Back to the Ombudsman (again): MBIE’s refusal to release health & safety information on the LNG Import Facility

In our continuing effort to secure transparency from the Government as it pursues its proposed LNG Import Facility, we have filed a second complaint with the Ombudsman. This complaint relates to MBIE’s decision to refuse to release information it holds on the health and safety implications of an LNG Import Facility. 

But first, are there even health and safety considerations at play?

A recent article by Chris Beath (former general manager of Shell Todd Oil Services) summarised the risks that an LNG Import facility could have, including explaining that: 

• “Safety is a critical consideration, and Port Taranaki cannot meet modern separation-distance requirements. LNG terminals are typically sited at least 2 km from residential areas. At Port Taranaki, this is impossible”; and 

• “New Zealand has already examined this issue: A 2003 feasibility study for LNG at Port Taranaki was abandoned due to safety concerns, and Gasbridge cancelled a similar study in 2006, instead exploring offshore mooring.”

As Mr Beath explains, “to my knowledge, no modern LNG terminals are being located as close to homes as the proposal for Port Taranaki”. 

what is the complaint about?

In August, we submitted an Official Information Act 1982 (OIA) request, seeking initial safety evaluations prepared by the two shortlisted bidders, together with any associated health and safety information held by MBIE.

On 28 August 2026, MBIE responded to this request, stating that there were two documents in scope, but that both would be withheld in full on the basis of s 9(2)(b)(ii) of the OIA, which allows the Government to withhold official information if the making available of the information would be likely to unreasonably prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; and the need to withhold is not outweighed by the public interest in release.  

You can read our full complaint above, but in short:

• There are ways to provide this information that would not ‘unreasonably’ prejudice the bidders: MBIE’s response to our OIA suggests it does not consider the indicative safety evaluations commercially sensitive in and of themselves, but rather as related to commercially sensitive information in a way that cannot be readily separated. 

  In our view, this is not an insurmountable barrier to releasing at least some information related to safety risks. For example, MBIE could undertake careful redactions, or alternatively provide a narrative summary of any risks identified. 

• Even if the safety evaluations cannot be separated from commercially sensitive material, any need to withhold is plainly outweighed by the public interest in release: This is because:

  1. Health and safety risk acceptance: The local community has significant concerns about the safety of locating an LNG import facility within Port Taranaki. The information requested potentially bears on risks to human health and safety, and it directly affects people’s ability to understand, assess, and decide on their level of risk acceptance. 

  2. Participation before the decision: If the local community cannot access information about the LNG import facility's potential safety risks before an operator is selected, they have no meaningful opportunity to understand and contribute to a decision to site an LNG import facility within Port Taranaki.

  3. Lack of information available in the public sphere: There is a conspicuous absence of information about the safety risks of the LNG import facility. The key Government document is a one-page fact sheet which states that LNG is safe, well established overseas, and that there are many LNG import facilities that operate safely in urban areas. However, it does not identify any of the potential risks of the LNG import facility. 

  4. The upcoming election heightens the need for transparency: Disclosure is particularly important in the lead-up to the November election. As the Ombudsman found in our earlier successful LNG Complaint: 

     1. “...[t]his being a general-election year adds to the importance of the accountability and transparency of the current government. It heightens the interest in knowing more about the rationale behind the quality of the government’s decision making, which could help to inform the public on how they wish to vote, in order to shape the New Zealand government beyond this year.” 

     If the current Government is re-elected, it is likely the LNG import facility will proceed. Members of the public are therefore entitled to key information about potential safety concerns relevant to the LNG import facility before the election, so that voters can form their own opinions.

  5. Significant amount of public money involved affecting the weight of the public interest: The amount of public money involved can affect the weight of the public interest in disclosure. In this case, the LNG import facility is estimated to cost $90-180 million per year over a 15-year period (this accounts for the facility itself, excluding the cost of importing LNG). At the top end of the scale, this is a total cost of $2.7 billion - a very significant outlay of public money. There is a level of speculation and controversy about whether the LNG import facility is actually required, and the total cost for the country. This raises public interest in disclosure to provide assurance that the LNG import facility is the right approach.

What happens next?

Given the procurement timetable and the proximity of the election, we have asked that an inquiry is undertaken with enough time for the information to be released before the election. A decision of this magnitude, both in terms of cost, and safety and environmental concerns deserves full transparency and scrutiny. 

Find out more about our first LNG Import facility Ombudsman complaint here.