving Simon Stott and comparative industry operators.

MPI’s response dated 19 November 2025 relies heavily on sections 6(c), 9(2)(b)(ii), and 18(g) of the OIA. The breadth and manner of that refusal do not meet the statutory duties of transparency, reasonableness, accountability, or the presumption of availability under the Act.

The decision fails to explain:

• how the release of historical, non-evidential, or aggregated data would prejudice the maintenance of the law

• how supplying Mr Stott’s own commercial information to someone acting on his behalf could prejudice his commercial position

• what searches were undertaken before claiming that comparative analysis “does not exist”

• how enforcement actions can be exercised without the processes, policies, or internal reasoning that MPI now claims it does not hold

The OIA requires that any withholding grounds be applied narrowly and justified specifically. MPI’s response instead uses broad, blanket reasoning across multiple distinct categories of information, including policy material, operator comparisons, and procedural details that have no realistic connection to prejudicing any active proceedings.

This approach falls below the standard required of an agency exercising powers under statute. Agencies are accountable for their decision-making processes and must demonstrate that decisions to withhold information are grounded in evidence, proper search, and a clear understanding of the purpose and limits of the Act.

In this case, those requirements do not appear to have been met.

1. Section 6(c) – applied without adequate justification

MPI invoked section 6(c) across a wide range of material that is neither evidential nor sensitive in nature, including:

• historic tonnage data

• internal process descriptions

• recording/reporting frameworks

• basic identification of who handled data and under what instructions

• pre-investigation communications

• operator-comparison documents that inform risk assessments

Releasing aggregated, redacted, or anonymised versions of these documents would not prejudice the prevention, investigation, or detection of offences, nor the right to a fair trial. MPI has not demonstrated otherwise.

2. Section 9(2)(b)(ii) – misapplied to information concerning Mr Stott

MPI refused information relating to Mr Stott on the basis that disclosure would be likely to prejudice his commercial position.

The information is being requested by someone acting for him.

There is no explanation as to how providing a person with their own information constitutes a risk to their commercial position. That reasoning is circular and fails to meet the statutory requirement for clear justification.

3. Section 18(g) – claim that information “does not exist”

MPI states that it holds no internal assessments, comparisons, or environmental/economic impact analyses concerning operators in the seaweed sector.

This is difficult to reconcile with:

• MPI’s role in sector compliance

• its climate and environmental briefings

• its reporting obligations

• its enforcement prioritisation

• and the aggregated tonnage tables MPI itself supplied

If enforcement actions are being taken, there must be processes, assessments, or internal reasoning documents underpinning those actions. If MPI maintains that none exist, then there is a separate and serious issue concerning record-keeping and decision accountability.

4. Broader accountability issues

This OIA request was part of a systematic review of MPI’s conduct and documentation, and more than 2,000 pages of associated material have been examined. None of the missing information appears within MPI’s own provided records.

If MPI is taking enforcement action without holding the processes, documentation, or assessments required to justify its decisions, this raises a fundamental question of compliance with the Public Service principles of:

• transparency

• stewardship

• proper record-keeping

• reasoned decision-making

• lawful exercise of delegated powers

The OIA is one of the mechanisms through which those obligations are tested. MPI’s response obstructs that process.

5. Outcome sought

I request that the Ombudsman:

1. Investigate MPI’s handling of OIA25-0756, including the breadth of the withholding and the adequacy of document searches.

2. Require MPI to produce a proper schedule of documents located, with clear withholding grounds for each.

3. Require release of all information that can be reasonably provided, including:

• policy documents

• SOPs

• internal guidance

• risk or prioritisation material

• operator-comparison information

• recording and reporting processes

• any reasoning documents relied on in decision-making

4. Review whether MPI’s record-keeping and reasoning meet the standards required of an agency exercising statutory enforcement powers.

The refusals, as issued, prevent meaningful scrutiny and prevent a fair and accurate understanding of the agency’s basis for its actions.

In good faith

By:Tracy Lynch For Simon Stott

Attorney – InLandsAirWater Counsel – Private Trust

PO Box 265

Queenstown

[email protected]