Open main menu Close main menu
Search by keyword

Resources and publications

Ngā rauemi me ngā tānga

Search guides, case notes, opinions, reports and other information. Resources and publications can also be searched by date and other options. 

Use the search bar to make your search. Then use the filters to narrow down the results by resource type or topic. 

More information about the resource categories on this page
Search by keyword

52 Resources Show all

  • Ex-gratia payment for superannuitant in receipt of overseas pension

    Case notes
    Request by superannuitant for ex-gratia payment for deduction of voluntary component of overseas pension from New Zealand superannuation – Ministry of Social Development failed to advise superannuitant of discretion to defer commencement of deductio

  • Request for RMA side agreement between Council and iwi

    Case notes
    Section 7(2)(c)(ii) LGOIMA applied—agreement contained express obligation of confidence— release would be likely to damage the public interest in encouraging parties to settle their disputes without resorting to litigation—public interest in accountabil

  • Decision by public transport operator not to reimburse charges incurred due to unavailability of public transport services

    Case notes
    Complainant unable to board public transport service within 30-minute transfer period incurs extra charges—operator declines to provide a refund citing its policy—complainant alleges an obligation to provide services to all destinations within 30 mi

  • Charge for supply of information about the closure of Naenae Pool

    Case notes
    Decision to charge $228 for supply of information about the closure of Naenae pool was unreasonable—the significance of the issue within the Lower Hutt community warranted a full waiver of that charge—Council agreed to waive the fee and change its charg

  • Request for information on public service chief executive pay and remuneration

    Case notes
    Request for information on chief executive pay and remuneration—s 9(2)(a) did not provide good reason to withhold total chief executive pay—disclosure recommended by the Chief Ombudsman—s 9(2)(a) did provide good reason to withhold individual compon

  • Response of Board of Trustees to parents’ complaint about bullying

    Case notes
    Failure of school to deal effectively with bullying of autistic and gifted student – parents complain to Board of Trustees – response received a year later- parents highly dissatisfied – investigation discloses that independent review conducted without

  • Request for Police Commissioner’s letter to the Minister about Deputy Commissioner

    Case notes
    Request for letter written by the Police Commissioner to the Minister of Police about response to Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) findings on bullying complaints about Deputy Police Commissioner—s 9(2)(a) applied—information related to t

  • Request for Chief Executive’s performance agreement and KPIs

    Case notes
    Request for Chief Executive’s performance agreement and KPIs—s 7(2)(a) LGOIMA did not provide good reason to withhold most of the performance agreements and KPIs—however, s 7(2)(c)(ii) provided good reason to withhold ‘stretch targets’—there was a m

  • Decision not to include proposal in shortlist for Christchurch regeneration area plan

    Case notes
    Complainant’s proposal for the draft Ōtākaro/Avon River Corridor Regeneration Plan excluded from shortlist of proposals for public notification—complainant alleged assessment of proposal flawed, failure of agency to engage with complainant regarding

  • Submission of the Ombudsman - OIA consultation July 2019

    Projects, reference & data, Submissions
    In March, the Ministry of Justice announced a public consultation on matters relating to the Official Information Act.

  • Request for staff names and initials in Commerce Commission memorandum

    Case notes
    Section 9(2)(a) OIA did not apply—not necessary to withhold staff names to protect their privacy—section 9(2)(g)(ii) did not apply—no information to suggest release would lead to improper pressure or harassment—section 9(2)(g)(i) did not apply—no reason

  • Request for correspondence between agencies and Operation Burnham inquiry

    Case notes
    Information held by agencies was ‘official information’—no exclusions applied—section 32 of the Inquiries Act did not change the status of the information held by agencies as ‘official’— information released with redactions

  • Request for emails generated in the course of the Ombudsman’s preliminary inquiries

    Case notes
    This case note relates to the Ombudsman’s investigation and review of a decision by the Ministry of Education to redact some information from its email responses to the Ombudsman’s preliminary inquiries.

  • Request for names and contact details in Department of Corrections’ emails

    Case notes
    Section 9(2)(a) OIA did not apply to names—many of the names were publicly available— seniority— section 9(2)(g)(ii) did not apply to names—no evidence to suggest release would lead to improper pressure or harassment—section 9(2)(a) did not apply to ema

  • Request for information about Operation Burnham

    Case notes
    Section 6(c) can potentially apply to prevent prejudice to the conduct of an inquiry under the Inquiries Act—however, blanket refusal was not justified—basic and uncontested factual material could be provided—section 6(c) applied where questions sought

  • Request for drafting instructions on the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Bill

    Case notes
    Parliamentary Privilege Act 2014 did not provide a statutory bar on the Ombudsman’s investigation of a complaint under the OIA—section 9(2)(h) applied—withholding necessary to maintain legal professional privilege—no public interest override

  • Request for officials’ names in information about glyphosate

    Case notes
    Section 9(2)(a) OIA did not apply—not necessary to withhold staff names to protect their privacy—section 9(2)(g)(ii) did not apply—no information to suggest release would lead to improper pressure or harassment—possibility of public criticism not enough

  • Request for emails between officials discussing the advice that should be tendered on the answering of parliamentary questions

    Case notes
    Parliamentary Privilege Act 2014 did not provide a statutory bar on the Ombudsman’s investigation of a complaint under the OIA—section 9(2)(g)(i) applied—release would prejudice the free and frank expression of similar communications in future—no public

  • Request for contact details of Housing New Zealand staff

    Case notes
    Section 9(2)(g)(ii) OIA applied—there was a strong likelihood that staff would be subjected to further harassment or improper pressure if the requester obtained their contact details—this conduct could detrimentally affect staff thus impairing HNZ’s abi

  • Request for offender’s photo on police file

    Case notes
    Rape victim sought photograph of attacker whose face she had never seen—Police refused the request to protect the privacy of the offender—s 9(2)(a) applied—public interest in assisting victims of crime to recover from trauma and move on with their lives—balance of competing privacy and public interest considerations needed to be made—appropriate to make photograph available for viewing subject to appropriate conditions

  • Request for qualifications and work history of staff at Polytechnic Department

    Case notes
    Request for details about staff at Polytechnic—withheld under s 9(2)(a) to protect privacy—public interest in ensuring employment practices of Polytechnic are transparent and fair—met by summary release of staff details and selection process

  • Request for copy of competitor’s licence deed

    Case notes
    Ferry service operator requested copy of competitor’s licence deed from ferry terminal facility owner—request refused under s 7(2)(b)(ii) LGOIMA on basis release would prejudice commercial position of licensee—licensee argued that it had originally negotiated licence in atmosphere of complete commercial confidentiality with then port authority at a time when neither party was subject to LGOIMA—Ombudsman considered s 8 LGOIMA and s 75 Local Government Act 2002—neither Act contains transitional or saving provisions concerning information held by private bodies that later become subject to this legislation—request for such information should therefore be considered in same way as any other LGOIMA request—Ombudsman found no commercial prejudice likely and strong public interest in release—facility owner released information.

  • Request for ACC notice board bulletin

    Case notes
    Requester sought a copy of ACC notice board bulletin - bulletin contains commentary and advice on various court decisions - prepared by practising solicitor in his professional capacity - purpose is to give general legal advice to case managers who routinely request and rely upon it - refused under s 9(2)(h) - legal professional privilege applies - no waiver even though it was distributed widely amongst ACC staff - marked confidential and subject to privilege - no public interest in release that outweighed strong public interest in ensuring privilege is maintained.

  • Request for names and email addresses of people consulted on draft speech

    Case notes
    Recipients and senders of emails consulted—disclosure would not inhibit senior public servants from expressing free and frank opinions in future—however others would be inhibited

  • Delays by Te Puni Kōkiri in responding to requests from opposition researcher

    Case notes
    Blanket policy to consult Minister on all OIA requests unlawful—Ministerial ‘clearance’ or ‘approval’ of agency OIA requests not permitted

  • OIA request extension notified outside time limit

    Case notes
    Request for large amount of information relating to tobacco control—extension to time limit for responding to request required—extension notified outside time limit in s 15A—deemed a refusal—no further investigation required as decision on request pending

  • Request by mother for copy of letter she viewed at her son’s family group conference

    Case notes
    Mother requested copy of letter she viewed at her son’s family group conference—refused under s 18(c)(i) because all FGC matters are confidential—s 38 of Children, Young Persons and their Families Act 1989—disclosing letter to person who attended FGC does not amount to ‘publishing’ as prohibited by s 38—letter released with proviso

  • Request for draft answers to parliamentary questions prepared by Police staff

    Case notes
    Section 9(2)(g)(i) applied—release would prejudice the free and frank expression of similar communications in future—no public interest override

  • Request for comments on early draft cabinet papers

    Case notes
    Request for documents regarding Kyoto Protocol—information contained initial Treasury comments on draft versions of cabinet paper—part of informal consultation early in policy making process—concern that release would result in officials being less co-operative and formalise the process—withholding necessary to maintain effective conduct of public affairs

  • Request for NZSIS files concerning two NZ scholars

    Case notes
    Writer sought NZSIS files on two individuals—Refused under s 6—bulk of information had been provided by overseas authorities under strict confidentiality agreements—various agencies consulted—some consented to release whereas others did not—complainant agreed to contact overseas agencies directly—ss 6(a) and 6(b) applied—release contrary to agreement would compromise quality and supply of similar information in future which would prejudice NZ’s security—some information released with identifiers deleted

  • Request for printed copies of Ministers’ official diaries

    Case notes
    Request for printed copies of certain Ministers’ official diaries covering a three month period—printed copies of the diaries released with certain names and contact details deleted—a Minister’s diary per se is official information but not all the i

  • Request by Korean company for information relating to Ministry of Defence decision not to shortlist the company

    Case notes
    Solicitors for Korean based company sought information on Ministry of Defence’s decision not to shortlist company in tender process—Ministry argued solicitors were agent for company which had no rights under the OIA—evidence suggested company had a place of business in New Zealand—s 12(1)(e) applied