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.
44 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 ofDepartment 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 prescriptiveDepartment 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 instanceDepartment of Internal Affairs’ interpretation of Rates Rebate Act correct in partnership income issue
Case notesDecision not to investigate a complaint about the Department of Internal Affairs’ interpretation of the Rates Rebate Act 1973Department 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 partDepartment 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 complaintAuckland International Airport unreasonable to issue Trespass Notice
Case notesAuckland International Airport Ltd—Trespass Notice to shuttle driver unreasonable and unjust—penalty imposed by airport out of proportion in relation to offenceLand Information New Zealand entitled to sell property previously available for buy-back
Case notesClaim as successors for the offer-back of a disused school site—Ombudsman not wholly satisfied with some aspects of the process adopted by LINZ, but concluded that claimants could not fall within the statutory definition of ‘successor’Transpower New Zealand’s refusal to consent to construction not unreasonable
Case notesComplaint about refusal of Transpower New Zealand Ltd to allow building on property over which it had easement—Transpower refused consent—Ombudsman found its actions not unreasonableCorrections 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.Ministry of Culture and Heritage’s decision regarding artefact was reasonable
Case notesMinistry of Culture and Heritage—custody of bone artefactInvestigation 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.Landcorp fails to monitor survey of land for sale
Case notesLessee of Crown land given opportunity to purchase it freehold in 1996 from Landcorp—a review of title revealed land had been surveyed to exclude all internal waterways used by lessee for his salmon and trout farms and problem discovered too late for exemptions under Conservation Act—the consequences of survey effectively confiscated farms and lessee complained to Ombudsman that Landcorp’s failure to monitor survey allowed issuance of title for an unviable property—Ombudsman reviewed circumstances and agreed Landcorp should have ensured it was informed of survey progress—its failure to monitor meant Landcorp could not take more effective measures to overcome title issues and land subsequently not fit for sale—view formed that Landcorp’s sale was unreasonable—Landcorp disagreed with view but agreed to make ex-gratia payment to complainantDepartment of Corrections required to state reasons for security classification
Case notesPrison inmate complained that his security classification had been unreasonably assessed and Ombudsman concluded the Department failed to provide ‘strong reasons’ (which must be stated)—Ombudsman found the Prison officers had based their classification on uncorroborated, unrecorded, verbal statement made by another inmate—Ombudsman upheld complaint based on inequitable situation that would result if prison relied solely on this information, however, the inmate released before any recommendation could be madeDepartment of Corrections revises guidelines on implications for visitors possessing drugs
Case notesPrison banned inmate’s family members from visiting for 12-months after small amount of cannabis found in their possession—the inmate complained that the duration of ban was unreasonable but the Department of Corrections noted it had zero tolerance policy for drugs with an automatic 12-month prohibition order to be placed on anyone found with them on prison property—Ombudsman concluded blanket ban unreasonable and the Department agreed each case to be considered on merits and prepared guidelines for prisons—Ombudsman advised inmate to apply for a review of prohibition order under the new guidelinesCrown Research Institute’s publication on nicotine in tobacco inadequate
Case notesPublication of research data subsequently found to be flawed—notice of research results to interested parties—adequacy of subsequent retraction—inclusion of contextual material with media release—relationship between an Ombudsman's jurisdiction and issues involving scientific techniques and the course of research—matter of administration—Ombudsmen Act 1975, s 13Department of Corrections failed to meet requirements before placing inmate in restrictive regime
Case notesDepartment of Corrections placement of inmate on restrictive regime designed for the most disruptive inmates unreasonable because criteria for placement not met—placement deemed unreasonable—inmate immediately returned to mainstreamDepartment of Corrections applies prison visiting rules too rigidly
Case notesSpecial family visit to inmate denied—decision contrary to Department's national standard—prison agreed to review its local instructions to ensure consistency with spirit and intent of national standardDepartment of Corrections delays prisoner release when segregation order expired
Case notesDelayed release from ‘precautionary segregation’—complaint upheld—implementation of computerised bring-up system to avoid recurrence of problem—no recommendation necessaryDepartment of Corrections required to review process for media contact with inmates
Case notesAccess to prison inmates by the news media—conflict between procedural manual and communications policy—policy to be reviewed to ensure consistency with proceduresDepartment of Corrections protocol with Ombudsman regarding death in custody
Case notesDeath in custody—application of Protocol between Department of Corrections and Office of the Ombudsmen—issues arising from monitoring departmental investigation—need for improved communication, videotaping, fire safety and emergency proceduresDepartment of Corrections reasonably held inmate in segregation
Case notesUnreasonable placement of inmate on precautionary segregation—written material found in his cell which reflected on the safety of prison staff—placement not deemed unreasonableDepartment of Corrections should explain reasons for declining application to be excused from PD reporting
Case notesRefusal of application to be excused from reporting for periodic detention—incomplete explanation given at the time—reasons and apology provided—Criminal Justice Act 1985, s 41(3)Department of Corrections required to advise decision on day parole application
Case notesFailure to advise inmate of decision on application for day parole—prison administration expected inmate to ask Case officer for outcome—responsibility for advising the outcome of a request/application normally rests with decision-maker—internal procedures changed to reflect normal practiceComplainant must have sufficient personal interest in complaint for Ombudsman to investigate
Case notesOmbudsman has discretion to decline to investigate where a complainant has insufficient personal interest in subject matter of complaint—no evidence to show the complainant had been given authority to complain on prisoner’s behalf about decisions taken in a prison—Ombudsman must be satisfied that the person concerned is aware of and consented to the complaint being investigated—under s 17(2)(c) of the Ombudsmen Act 1975, no investigation was undertakenLand Information New Zealand (LINZ) resolves complaint informally following Ombudsman’s inquiries
Case notesDocument missing from complainant’s property file and Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) unreasonably delayed deciding the replacement and responsibility for cost thereof—following the Ombudsman’s inquiries, the matter was able to be resolved informally by LINZ – Land Transfer Act 1952, section 172—the case demonstrates that many complaints can be resolved by informal interventionCommunity Funding Authority changes decision to reduce funds for service organisation following complaint
Case notesDecision-making process in respect of allocation of funding by Community Funding Authority to service provider not transparent—failure to conform to formal notice requirements in relation to a reduction in funding—failure to follow correct procedures in review of funding decisionMuseum of New Zealand display ‘virgin in condom’ allowed under legislation
Case notesDecision to display art exhibition—offence given by some items—statutory functions and duties of Museum—Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa Act 1992, ss 4, 7(j), 8(b) and 8(c)—Ombudsmen Act 1975, s 13New Zealand Post accepts recommendation to undertake gate delivery on steep rural street
Case notesNew Zealand Post refused to do a gate delivery in rural area because of the state of the road—Ombudsman considered NZP’s reasons and sought advice from Transit New Zealand about the state of the road—report showed it was not as steep as others in the area where deliveries were made—complaint upheld that the refusal to deliver to the gate was unreasonable and discriminatory between residents in different areas—NZP accepted finding and delivery to the gate was commencedNew Zealand Post reconsiders redirection policy for student hostel residents
Case notesMisleading advertising re mail redirection service—not available to students in halls of residence—review of policy in specific case, not of general application