$153 million loss. Lakeview crisis builds as QLDC refuses two official information requests.

The Lakeview crisis has deepened as the Queenstown Lakes District Council refused two seperate official information requests - in their entirety.

It is extremely unusual for even one official information request to be 100% refused - but two within a week, on the same subject, is unheard of. Usually a council or Government in New Zealand may redact, or severely redact parts of an OIA or LGOIMA request - but an outright refusal appears to signal an extreme sensitivity to the questions being asked.

One request, under the Local Government Official Meeting and Information Act (LGOIMA) came from Councillor Niki Gladding and the other was from Crux.

Both decisions to refuse all information were ultimately made by Meaghan Miller (main image above), the senior and low profile QLDC manager in charge of all LGOIMA, communications and governance issues.

Both LGOIMA requests sought to gain information and background on the troubled $2 billion Lakeview project at a time when Crux has revealed that ratepayers face a potential $153 million loss if the project goes ahead.

The QLDC refusal to release any information to Councilor Gladding is based on the council's view that releasing information may prejudice the confidentiality and "market process" of commercial negotiations. Given the secretive Lakeview deal was done back between 2017 and 2019 it is hard to understand any ongoing commercial sensitivity or "market process."

These were the questions asked by Councillor Gladding on June 16, 2025. She expected answers to be immediate, as an employer to employee (councillors employ the QLDC Chief executive) but instead her questions (against her will) were turned into an LGOIMA request.

1. Firstly, can you please confirm the settlement deadline [of the Lakeview development]?

2. Secondly, could you please provide a table setting out:

a. Each settlement condition in the contract

b. Your most up to date information on compliance with each settlement condition - in detail.

c. Any conditions that are not 'on track' to meet or may not meet the deadline and how you plan to address this including: who you will be informing and seeking advice from, and any undertakings that have been made to the developer.

3. Thirdly, could you set out progress with agreeing costs and responsibilities in relation to the funding, construction, maintenance, and any liability matters related to the integrated stormwater works."

Source: Councillor Gladding questions to QLDC on June 16, 2025.

In a letter to Councillor Gladding the QLDC goes to unusual lengths in an attempt to justify their decision to release no information at all.

"QLDC Decision to withhold information"

"We have good reason under section 7(2)(b)(ii), section 7(2)(c)(i), section 7(2)(h) and section 7(2)(i) of the LGOIMA for withholding information requested. We consider it is necessary to withhold this information on the basis of the following grounds:

• Section 7(2)(b) - the withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information—

(ii) would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information.

• Section 7(2)(c) - the withholding of the information is necessary to protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the information—

1 (iii) would be likely to prejudice the supply of similar information, or information from the same source, and it is in the public interest that such information should continue to be supplied.

• Section 7(2)(h) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable any local authority holding the information to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.

• Section 7(2)(i) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable any local authority holding the information to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).

Section 7(2)(b)(ii) of the LGOIMA is designed to safeguard information whose release could unreasonably prejudice the commercial position of naturals persons or entities involved. This provision acknowledges the importance of protecting sensitive commercial data, which is vital for maintaining competitive advantages and fostering a healthy business environment.

In this case, the information withheld relates to sensitive details, disclosure of which could jeopardise the integrity of the market process and pose risks to the successful progression of the project. Sharing this data at this stage would undermine the competitive environment essential for a fair and secure tendering process.

The need to preserve the commercial interests of the entity involved outweighs any public interest in transparency regarding this information. Therefore, withholding the requested details is essential to protect the integrity of commercial operations and encourage ongoing business confidence.

Section 7(2)(c)(i) of the LGOIMA aims to balance transparency with the protection of sensitive information. This provision is essential for maintaining trust in systems where information is shared under confidentiality agreements.

In this case, the statements provided to Council were given with the understanding of strict confidentiality. Disclosing this information could unreasonably prejudice the continued supply of similar or related information by harming the provider's professional reputation. Such harm may deter future engagement, thereby affecting the availability of information.

The public interest often depends on the continued availability of information from confidential sources. If making certain information public would hinder the willingness of sources to provide further valuable insights, the public interest is better served by keeping such information confidential.

Section 7(2)(h) of the LGOIMA is designed to protect the ability of local authorities to carry out commercial activities without facing prejudice or disadvantage. This provision allows for the withholding of information that could potentially harm the competitive position of a local authority or affect its ability to conduct its commercial operations effectively. The purpose of this provision is to balance transparency with the need to ensure that local authorities can manage their commercial activities in a fair and undisturbed manner.

In this case, the withheld information pertains to commercial activities that, if disclosed, could give an unfair advantage to competitors or disrupt the authority’s ability to negotiate or engage in commercial dealings. The withholding of this information ensures that the local authority can continue its activities without the risk of harm or disadvantage.

2 Therefore, the need to protect the local authority’s commercial activities outweighs the public interest in the information being made available. The information is withheld to prevent any prejudice or disadvantage to the local authority’s ability to carry out its business effectively.

Section 7(2)(i) of the LGOIMA is intended to protect the ability of local authorities to conduct negotiations—whether commercial, industrial, or otherwise—without facing prejudice or disadvantage. This provision recognises that premature disclosure of certain information can undermine a council’s bargaining position, weaken its leverage, or otherwise affect the fairness and outcome of negotiations.

In this case, the information has been withheld because it relates to ongoing or anticipated negotiations, where public release could compromise the local authority’s ability to secure the best outcome or engage on equal footing. Disclosure could influence the actions or expectations of other parties involved, potentially leading to financial or strategic disadvantage.

Accordingly, the need to preserve the integrity of these negotiations outweighs the public interest in releasing the information at this time. The information is withheld to ensure the local authority can carry out its functions without undue disadvantage.

"Public interest considerations"

When making decisions about withholding information, we carefully consider the public interest including whether release would promote transparency, accountability, or informed public participation. We also assess whether those public interest considerations are strong enough to outweigh the reasons for withholding the information.

The Council recognises the important role councillors plays in holding local government to account. While councillors have some common law rights to access information necessary for their duties, any information not covered by those rights falls under the purview of the LGOIMA.

QLDC recognises the public interest in promoting transparency and accountability of local authority members and officials, as well as the broader interest in good government. We are committed to releasing information wherever possible. However, in this instance, QLDC considers that the need to withhold the information —on the basis that its release would be likely to unreasonably prejudice the commercial position of the party concerned—is a consideration not outweighed by the public interest in favour of disclosure.

Accordingly, we conclude that section 7(2)(b)(ii) — to protect the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information; section 7(2)(c)(i) — to protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence; section 7(2)(h) — to enable any local authority holding the information to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities; and section 7(2)(i) — to enable any local authority holding the information to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations), of the LGOIMA applies. In this case, that withholding grounds are not outweighed by any overriding public interest in favour of release."

Source: QLDC Democracy Services Team. July 10 2025.

The Crux Request - June 16, 2025.

These were the questions put by Crux under LGOIMA to QLDC on June 16, 2025. The request was comprehensive but QLDC had the tools and the time to release the emails. Crux declined a subsequent QLDC request to severely limit the scope of our request.

1. Correspondence between QLDC’s Mike Theelen and Paul Speedy - between each other and with the external development partners (including but not limited to (94 Feet of Melbourne) since 2017.

2. Correspondence between QLDC’s Mike Theelen and Paul Speedy with elected members and the mayor that mentions Lakeview since 2017.

3. Correspondence between QLDC’s Mike Theelen and Paul Speedy and the NZ Government (departments and Ministers) since 2017.

4. Minutes and presentation made at Council meetings and workshops as well as internal discussion documents that relate to Lakeview.

5. Any advice, business cases, and external advice provided to QLDC by external consultants relating to Lakeview since 2017.

6. Correspondence between QLDC’s Mike Theelen and Paul Speedy - and each other. Since 2017.

This was the refusal released today by QLDC.

"Refusal of information"

We have good grounds under section 17(f) of the LGOIMA for refusing all information requested. We consider it is necessary to refuse the requested information on the basis of the following grounds:

• Section 17(f) - that the information requested cannot be made available without substantial collation or research.

In response to your request, we:

• consulted with the QLDC Strategic Projects and Support Team.

• searched our email archives for relevant correspondence dated from 1 January 2017 to 16 June 2025. This search focused on emails sent to or received from Paul Speedy and email addresses which contained the domain ‘94feet.com’. This search identified 2,376 emails which, following a content review and removal of duplicates, may fall within the scope of your request.

• searched our email archives for relevant correspondence dated from 1 January 2017 to 16 June 2025. This search focused on emails containing the word or phrase ‘Lakeview’, sent to or received from Paul Speedy and all QLDC Councillors. This search identified 332 emails which, following a content review and removal of duplicates, may fall within the scope of your request.

• searched our email archives for relevant correspondence dated from 1 January 2017 to 16 June 2025. This search focused on emails sent to or received from Mike Theelen and Paul Speedy. This search identified no emails which.

Even after focusing on just three of the six parts of your request, it is clear that fulfilling it in its current form would require substantial collation and research. The volume of information involved is significant, and responding in its present form would place considerable strain on our operations.

We have considered whether charging a fee or extending the response timeframe, as required under section 17(f) of the LGOIMA, would assist in meeting your request. However, we have determined that neither charging nor extending the timeframe would help in this situation. Extending the timeframe would not alleviate the operational challenges we face, and charging would not address the underlying issue of resource constraints in processing such a large volume of information. Therefore, neither charging nor an extension would effectively resolve the issue.

In accordance with section 17(f) of the LGOIMA, we consulted with you on 24 June 2025 and advised that fulfilling your request in its current form would be highly challenging due to the substantial collation or research required. As we did not receive a response, we have decided to refuse your request under section 17(f) of the LGOIMA."

QLDC Democracy Services Team - July 15 2025.