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.
- Reset
- Deactivate facet Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987
- Deactivate facet Ombudsmen Act 1975
- Deactivate facet ACC
- Deactivate facet Conditions
- Deactivate facet Earthquake Recovery
- Deactivate facet Free and frank opinions
- Deactivate facet Prisoners / Corrections
- Deactivate facet Substantial collation or research
58 Resources Show all
Decision to implement locked cell policy
Case notesComplaint about the negative effects of implementing a locked cell policy in the Kaaka North and South pods at Northland Region Corrections Facility – Chief Ombudsman found that the implementation was unreasonable – the significant consequences (lack ofThe LGOIMA for local government agencies: A guide to processing requests and conducting meetings
Official informationThe purpose of this guide is to assist local government agencies in recognising and responding to requests for official information under the LGOIMA.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.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.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.Earthquake Commission’s interpretation of the Earthquake Commission Act 1993 regarding swimming pool building not unreasonable
Case notesWhether the Earthquake Commission was unreasonable to decline compensation for damage to the pool house enclosing a swimming pool at a Christchurch property—Ombudsman concluded EQC’s decision was not unreasonableRequest for draft report prepared by PwC on Auckland Stadium
Case notesReport refused because it was in draft form and commercially sensitive—parts of report withholdable however no basis for blanket withholding—strong public interest in release of report in partRequest for draft reports prepared by EY on Information Services
Case notesDraft reports were in fact final reports—some information publicly available—negotiations had been concluded—neither s 7(2)(c)(ii) nor s 7(2)(i) apply—significant public interest in release to promote transparency of Council’s decision making processes and accountability for expenditure of ratepayer moneyDepartment of Corrections staff to follow legislative requirements when segregating inmate
Case notesDepartment of Corrections held prisoner in Management Unit without following required procedure—segregation legislation and regulations are clear and prescriptiveRequest for Skypath business case and procurement plan
Case notesReleasing business case and procurement plan would unreasonably prejudice the commercial position of the private partner in a public private partnership—withholding strengths and weaknesses of negotiating position necessary to enable Council to carry on negotiations without prejudice or disadvantage—ss 7(2)(b)(ii), 7(2)(c)(i), 7(2)(i) applyEarthquake Commission should reimburse claimant’s travel costs when staff fail to attend meeting
Case notesEarthquake Commission asked to reimburse claimants who travelled to Christchurch from Auckland to attend a meeting with EQC officials who failed to arrive—Ombudsman concluded EQC failed to provide the level of service required in the circumstances—EQC asked to offer ex gratia payment to compensate losses incurred and to apologiseEarthquake Commission must follow legislation on claim lodgement time but Ombudsman considers law harsh
Case notesEarthquake Commission (EQC) not unreasonable to decline a claim lodged out of time because this is required under the legislation—Ombudsman considers the law unreasonably harsh and it should be changed—EQC advised it will look into amending the lawDepartment of Corrections unreasonably declines computer access to inmate
Case notesAccess to computer suite in prison denied—Ombudsman found this unreasonable—Corrections agreed to reconsider the inmate’s request and to review criteria for use—also that computer facilities at prison be reviewed to ensure availability to prisoners who meet criteria for assistance with litigationDepartment of Corrections not unreasonable to decline face to face interview between prisoner and journalist in particular case
Case notesPrisoner requested face to face interview with journalist—request declined—Ombudsman noted journalist had offered to conduct interview by AVL, notwithstanding preference for face to face—Ombudsman concluded that on this basis Department had not acted unreasonably in this instanceEarthquake Commission’s handling of a claim unreasonable in the circumstances
Case notesWhether the Earthquake Commission (EQC) had handled a claim for drapes and carpets in a reasonable manner—Chief Ombudsman found aspects of EQC’s handling of the matter to have been unsatisfactoryRequest for handwritten comments on draft walking and cycling strategy
Case notesRelease would inhibit willingness of Council staff to provide free and frank opinions on drafts circulated by colleagues, or to test the content and recommendations of such documents, which would undermine the accuracy and value of the material that eventuates—s 7(2)(f)(i) appliesEarthquake Commission’s assessment of emergency repairs on red zone property not unreasonable
Case notesWhether Earthquake Commission (EQC) reasonably addressed concerns about emergency repair work on property affected by earthquake damage—Chief Ombudsman concluded EQC’s handling of this claim had not been unreasonableRequest for draft ‘Alternatives Paper’ prepared by consultants on CBD rail link
Case notesRelease would inhibit exchange of drafts and views between staff and consultants, which would undermine the drafting process—s 7(2)(f)(i) applied—public interest met by the release of the final report and the peer reviews by relevant agenciesRequest for minutes of Council workshops
Case notesRequest for minutes of Unitary Plan Political Working Party—minutes related to Council ‘workshops’—s 7(2)(f)(i) applied in part—minutes could be disclosed in part without inhibiting people from contributing to workshops in futureDepartment of Corrections reasonable to seek removal of prisoner from study course in some circumstances
Case notesWhether the Department of Corrections was reasonable to request the tertiary institution to remove a prisoner from a course at a polytechnic—Ombudsman found Department’s decision to have been reasonable in partEarthquake Commission not unreasonable to decline payment for engineering reports commissioned by property owner
Case notesWhether it was reasonable for EQC to decline payment for two engineering reports—Ombudsman considered that EQC had not acted unreasonably in this respectAccident Compensation Corporation failed to explain reasons for decision made on independent review
Case notesACC failed to provide a full and detailed explanation as to why it declined to make an ex gratia payment as recommended by an independent reviewerRequest for email communications between councillors relating to industrial dispute
Case notesDisclosure of informal emails between councillors in highly sensitive context would inhibit future expression of free and frank opinions—s 7(2)(f)(i) provides good reason to withholdEarthquake Commission unreasonable not to settle claim in the particular circumstances
Case notesEarthquake Commission (EQC) refused to proceed with contents claim without explaining to claimant, even though the claim had been assessed and approved—Ombudsman finds EQC’s actions unreasonable—complaint settled when EQC agreed to rectify its omissionDepartment of Corrections made errors in documentation but parole hearing set correctly
Case notesWhether Department of Corrections staff failed complainant with respect to a Parole Board hearing—Ombudsman found errors in documentation but complainant not disadvantagedDepartment of Corrections unreasonable to place prisoner with mental illness in mainstream unit
Case notesWhether the Department of Corrections was unreasonable to place prisoner in mainstream unit given specific medical condition of mental illness—Ombudsman upheld complaintCorrections unreasonable not to pay for inmate’s glasses for re-integration programme
Case notesLong serving prison inmate required glasses to participate in reintegration programme and work in prison tailor shop—Department of Corrections refused to pay for glasses unless inmate would refund them through his prison earnings—inmate later found out Department had paid for another inmate’s glasses in full—Ombudsman sustained complaint that inmate was not treated fairly—refund to inmate of money paid recommended.Investigation of the Department of Corrections in relation to the detention and treatment of prisoners
Systemic investigationsUnder the Ombudsmen Act 1975, it is a function of the Ombudsmen to investigate complaints relating to matters of administration affecting persons in their personal capacity against various bodies, including the Department of Corrections (the Department). Pursuant to this Act, the Ombudsmen have power to investigate complaints by prisoners about all aspects of their detention by the Department. At the end of 2004 serious issues related to the treatment of prisoners came to public attention.Agreement by ACC to stop regular rehabilitation assessments in light of information it already holds
Case notesWhether the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) was reasonable to carry out regular assessments of a claimant for vocational rehabilitation despite already holding medical and occupational assessments confirming the claimant’s limitations—Ombudsman concluded this was not reasonable in the circumstancesACC delay to obtain opinion from Crown Solicitor unreasonable
Case notesA 17 month delay by ACC in deciding whether to prosecute claimant for fraud but this delay due to 16 month delay by Crown Solicitor in providing ACC with written legal opinion — Ombudsman unable to investigate actions of Crown Solicitor but could consider how ACC dealt with the delay—three emails by ACC sent in 13 month period, then a formal request sent in writing for legal opinion—no agreed timeframes for when advice could be expected and Ombudsman of view that it was unreasonable for ACC to wait 14 months before formally raising concerns about the delay with the Crown Solicitor—ACC apologised to complainant and agreement reached between ACC and Crown Solicitor that legal opinions will be provided within 21 days of receipt of requestACC required to contribute towards client’s travel costs to attend hearing
Case notesACC client had difficulties with Individual Rehabilitation Plan and case manager—weekly earnings stopped—client sought review and later appealed decision to District Court but before hearing took place client moved to another town and had new IRP and case manager, and the earnings were reinstated—the client chose to continue with appeal in District Court but the appeal was unsuccessful—ACC refused to reimburse client for travel expenses but Ombudsman held this decision unreasonable