Ferry agency turns to top law firm over information request
Thursday, 4 December 2025
“The previous government spent hundreds of millions on consultants instead of buildings.”
Winston Peters delivered that line during an interview in August, defending the coalition’s decision to scrap the long-planned iReX ferry replacement project.
But while the Minister of Rail criticised bureaucratic bloat and consultant culture, the new state-owned entity now charged with delivering the ferries has turned to one of the country’s most expensive commercial law firms to fend off an Official Information Act request from The Post.
Ferry Holdings Ltd – created in March to salvage a cheaper version of the Cook Strait upgrade – engaged MinterEllisonRuddWatts after declining the request and facing a complaint to the Office of the Ombudsman.
The request sought information about the scope, risks and cost pressures of the new “minimal-infrastructure” plan that replaced iReX.
Read more:
New Interislander ferries: From mega blowout to managed pain
How much Winston Peters’ Cook Strait ferries deal has actually saved
Ferry Holdings refused the request under three separate sections of the legislation, but without specifying which parts of the request were covered by which grounds.
Instead, the company issued a blanket refusal, saying the information was “soon” to be publicly available because it proactively planned to publish documents in February. However, the Ombudsman’s guidance to public service agencies says this section of the legislation can only be used when release is imminent.
Ferry Holdings also cited grounds that releasing some of the information would prejudice commercial activities and negotiations. But none of these reasons were tied to specific documents or categories, as the Act requires.
Following the refusal, The Post wrote to Ferry Holdings this week pointing the misapplication of the legislation, the absence of a proper breakdown, and a failure to consider partial release.
There was no response. However, The Post understands the company sought advice from the law firm.
When asked about this, chief executive Sandip Ranchhod sent a statement.
“FHL is a new entity that was established in March 2025 and currently has 10 permanent staff,” he wrote. “MinterEllisonRuddWatts provides us with legal advice for a range of issues. This includes commercial, contractual, and legal support.
“Ferry Holdings is not a large government department and does not handle a high volume of OIA requests and thus does not have a dedicated in-house legal or OIA team to manage these requests.”
A review of responses to Ferry Holdings’ own website reveals that of all the OIA requests the company has proactively published, every one has been declined in full except a single, heavily redacted release.
“We take our obligations under the OIA seriously and acknowledge the public interest in the Cook Strait Ferry Replacement Programme. We are committed to responding to all OIA requests in line with our legislative requirements and timeframes,” Ranchhod said.
A fragmented structure governs the Cook Strait upgrade.
Port Marlborough owns and operates the Picton ferry terminal and is jointly owned by Marlborough District Council and iwi. CentrePort is owned by Greater Wellington and Horizons regional councils.
Marlborough District Council took a similar approach to Ferry Holdings.
When asked for records relating to the future of ferry infrastructure since November 2023, a period that includes the cancellation of iReX, the creation of Ferry Holdings and the start of a complete redesign of the Cook Strait project, the council initially claimed it held no information at all.
Its refusal stated, repeatedly, that because “no new decision has been made since 2022”, there were no relevant documents, emails, briefings, or correspondence.
When challenged, the council said it had engaged with ministers, officials and Port Marlborough on the ferry infrastructure, it had received information about potential costs and funding responsibilities and preparatory material may exist.
It also said this material may be “commercially sensitive” or legally privileged.
The council is now undertaking a “full search” for the information it originally said it did not hold.
Port Marlborough refused to release requested information, saying that it is not covered by the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act, but insisting it is “committed to transparent communications and reporting”.
Horizons Regional Council claimed it “holds no information regarding this project” other than CentrePort’s annual report.
Greater Wellington Regional Council said an initial email “identified over 10,000 potentially relevant items, totalling more than 100 GB of data … and 30 large files.” It has extended the deadline for a response and wants The Post to narrow the scope of its request.