Open main menu Close main menu

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. 

More information about the resource categories on this page
Search by keyword
  • Request for business plan for Christchurch Convention and Exhibition Centre

    Case notes
    Competitors could copy or adopt third party’s methodology and strategy and devise plans based on its established operating systems which would unreasonably prejudice its commercial position—information subject to an explicit obligation of confidence and of a confidential nature—release would damage the public interest by making suppliers reluctant to participate in future procurement processes
  • 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 cost of fees paid to a law firm

    Case notes
    Release of total fees would not unreasonably prejudice third party’s commercial position
  • Request for expenditure on goods and services provided by Palantir Technologies

    Case notes
    Release of total cost would not unreasonably prejudice third party’s commercial position—public interest in accountability for spending public money
  • 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 staff named in emails about genetically modified corn

    Case notes
    Section 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—inf
  • Request for public submissions on draft standard

    Case notes
    Members of the public with a vested interest in developing standards would not be deterred from expressing their opinions in future
  • Request for charitable trust’s funding application

    Case notes
    Trust does not have a commercial position—even if it did, release of the information would not be likely unreasonably to prejudice it—the trust has no competitors, and is very different to other organisations in terms of its size, nature of operations and services¬—s 9(2)(b)(ii) does not apply
  • Request for report on DHB governance issues

    Case notes
    Disclosure 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 future
  • Request by TVNZ for names of companies providing Department of Social Welfare with transcripts or videos of TVNZ programmes

    Case notes
    Risk of litigation is not an unreasonable prejudice—public interest in release of information enabling pursuit of legal rights and remedies
  • Request for Crown Health Enterprise Business Plans

    Case notes
    Request for Crown Health Enterprise Business Plans—request refused on commercial grounds—some information protected by ss 9(2)(i) and 9(2)(j)—public interest in disclosure substantially met by release of balance of plans
  • Request for the contract regarding sale of Railway houses

    Case notes
    Request for copy of contract between NZRC and Stone Key Investments Ltd regarding sale of railway houses—refused as ‘commercially confidential’—contract document itself was not simply a standard form Agreement for Sale and Purchase with price and special conditions added, but was a specially drafted document which reflected the negotiating positions adopted by both parties—release would unreasonably prejudice the commercial position of Stone Key Investments—s 9(2)(b)(ii)—release was so likely to ‘prejudice or disadvantage’ the Corporation in future sales of surplus land that it was necessary to withhold the information at issue—s 9(2)(i)—sale agreement retained two key factors of the Corporation’s previous sales policy relating to its obligations as a ‘good employer’—public interest in disclosure of the manner in which those undertakings had been incorporated into the contract—public interest in disclosure of information enabling an assessment to be made of whether the Corporation had acted responsibly and obtained a ‘fair market price’—written summary released