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.
64 Resources Show all
Chief Ombudsman’s opinion on OIA complaints about the refusal of Covid-19 vaccine contracts
Official informationSummary The Ministry of Health, Minister for COVID-19 Response, and Minister of Finance received multiple OIA requests for copies of the contracts between the Government and pharmaceutical companies for the supply of Covid-19 vaccines.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—The OIA for Ministers and agencies: A guide to processing official information requests
Official informationThe purpose of this guide is to assist Ministers and government agencies in recognising and responding to requests for official information under the OIA.Making official information requests: A guide for requesters
Official informationIf you are seeking information from a Minister, or central or local government agency, you may be able to ask for it under either the OIA or LGOIMA.Confidential advice to government: A guide to section 9(2)(f)(iv) of the OIA
Official informationOne reason for withholding official information is to ‘maintain the constitutional convention protecting the confidentiality of advice tendered by Ministers and officials’—section 9(2)(f)(iv) of the OIA.The OIA and the public policy making process: A guide to how the OIA applies to information generated in the context of the public policy making process
Official informationThis guide explains the most common reasons why it can sometimes be necessary to withhold official information generated in the context of the public policy making process.Constitutional conventions: A guide to sections 9(2)(f)(i)-(iii) of the OIA
Official informationThis guide deals with the 'constitutional conventions' withholding ground in section 9(2)(f) of the OIA.Free and frank opinions: A guide to section 9(2)(g)(i) of the OIA and section 7(2)(f)(i) of the LGOIMA
Official informationThis guide deals with the 'free and frank opinions' withholding ground in section 9(2)(g)(i) of the OIA and section 7(2)(f)(i) of the LGOIMA.Substantial collation or research: A guide to section 18(f) of the OIA and section 17(f) of the LGOIMA
Official informationSection 18(f) of the OIA (section 17(f) of the LGOIMA) is one of a number of mechanisms under the Act for dealing with requests for information that are administratively challenging to meet.Requests for firearms statistics
Case notesRefusal under section 18(g) not justified—information held—Police could manually extract and compile statistics—where compilation involves substantial collation or research s 18(f) appliesRequest for video footage recorded during an investigation
Case notes1100 hours of video footage—extension of time limit reasonable—concerns about volume of information addressed by disclosing a sampleRequest for transcripts of post-Cabinet press conferences (substantial impact)
Case notesDifficulty involved in finding and bringing together the requested transcripts - adverse impact on operation of the Office—s 18(f) appliedRequest for briefing notes relating to state visits
Case notesInspection on conditions in order to identify the documents required provided means of resolving s 18(f) refusalRequest for Policy Advisory Group briefings to Prime Minister about infant formula threat
Case notesSection 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 roleRequest for information regarding rental housing warrants of fitness
Case notesSection 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 issueRequest for information redacted from Ministerial briefings and Cabinet papers on telecommunications and ultra-fast broadband
Case notesWhile some decisions had been made, others were still required, and disclosure would prejudice the orderly and effective conduct of ongoing advisory and decision making processesRequest for advice to Local Government Commission
Case notesNo 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 withholdRequest for transcripts of post-Cabinet press conferences
Case notesPrime Minister’s office wanted to compare draft transcript with audio recording to check for errors—‘substantial collation or research’ does not encompass a quality assurance check of that nature—10 hours work did not amount to ‘substantial collation or research’Request 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 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 information concerning review of Oil Pollution Fund and MNZ’s preparedness to respond to oil spill
Case notesConsulting with requester in fulsome way removed reason for refusalRequest for information on taser use
Case notesReview and manual extraction of details from 282 tactical operations reports—s 18(f) appliedRequest for copy of file of deceased brother held by NZSIS
Case notesReleasing information in alternative form enabled accountability without prejudicing security or efficient working of agencyRequest 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 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 recruitment consultant expenditure
Case notesNo cost code specifically and solely for recruitment fees—information could not be made available without ‘substantial collation or research’—release of other information resolved the complaintRequest 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 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 Budget