OIA25-0728 URGENT matter Ombudsman

I write to request an urgent review under the Official Information Act 1982 in relation to the Ministry for Primary Industries’ handling of multiple OIA requests concerning agricultural approvals, downstream environmental effects, and subsequent enforcement positions.

This correspondence is framed deliberately to assist the Ombudsman’s Office to act promptly and safely within its statutory mandate, without prejudicing any party.

1. Nature of the Issue Before the Ombudsman

The issue raised is not evidential and does not concern the merits of any prosecution.

It concerns a systemic governance question:

> whether MPI is lawfully entitled to withhold, or decline to disclose, administrative approval records, scientific thresholds relied upon at the time of approval, and subsequent reclassification or reversal decisions, where approved agricultural inputs predictably enter freshwater and marine environments and are later treated as unlawful contamination attributed to landholders.

This is a question of regulatory consistency, transparency, and administrative fairness.

2. Improper Reliance on Withholding Grounds

MPI has repeatedly relied on:

– prosecution-related withholding grounds, and

– assertions of lack of particularity,

to avoid engaging with requests that are, in substance:

– policy-based,

– administrative in nature, and

– unrelated to evidential material.

In doing so, MPI appears to have collapsed the distinction between:

– enforcement activity; and

– the upstream approval and governance decisions that give rise to predictable downstream effects.

That distinction is well established in Ombudsman guidance and OIA practice.

 3. Marine Contamination and Coastal Stewardship Context

The approvals in question directly affect:

– freshwater systems,

– estuaries, and

– coastal and marine environments.

Where a regulator approves substances with known or reasonably anticipated downstream migration into marine environments, coastal stewardship obligations are engaged at the point of approval, not retrospectively at enforcement.

Failure to disclose:

– approval pathways,

– scientific thresholds, and

– reversal decision records

undermines public confidence in environmental governance and creates a material risk of retrospective blame-shifting.

This raises a public-interest transparency issue squarely within the Ombudsman’s oversight function.

4. Request for Expedited Handling

Given:

– the systemic nature of the issue,

– the recurring pattern of refusal across requests, and

– the implications for environmental regulation and marine stewardship,

I respectfully request that the Ombudsman:

1. Prioritise this complaint for early assessment;

2. Determine whether MPI is obliged to disclose:

   – approval instruments,

   – scientific standards relied upon at approval,

   – and records of any subsequent reclassification or reversal; and

3. Provide guidance to MPI clarifying the boundary between evidential withholding and disclosure of governance records.

This request is made to enable the Ombudsman’s Office to act decisively, proportionately, and without undue delay, consistent with its statutory role.

 5. Closing

This matter is presented in good faith and with respect for the Ombudsman’s independence.

Clarity at this stage will assist all parties, reduce unnecessary escalation, and uphold the integrity of environmental and administrative oversight.

Tracy Lynch

Attorney

InLandsAirWater Counsel – Private Trust

PO Box 265

Queenstown