Decision-Making for the Permanent Loss of New Zealand’s Domestic Refining Capability

 

Subject: Official Information Act – Response Incomplete – Decision-Making for the Permanent Loss of New Zealand’s Domestic Refining Capability

Dear Minister Willis,

Thank you for your response.

Having reviewed the material released, I do not accept that it answers the question I was seeking to investigate.

The documents primarily concern contingency planning after New Zealand had already become dependent on imported refined fuel. They describe emergency response measures, fuel disruption scenarios, stockholding, regulatory changes, and supply-chain resilience. They do not explain how or why the earlier strategic decision was made to permanently remove New Zealand’s domestic refining capability.

That is the central issue.

If billions of dollars of strategic national infrastructure were allowed to become unusable, then someone assessed the risks, someone approved the expenditure, someone signed the recommendations, and someone accepted responsibility for the consequences.

I therefore seek the records that answer the following questions:

Who recommended the permanent decommissioning and physical alteration of the Marsden Point refinery?

Who approved that recommendation?

What economic modelling was relied upon?

What strategic or national security assessment concluded that New Zealand would be better served by complete reliance on imported refined fuel?

What alternatives were considered, including continued refining, mothballing, strategic reserve capability, or maintaining recommissioning options?

What cost-benefit analysis supported the decision?

What public funding was committed to the decommissioning works?

What assessment was undertaken of the long-term costs of losing domestic refining capability?

Which Ministers, officials, consultants, industry representatives, or external advisers participated in making these recommendations?

Who now accepts responsibility for the consequences of that decision?

The documents released demonstrate that Government subsequently devoted significant effort to managing fuel shortages, supply disruption, import dependency, and emergency fuel planning. That naturally raises the question of why the underlying decision that created those risks was considered acceptable.

This is not a political question.

It is a governance question.

Good governance requires decisions to be supported by evidence, analysis, proper consideration of alternatives, and identifiable decision-makers.

If those records exist, they should be disclosed.

If they do not exist, that is itself a matter of considerable public interest.

Please treat this as a refinement and continuation of my request under the Official Information Act 1982.

Yours sincerely,

Tracy Lynch
InLandsAirWater Counsel