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
Guides
Commonly used guides include:
- The OIA for Ministers and agencies
- The LGOIMA for local government agencies
- Making official information requests: a guide for requesters
Detailed guidance on the official information legislation and aspects of good administrative practice.
We also have guidance on disability rights and protected disclosures.
Case notes and opinions
Case notes are a short case summary, often demonstrating an aspect of a case.
An Ombudsman's Opinion is published where there is public interest in showing the full details of a case.
Reports
Reports include OPCAT, disability rights, official information practice and systemic investigation.
Outreach
Contains our media releases, newsletters, pamphlets, speeches and fact sheets. Fact sheets are published in multiple language and accessible formats.
Corporate documents
This includes our annual reports and strategic intentions.
Projects, reference and data
This includes our official information complaints data, updates on investigations and other projects, and submissions by the Ombudsman.
View all projects, reference and data
Template letters and work sheets
These template letters and work sheets can be used by agencies to help respond to official information requests.
104 Resources Show all
Request for draft document on Starting Price Adjustment Input Methodology
OpinionsFor the reasons set out below, I am of the opinion that the Commerce Commission was entitled, under section 9(2)(g)(i) of the Official Information Act 1982 (OIA), to withhold a copy of a draft of a Starting Price Adjustment Input Methodology requeRequest for advice regarding proposals for the future of Christchurch education
Case notesDecision was not justified under s 9(2)(f)(iv) because Cabinet had already made high level decisions and the key elements of the plan had been announced—strong public interest in releaseRequest for draft report to Ombudsman
Case notesRelease of draft report to Ombudsman would inhibit the free and frank expression of opinions—s 9(2)(g)(i) appliesRequest for Cabinet paper on decision to retain newborn blood spot cards
Case notesDecisions had been made—information did not reveal advice that would subsequently be tendered—s 9(2)(f)(iv) does not applyRequest for report on application to enter negotiations to integrate school
Case notesWhile the report itself had been considered, it was part of a longer term process of advice—disclosure would prejudice the orderly and effective conduct of ongoing advisory and decision making processesRequest for communications strategy relating to legal aid reform
Case notesRequest for information about a communications strategy—s 9(2)(g)(i) provides good reason to withhold two sentencesRequest for comments generated during OIA decision making process
Case notesDisclosure would inhibit advisors or officials from expressing or recording free and frank advice on OIA requests in the future—good reason to withhold under s 9(2)(g)(i)Request for draft press releases
Case notesRelease would impact on the effectiveness of the process of drafting press releases in future, because officials would be reluctant to be candid or to openly express their initial thoughts in writing—s 9(2)(g)(i) appliesRequest for draft ministerial inquiry report
Case notesRelease of early and annotated draft would inhibit ministerial appointees from expressing free and frank opinions in future and sharing drafts with the Ministry of Justice—public interest met by availability of final report—s 9(2)(g)(i) appliesRequest for draft documents, internal emails, handwritten notes regarding Government response to Law Commission discussion paper
Case notesDisclosure of draft documents would inhibit future expression of free and frank opinions by officials—s 9(2)(g)(i) appliesRequest for Ministerial briefing on Auckland CBD rail loop
Case notesDisclosure of ministerial briefing conveyed under pressure of time would inhibit future expression of free and frank opinions by officials—s 9(2)(g)(i) applied—public interest met by release of later documentRequest for internal complaint assessment memorandum
Case notesDisclosure of preliminary complaint assessment memo would make complaints assessment staff reluctant in future to fully express their views in writing—s 9(2)(g)(i) provides good reason to withholdRequest for crisis group reports and working material regarding Government’s response to kidnapping
Case notesRequest for information about Government’s response to kidnapping of NZ resident in Baghdad—s 9(2)(g)(i) provides good reason to withhold crisis group reports and working material but not the final review of the hostage-taking—public interest met by disclosure of final review—final review released with redactionsRequest for draft public consultation document
Case notesOnly minor differences between draft and final consultation document—final consultation document was publicly available—release would not inhibit the free and frank expression of opinions necessary for the effective conduct of public affairsRequest for internal discussion paper on privatisation
Case notesTwo drafts of an internal discussion paper commissioned by Treasury’s Executive Leadership Team—Government had not sought advice on the issue—s 9(2)(g)(i) provides good reason to withholdRequest for policy advice behind merger of Archives and National Library
Case notesRelease of formal advice to Ministers about abandoned options after decisions had been made would not inhibit the free and frank expression of opinions by officials—s 9(2)(g)(i) does not applyRequest for Cabinet paper relating to review of Overseas Investment Act
Case notesDisclosure would prejudice orderly and effective conduct of ongoing advisory and decision making processesRequest for information relating to Whānau Ora
Case notesDisclosure while policy advice still under consideration by Ministers would prejudice ongoing decision making process—disclosure of inter-agency consultation would inhibit future expression of free and frank opinions by officialsRequest for audit information regarding JobPlus scheme
Case notesDraft audit report was identical to final audit report—no good reason to withhold the final audit report so no good reason to withhold the draft—good reason to withhold auditor’s informal and early working papers under s 9(2)(g)(i)—disclosure of the working papers would make auditors more circumspect in what they record, and when and how they record itRequest for Minister/Chief Executive discussions
Case notesDisclosure of full record of recollection of discussion between Minister and Chief Executive would inhibit future expression of free and frank opinions—summary of recollection releasedRequest for auditor’s working papers
Case notesDisclosure of auditor’s scoping discussions and working papers would make auditors more circumspect in what they record, and when and how they record it—good reason to withhold under s 9(2)(g)(i)Request for staff named in emails about genetically modified corn
Case notesSection 6(d) OIA did not apply—no real and objective risk of danger to safety—s 9(2)(g)(ii) OIA did not apply—many of the names were already publicly available in connection with this issue and no harm had ensued—section 9(2)(g)(i) OIA did not apply—infRequest for public submissions on draft standard
Case notesMembers of the public with a vested interest in developing standards would not be deterred from expressing their opinions in futureRequest for report on DHB governance issues
Case notesDisclosure of report at time of request would have inhibited expression of free and frank opinions by officials—but passage of time and change in circumstances had diminished the likelihood of such prejudice—senior public servants would not be inhibited from expressing free and frank opinions in futureRequest for information about review of schools’ operational funding
Case notesInformation not of an advisory nature—information tendered by an external advisory group, not Ministers or officials—disclosure would not prejudice ability of Ministers to consider advice eventually tendered by officials—s 9(2)(f)(iv) did not applyRequest for Information relating to appointment of an honorary consul in Monaco
Case notesConfidentiality can diminish over time—s 9(2)(f)(iv) does not applyRequest for documentation about ‘Ageing in Place’ contract
Case notesRelease of detailed proposals and component prices would have an adverse effect on tenderers’ responses to future tenders issued by the DHB, which would damage the public interest—s 9(2)(ba)(ii) OIA applies—release would have an inhibiting effect in future on the quality of the documentation associated with the DHB’s contract negotiations and tender evaluation, which would be prejudicial to the future conduct of such tenders—s 9(2)(g)(i) appliesRequest for advice on electoral finance, after the introduction of the Electoral Finance Bill
Case notesIntroduction of Bill constituted discrete end-point in the policy development process—disclosure would not prejudice ability of Ministers to consider advice eventually tendered by officials—s 9(2)(f)(iv) does not applyRequest for options and analysis in review of NZ Superannuation Portability
Case notesCabinet had agreed to package of proposals but agreement was subject to funding in Budget— Budget secrecy only applies if decision has been made to include proposals in Budget—analysis protected by s 9(2)(f)iv) but not bare options—advice two years old and no advice issued about which options were under consideration—strong public interest in release of bare optionsRequest for discussions between Ministers on business before Cabinet
Case notesDiscussions between Ministers on business before Cabinet imbued with a presumption of confidentiality—s 9(2)(g)(i) provides good reason to withhold undocumented discussionsRequest for information about funding of Resource Teachers
Case notesAdvice provided in context of Budget but bid unsuccessful—Minister asked for bid to be resubmitted in next Budget—9(2)(f)(iv) applied to much of the information at issue, but not all of it—Minister released some general information but continued to withhold detailed analysis—overall public interest not served by the disclosure of advice that may undermine the effective preparation of next BudgetRequest for information concerning South Auckland primary teacher supply
Case notesDecisions had been made—disclosure of abandoned options posed no risk—s 9(2)(f)(iv) does not apply