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 official information about scholarship criteria framed as question
Case notesFailure by the Ministry of Education to respond to a request for official information within the statutory timeframe – Ministry did not process the request as an OIA request as Ministry considered that it required the generation of comment – OmbudsmRequest for staff names and initials in Commerce Commission memorandum
Case notesSection 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 reasonRequest for political consultation emails
OpinionsThe Minister of State Services refused to provide two emails that revealed the comments provided by the Green Party in response to consultation on a proposed Cabinet paper.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.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.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.The OIA and draft documents: A guide to how the OIA applies to requests for draft documents
Official informationThis guide explains some of the most common reasons why it can sometimes be necessary to withhold draft documents. These reasons relate to the free and frank opinions and confidentiality withholding grounds in the OIA and LGOIMA.Negotiations: A guide to section 9(2)(j) of the OIA and section 7(2)(i) of the LGOIMA
Official informationThis is a guide to the negotiations withholding ground found in section 9(2)(j) of the OIA and section 7(2)(i) of the LGOIMA.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 DHB financial reporting data
Case notesWhile release 1 month after refusal would have been ‘soon’ there was no reasonable certainty release would occur by then—agency should reasonably have foreseen delay in obtaining Ministerial input due to election—Section 18(d) did not applyRequest 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 agency peer review of Family Violence Death Review Committee draft annual report
Case notesRelease 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) appliedRequest for cost of recruiting Vice-Chancellor
Case notesRelease of total cost would not unreasonably prejudice third party’s commercial position—no specific negotiations—release of total costs would not deter businesses from treating with government—public interest in accountability for spending public moneyRequest for due diligence report, site visit reports and reference checks
Case notesSection 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 checksRequest for information associated with PHARMAC’s 2016/17 budget bid
Case notesPHARMAC did not have a commercial position and was not engaged in commercial activities—s 9(2)(j) applies to information about PHARMAC’s willingness to pay for pharmaceuticals but not to PHARMAC’s indicative budget in out-yearsRequest for recidivism statistics
Case notesNo certainty that information would be released in the near future—release 13 weeks after refusal was not ‘soon’—s 18(d) did not applyRequest for quarterly justice sector report
Case notesRelease 12-16 weeks after refusal was not ‘soon’—s 18(d) did not applyRequest for information about Hauraki Treaty negotiations
Case notesRelease would prejudice the goodwill of the parties and the progress of the negotiations—s 9(2)(j) appliesRequest for draft job sizing reports
Case notesReports 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 makingRequest for draft terms of reference for an inquiry
Case notesDraft 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 applyRequest for evaluation and audit reports regarding extended supervision orders
Case notesEvaluation 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 providersRequest 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 information about DHB’s dispute with South Link Health
Case notesReleasing statement of claim in breach of confidentiality agreement would disadvantage the DHB by diminishing trust and goodwill between the parties—releasing report would disadvantage the DHB by assisting the other party to counter DHB’s position—public interest in disclosure outweighed the need to withhold the statement of claim but not the reportRequest for information about dispute between South Link Health and Southern District Health Board
Case notesGood reason to withhold information that would reveal negotiating position and strategy or further deteriorate the relationship between the parties—s 9(2)(j) does not apply to some factual information and information that was known to the other party to the negotiationRequest for DHB Commissioner’s draft work plan
Case notesRelease 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 withholdRequest for draft financial performance analysis
Case notesDraft financial performance analysis prepared by Alma Consulting—s 9(2)(g)(i) did not apply— strong public interest in releaseRequest for rent paid for transmission and broadcast sites
Case notesRequester could use knowledge of other site rental rates to try and obtain a higher rate in their rent review—s 9(2)(j) appliesRequest for research behind a published statement
Case notesRequester must be told where they can access the publicly available informationRequest for holiday period excess speed infringement data
Case notesRelease 23 working days after refusal was ‘soon’—s 18(d)Request for Pre-Cabinet précis briefings
Case notesDisclosure of short and incisive pre-Cabinet briefings and risk assessments would inhibit future expression of free and frank opinionsRequest for restorative justice data
Case notesNo certainty that information would be released in the near future—release 14-16 weeks after refusal was not ‘soon’—s 18(g) did not apply