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.
18 Resources Show all
Privacy: A guide to section 9(2)(a) of the OIA and section 7(2)(a) of the LGOIMA
Official informationThis is a guide to the privacy withholding ground found in section 9(2)(a) of the OIA and section 7(2)(a) of the LGOIMA.Request for information about death in custody
Case notesRequest 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 names of staff and contractors involved in producing crime and safety survey
Case notesSection 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(2Request for names of MSD staff in emails about the drafting of a Bill
Case notesSection 9(2)(a) OIA did not apply—not necessary to withhold staff names to protect their privacy—no information to suggest privacy or safety concerns, or risk of improper pressure or harassment.Request for draft guidelines on religious instruction and observance in schools
Case notesOfficials still in the process of drafting—premature disclosure in advance of the planned public consultation process was not in the overall public interestRequest for staff names in employment investigation report into Joanne Harrison
Case notesSection 9(2)(a) OIA applied—significant privacy interest given the nature and content of report and impact on individuals—no public interest override.Request for names and address for service of two Police officers
Case notesSection 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 orRequest for draft internal review of International Visitor Survey
Case notesInternal 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 disclosureRequest 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 individual’s immigration history
Case notesPrivacy ground applied and not outweighed by public interest because discovery availableRequest 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 confirmation of debtor’s removal from New Zealand for purposes of insurance claim
Case notesPrivacy interest outweighed by public interest in enabling pursuit of legal rights and remediesRequest for advice and ‘think piece’ on reprioritisation or savings in Vote Education
Case notesDisclosure of internal discussion documents and advice to Ministers would prejudice ongoing decision making process—disclosure of internal ‘think piece’ would inhibit future expression of free and frank opinions by officials—ss 9(2)(f)(iv) and 9(2)(g)(i) provide good reason to withholdRequest for draft briefings to the incoming government
Case notesDisclosure of draft briefings to the incoming government would make officials reluctant to be so free and frank in expressing their initial and untested views and cause them to prefer less efficient and transparent verbal exchanges—section 9(2)(g)(i) applies