Resources and publications

Ngā rauemi me ngā tānga

Search guidescase notesopinionsreports 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. 

  • Request for information about death in custody

    Case notes
    Request for all correspondence about death in custody—unreasonable to rely on sections 9(2)(a) and 9(2)(ba)(i) without compiling and reviewing the information—subsequent reliance on section 18(f) (substantial collation or research) also unjustified—
  • 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 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 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 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 names of staff and contractors involved in producing crime and safety survey

    Case notes
    Section 9(2)(g)(ii) OIA applied to staff names—on basis of past conduct Ombudsman satisfied that requester would engage in improper pressure or harassment that would impact on the Ministry’s ability to attract and retain staff and contactors—section 9(2
  • Request for draft guidelines on religious instruction and observance in schools

    Case notes
    Officials still in the process of drafting—premature disclosure in advance of the planned public consultation process was not in the overall public interest
  • Request for names and address for service of two Police officers

    Case notes
    Section 9(2)(a) and 9(2)(g)(ii) OIA applied—past conduct suggested the requester would publish information targeting or encouraging others to target the officers in a way that would breach their personal privacy, and subject them to improper pressure or
  • Request for draft internal review of International Visitor Survey

    Case notes
    Internal review still in draft form—redacted comments comprised preliminary views of individual within agency—s 9(2)(g)(i) applied—no overriding public interest in disclosure
  • Request for agency peer review of Family Violence Death Review Committee draft annual report

    Case notes
    Release of free and frank comments made in the context of peer reviewing a draft annual report would inhibit the expression of similar comments in future—s 9(2)(g)(i) applied
  • Request for due diligence report, site visit reports and reference checks

    Case notes
    Section 9(2)(ba)(i) applies in part to the due diligence report and to the correspondence from supplier—public interest in accountability of Department for steps taken to satisfy itself regarding supplier’s performance—sections 9(2)(ba)(i) and 9(2)(g)(i) apply to information obtained from site visits, but not to the executive summary of the reports—public interest in accountability for decision to award contract—sections 9(2)(ba)(i) applies to reference checks—release would deter referees from providing full and complete information in future—public interest requires release of summary information about the reference checks
  • Request for draft job sizing reports

    Case notes
    Reports formed an early stage of developing options for consideration and consultation— disclosure would likely inhibit the willingness of officials and consultants to tender a wide range of preliminary options, and to canvass issues in comprehensive written form, to the detriment of prudent and effective decision making
  • Request for draft terms of reference for an inquiry

    Case notes
    Draft terms of reference largely the same as publicly available final ones—release would not inhibit the future free and frank expression of opinion or provision of advice to the Prime Minister—s 9(2)(g)(i) did not apply
  • Request for names of frontline forestry officers in information about the felling and milling of kauri

    Case notes
    Section 9(2)(g)(ii) OIA applied—MPI provided evidence of past instances of harassment and comments from the staff concerned—reasonable expectation that release would lead to improper pressure or harassment which would be detrimental to MPI’s administrat
  • Request for evaluation and audit reports regarding extended supervision orders

    Case notes
    Evaluation report comprised largely academic material and statistical analysis—9(2)(g)(i) did not apply—audit report had been submitted to senior management but marked as draft—disclosure of majority not likely to prejudice future exchange of free and frank opinions—significant public interest considerations in favour of disclosure—audit report released with deletion of names and detailed findings relating to individual service providers
  • Request for briefing notes relating to state visits

    Case notes
    Inspection on conditions in order to identify the documents required provided means of resolving s 18(f) refusal
  • Request for DHB Commissioner’s draft work plan

    Case notes
    Release of draft work plan would likely result in reluctance by staff to draft and consult on document—components of plan, once confirmed, were to be included in the 2016/17 annual plan—s 9(2)(g)(i) provided good reason to withhold
  • Request for draft financial performance analysis

    Case notes
    Draft financial performance analysis prepared by Alma Consulting—s 9(2)(g)(i) did not apply— strong public interest in release
  • Request for Policy Advisory Group briefings to Prime Minister about infant formula threat

    Case notes
    Section 9(2)(f)(iv) applies to PAG briefings to Prime Minister subject to public interest test— relationship between PAG and the Prime Minister, in his or her constitutional role as leader of the Government, is unique—complete confidentiality in interactions with his or her closest advisers is required to support the Prime Minister in carrying out that role
  • Request for information regarding rental housing warrants of fitness

    Case notes
    Section 9(2)(f)(iv) provides good reason to withhold some documents—Cabinet decision making incomplete—publicity from release would impede the Cabinet and Minister from making balanced, efficient and effective decision—Minister had addressed public interest in participation and accountability through disclosure of bulk of information at issue
  • Request for Pre-Cabinet précis briefings

    Case notes
    Disclosure of short and incisive pre-Cabinet briefings and risk assessments would inhibit future expression of free and frank opinions
  • Request for information redacted from Ministerial briefings and Cabinet papers on telecommunications and ultra-fast broadband

    Case notes
    While some decisions had been made, others were still required, and disclosure would prejudice the orderly and effective conduct of ongoing advisory and decision making processes
  • Request for advice to Local Government Commission

    Case notes
    No ministerial or executive government decision making process would be undermined by release—draft and final versions of the advice were substantially similar and the advice was in the nature of a careful and considered critique—no good reason to withhold
  • Request for literature review on youth desistance

    Case notes
    Draft review provided to successful tenderer as starting point for an external research project— information not in the nature of free and frank opinions—disclosure would not undermine interest in s 9(2)(g)(i)—release accompanied by contextual statement
  • Request for draft report on NZX compliance with general obligations

    Case notes
    Release would inhibit the free and frank expression of opinions by officials during the drafting process, and the exchange of opinions between the NZX and FMA—it is in the interests of the ‘effective conduct of public affairs’ for the review process to be robust and conducted in a manner that supported the FMA’s main objective of promoting and facilitating the development of fair, efficient and transparent markets—s 9(2)(g)(i) applied
  • Names of senior and principal historian involved in writing treaty settlement memo

    Case notes
    Sections 9(2)(a) and 9(2)(g)(ii) OIA did not apply—information publicly available—seniority—degree of responsibility—no material supporting likelihood of pressure or harassment
  • Request for handwritten notes of discussions between MFAT Chief Executive and Minister of Foreign Affairs

    Case notes
    Request for handwritten notes of Chief Executive’s discussions with Minister—confidentiality is necessary to protect the ongoing effectiveness and conduct of the relationship—public interest in disclosure not sufficient to outweigh s 9(2)(g)(i) interest
  • Request for draft advice on establishing a reserve

    Case notes
    Release of early and annotated advice would inhibit the free and frank exchange of opinions between officials drafting advice—general public interest in transparency had been met by disclosure of technical papers that formed the basis of the advice to the Minister, together with the final advice paper
  • Request for draft ministerial and chief executive correspondence

    Case notes
    Release of draft ministerial and chief executive correspondence would inhibit the free and frank expression opinions—s 9(2)(g)(i) applies
  • Request for advice regarding proposals for the future of Christchurch education

    Case notes
    Decision 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 release
  • Request for draft report to Ombudsman

    Case notes
    Release of draft report to Ombudsman would inhibit the free and frank expression of opinions—s 9(2)(g)(i) applies
  • Request for comments on draft correspondence and draft assessment report

    Case notes
    Release of comments on draft correspondence and draft assessment report would inhibit the free and frank expression of opinions—s 9(2)(g)(i) applies