Selective Enforcement, Unequal Treatment, and Exercise of Discretion – Seaweed / Novel Feed Regulation

OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT REQUEST

Selective Enforcement, Unequal Treatment, and Exercise of Discretion – Seaweed / Novel Feed Regulation

To:

Official Information Act Requests

Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI)

Email: [email protected]

Dated today 9th January 2026

Request under the Official Information Act 1982

Hello,

This request is made under the Official Information Act 1982.

I seek information relating to the exercise of regulatory discretion, enforcement prioritisation, and consistency of treatment by the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) in relation to seaweed-based products, marine-derived feeds, supplements, or additives, including (but not limited to) products associated with methane reduction, animal health, productivity, or environmental outcomes.

This request is made to assess whether MPI’s regulatory actions have been applied consistently, proportionately, and in accordance with principles of natural justice and administrative law, and whether similarly situated persons or entities are being treated equally.

1. Enforcement actions and decisions

For the period 1 January 2018 to the present, please provide:

1.1 A list of all enforcement actions, investigations, compliance notices, warnings, prohibitions, or other regulatory interventions undertaken or initiated by MPI (or any delegated authority) in relation to:

• Seaweed-based products

• Marine-derived feeds or supplements

• Novel animal feed ingredients of marine origin

1.2 For each action identified, please include:

• The nature of the alleged or identified non-compliance

• The statutory or regulatory provisions relied upon

• The regulatory outcome (for example: warning issued, prohibition imposed, prosecution commenced, matter resolved with no further action)

2. Comparative treatment and selective enforcement

2.1 Copies of, or references to, policies, guidelines, decision matrices, or risk-based frameworksused by MPI to determine:

• Which operators or activities are selected for investigation or enforcement

• Which operators or activities are permitted to proceed under monitoring, trials, exemptions, or alternative compliance pathways

2.2 Any documents that describe or guide differential treatment between:

• Individual operators or small enterprises

• Commercial corporate entities

• Crown-funded, Crown-affiliated, or institutionally partnered research or industry trials

3. Discretion, exemptions, and alternative pathways

3.1 Details of any exemptions, approvals, pilot permissions, research allowances, discretionary decisions, or alternative compliance pathways granted by MPI in relation to seaweed-based or marine-derived products during the same period.

3.2 For each exemption, approval, or allowance identified, please provide:

• The legal or regulatory authority relied upon

• The general category of operator (for example: private individual, small enterprise, corporate entity, Crown or research partner)

• Any conditions or limitations attached to that decision

4. Internal communications and decision rationale

4.1 Copies of internal communications (including emails, briefings, memoranda, or meeting notes) that discuss:

• Enforcement priorities or approaches relating to seaweed-based or novel marine-derived products

• Considerations relevant to reputational, commercial, sector-wide, or policy impacts influencing enforcement decisions

• Comparisons or distinctions between enforcement against individual operators and treatment of industry or institutional projects

4.2 Any documents referencing concepts such as selective enforcement, precedent, sector confidence, industry alignment, or proportionality in the context of these regulatory decisions.

5. Natural justice, consistency, and administrative fairness

5.1 MPI policies, guidance, or internal instructions relating to:

• Equal treatment of regulated persons

• Proportionality and consistency in enforcement

• Avoidance of arbitrary or discriminatory application of regulatory powers

5.2 Details of any reviews, audits, internal assessments, or complaints received by MPI that allege or address:

• Unequal or inconsistent treatment of operators

• Improper or disproportionate exercise of regulatory discretion

• Concerns relating to natural justice in the food, feed, or bio-innovation regulatory space

6. Clarification regarding litigation

For the avoidance of doubt, this request does not seek:

• Legal advice

• Litigation strategy

• Draft pleadings

• Evidence prepared specifically for court proceedings

The information sought relates to general enforcement policies, administrative decision-making frameworks, comparator treatment, and the exercise of discretion.

The existence of any current or contemplated court proceedings does not, in itself, provide lawful grounds for withholding the categories of information requested above. Any decision to withhold information is requested to be specifically itemised, with the precise statutory basis identified for each item.

7. Format, timing, and withholding

• Please provide the requested information in electronic format.

• Where information is withheld, please:

• Identify the specific provision of the Official Information Act relied upon

• Provide the required public-interest balancing assessment

• Release all information capable of being provided with appropriate redactions

Purpose of request

This request is made to assess whether MPI’s regulatory actions and exercise of discretion are being applied lawfully, consistently, and in accordance with principles of natural justice and equal treatment, and to understand the administrative frameworks underpinning those decisions.

In good faith

By:Tracy

 

For:STOTT inLandsAirWater counsel PTNDA