Ombudsman Complaint Filed Over The Government’s Refusal To Release Key LNG Modelling Conclusions – Lawyers for Climate Action

Lawyers for Climate Action and the New Zealand Climate Foundation have filed a complaint with the Ombudsman, challenging MBIE’s decision to withhold critical conclusions from the modelling underpinning the Government’s decision to proceed with a $2.7B LNG Import Facility. The facility will be funded by a levy on every New Zealand electricity consumer.

After first requesting the report in February 2026, a slide deck prepared by Concept Consulting was released in April – but with key slides, including what appear to be the executive summary, conclusions, and recommendations, redacted under the ‘free and frank opinions’ withholding ground of the Official Information Act 1982.”

Why full release matters

“The government is withholding some of the most important information about the modelling”, says Jessica Palairet, Executive Director of Lawyers for Climate Action.

“If the LNG Import Facility proceeds, New Zealanders will be asked to pay a compulsory levy on their power bills to fund a billion-dollar fossil fuel terminal. They deserve to see the full evidence base for this decision, including whether the modellers actually thought it was a good idea”.

“Concerningly, there are redactions on a slide discussing the linkages between New Zealand’s electricity system and international energy markets, where the report notes that “the modelling has not considered the potential impact of international fuel price volatility”.

“MBIE is relying on the “free and frank opinions” exception in the Official Information Act. However, the Ombudsman’s own guidance is clear: this exception only applies where disclosure would have a chilling effect on the willingness to express opinions freely. The Ombudsman has repeatedly found that this is unlikely to apply to external consultants who have been commissioned by government agencies”.

“Even if that exception applies, we think there is strong public interest in favour of release”.

“This is a decision with major implications for household bills, for New Zealand’s climate commitments, and for whether we lock ourselves into decades of fossil fuel dependency, particularly in the middle of a global energy crisis. Protecting transparency is a matter of critical public interest”, says Palairet.

What the released material reveals

What makes this more concerning is that the released parts of the document raise new, significant questions about the strength of the case for LNG:

The analysis – undertaken before the Iran war – did not consider the risk of international LNG price volatility for New Zealand electricity prices and the New Zealand economy”.

The analysis assumes “unlimited gas supply deliverability”, noting this is a “key assumption for LNG to deliver benefit”. The analysis does not appear to have assessed practical constraints on LNG shipments (time to order, time for delivery, minimum volume, etc.) that could undermine this key assumption.

The slides show that gas distribution companies expect non-electricity gas demand to drop more quickly than modelled in the scenarios, suggesting that pressure on the gas system may be overstated.

The gas scenarios show a tranche of “extra gas available” in 2028 and 2029, which appears to then be saved for use post-2030. While the explanation of this is withheld, it raises serious questions about the urgency of 2028 LNG delivery.

The $90-$180M annual costs for the LNG terminal are higher than annual system cost savings from LNG under even the most extreme scenarios, calling into question the economic rationale.

Development of additional underground gas storage (the Tariki field) essentially removes any benefit from LNG to the electricity sector, through “being able to store even greater amounts of gas during ‘wet’ periods and deliver much greater quantities when required during ‘dry’ periods”. This raises the question as to why a final decision on LNG is not contingent on whether this gas storage is developed.”

The scenarios also reinforce that the single most critical factor in improving electricity security and lowering electricity prices is to keep the build of renewable generation on track: the released material fails to address why this is not the government’s primary focus.

Next steps

“We have sought for the complaint to be resolved with urgency”, says Palairet.

“The Government aims to finalise a contract by mid-2026. There is a short window of time for independent analysis and scrutiny ahead of the Government’s final decisions on this $2.7B commitment”.

NOTES:

1. The Concept Consulting report was released as a document LNG_008_7 in an OIA response bundle, available on request.

2. Lawyers for Climate Action and the Climate Foundation first sent an OIA requesting the urgent release of the full report on 20 February 2026. They made a complaint to the Ombudsman on 20 March, after MBIE failed to release that information, and they eventually received the redacted documents on 13 April 2026. Available on request. 3. The Ombudsman’s guide to section 9(2)(g)(i) is available at:

https://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/resources/free-and-frank-opinions-guide-sec tion-92gi-oia-and-section-72fi-lgoima