In response to our OIA request, Marlborough District Council stated the following: “We have, as indicated, consulted the third party involved. There is an objection by that third party to the information being released given that most of it contains some details of commercially sensitive matters.”

“There were two exceptions where they were prepared to see information released with minor redactions, these being a presentation and amendments to Heads of Agreement attachment.”

“The other material withheld covers proposals put to Council for consideration. That contains details seen as commercially sensitive.  It was intended to be treated with confidence given that view.”

The withholding grounds are:

• s7(2)(b)(ii) being that release would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied the information.
• s7(2)(h) which is to enable a Local Authority to carry out without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.
• s7(2)(j) prevent the disclosure or use of information for improper gain or improper advantage.

What was provided by Marlborough DC, was heavily redacted. The information included a couple of emails referring to a heads of agreement between MDC and REL; however, no HOA was provided in MDC’s response. 

This prompted a letter to MDC’s CEO, John Boswell, requesting that this information be released as the public interest outweighed the decision to protect the third party and MDC, and that the information requested related to a waste-to-energy proposal in Waimate. 

Given that SIRRL had lodged a resource consent to build and operate a W-t-E plant in Waimate and the company had requested the application to be publicly notified, it seems strange that information about a similar proposal should be withheld from the public. The letter highlighted REL director Kevin Stratful’s history of schooling Councils on how to avoid official Information Act requests in an attempt to withhold information from the public. Also, mentioned was the saga of Westport mayor Gary Howard. While REL was pursuing a W-t-E proposal in Westport, Howard travelled with REL to China to visit W-t-E plants. It was reported that while the mayor was is China he signed secret deals with Chinese W-t-E company China Tianying without the knowledge of his Council. 

The Marlborough DC CEO chose not to reply to WWW’s letter; instead, a reply from the MDC’s district secretary was received stating, “An independent right of review is available to you by the Ombudsman, a fact identified for you in my decision email. It is considered that is a better approach for you to take.”

“The Chief Executive and Council’s General Counsel have noted the approach I am taking in this email and agree with it.”

This seems a rather peculiar response, given that the Ombudsman’s website advises seeking a resolution with the Council before making an Ombudsman complaint. There has been no attempt by MDC to seek a resolution on this matter.

A May 2017 Stuff article titled ‘Marlborough maintains ‘agreement’ with Renew Energy after company abandons Westport plan’ quoted the MDC solid waste manager as saying that MDC had a heads-of-agreement with REL and that the Council would continue to support any future W-t-E proposal by Renew Energy.

As pointed out, SIRRL has stated that they have agreements and understandings to acquire 365,000 tonnes of waste annually. We know from the Stuff article that in 2017, MDC had an agreement with REL and that the Council would continue to support REL; however, the Council refuses to shed light on what that agreement is.

Marlborough District Council’s reluctance to disclose the agreement with REL raises serious questions about the council’s transparency and accountability. Is Marlborough planning to supply waste that will be transported hundreds of kilometres to Waimate for incineration?

If the waste-to-energy proposal has the merit that the proponents claim, why is there a need for such extensive secrecy? The public has a right to know and understand the details of such a significant project, they also have the right to full transparency by Councils.

While SIRRL claims to be involving the community by requesting that its resource consent be publicly notified, this is merely a token gesture, as they have continued to withhold as much information as possible from public view.
W-t-E companies seem to follow a formula of canvassing Councils for support, employing public relations firms to target key influencers and decision-makers, and controlling a narrative by greenwashing these proposals as renewable energy generators that replace outdated landfilling practices.
Communities that stand to lose the most from these proposals are deliberately kept in the dark by withholding important information until the lodgement of resource consents. This provides the community with as little time as possible to research these proposals and learn the actual hidden costs of waste incineration, such as increased air pollution, associated health and environmental impacts, and the perpetuation of a linear economy that encourages waste generation.