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.
27 Resources Show all
Report on an unannounced follow-up inspection of Arohata Prison
OPCAT reportsIn 2007, the Ombudsmen were designated one of the National Preventive Mechanisms (NPMs) under the Crimes of Torture Act (COTA), with responsibility for examining and monitoring the general conditions and treatment of detainees in New Zealand prisons.Report on an unannounced follow-up inspection of Manawatu Prison
OPCAT reportsIn 2007, the Ombudsmen were designated one of the National Preventive Mechanisms (NPMs) under the Crimes of Torture Act (COTA), with responsibility for examining and monitoring the general conditions and treatment of detainees in New Zealand prisons.Report on an unannounced follow-up inspection of Rolleston Prison
OPCAT reportsIn 2007, the Ombudsmen were designated one of the National Preventive Mechanisms (NPMs) under the Crimes of Torture Act (COTA), with responsibility for examining and monitoring the general conditions and treatment of detainees in New Zealand prisons.Report on an unannounced inspection of Christchurch Men's Prison
OPCAT reportsChristchurch Prison is one of New Zealand’s larger prisons, and the largest in the South Island.Request 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 moneyReport on an unannounced inspection of Spring Hill Corrections Facility
OPCAT reportsSpring Hill Corrections Facility (the Prison) opened in 2007. The Prison accommodates male prisoners with security classifications ranging from minimum to high, as well as a growing remand population. Currently, it has an operating capacity of 1038.Report on an unannounced inspection of Hawke's Bay Regional Prison
OPCAT reportsHawke’s Bay Regional Prison was opened in 1989. The Prison accommodates male prisoners with security classifications ranging from minimum to high, as well as a growing remand population.Request 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-yearsDepartment 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 instanceRequest for information about a Department’s employment operations
Case notesPre-cast concrete operation is a commercial activity—s 9(2)(i) appliesRequest for salvage plan relating to MV Rena
Case notesRevealing salvage company’s detailed methodology would give other companies a competitive advantage in future tenders, which would be likely unreasonably to prejudice its commercial position—s 9(2)(b)(ii) appliesRequest for financial information concerning Council’s waste management proposals
Case notesCouncil waste management activities not commercial—s 7(2)(h) does not applyInvestigation of the Department of Corrections in relation to the provision, access and availability of prisoner health services
Systemic investigationsThis own motion report, unlike others we have undertaken, did not arise from specific incidents within the prison system, nor from the number of complaints we receive from prisoners. Our investigation has identified that prisoners have reasonable access to Health Services and generally they receive healthcare equivalent to members of the wider community. However, the service is not without its problems and in the future, it may not be able to meet the healthcare needs of such a diverse population effectively.Request for transport rates, cost and revenues per route
Case notesCost per route to the Council not protected by s 7(2)(b)(ii)—any prejudice would not be unreasonable—s 7(2)(b)(ii) applies to revenue per route—this would reveal operators’ tender strategies, thereby prejudicing their ability to participate competitively in future tendersRequest for tender scores for successful tenderer
Case notesRelease of tender scores would not be likely unreasonably to prejudice successful tenderer’s commercial position—s 9(2)(b)(ii) does not applyRequest for copy of winning tender for Lawrence Oliver Park
Case notesRelease would enable competitors to anticipate winning tenderer’s strategy in future bids, which would unreasonably prejudice their commercial position—s 7(2)(b)(ii) appliesRequest for Customs document concerning settlement of disputes
Case notesGeneral direction to relevant officials—s 22 appliedRequest for information relating to Government funding for upgrade of hospital
Case notesRequest for information on Government funding for the upgrade and redevelopment of Wellington Hospital—request refused on variety of grounds—majority of information released on review—interpretation of s 9(2)(i) and what constitutes ‘commercial activities’—Health and Disability Services Act 1993, s 11(2)(b)Request for manufacturer’s information of breath-testing device used by Police
Case notesRequest for technical data and manufacturer’s specifications for an evidential breath-testing device used by the Police—information withheld on basis release would disclose a trade secret, unreasonably prejudice commercial position of manufacturer and prejudice maintenance of the law—New Zealand case law suggested prosecution obliged to disclose sufficient information to defence counsel—investigation discontinued on basis that application to the Court provided adequate alternative remedyRequest by paediatric social worker in a public hospital for Manitoba Risk Estimation System
Case notesRequest by paediatric social worker in a public hospital for Manitoba Risk Estimation System—request declined—system provided to CYPFS subject to contract—consultation with owners of system—information released subject to conditionsDepartment 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 unreasonableInland Revenue Department accepts misleading advice caused detriment to holder of student loan
Case notesInland Revenue Department (IRD) provided misleading advice to student about status of his student loan account— he undertook on-going financial commitments in reliance on that advice— IRD was found to have erred by not providing regular statements of the student loan and accepted that this had caused detriment to the student—there had also been unreasonable delay in responding to the student’s wife’s inquiries about the loan debt and whether it had been cleared—in resolution, IRD agreed with the Ombudsman’s recommendation to put the student back into the position he would have been without relying on misleading advice and to pay an ex gratia payment of $2,400 which was credited to the loan accountInland Revenue Department’s unreasonable use of discretion to withhold information under the Tax Administration Act
Case notesIRD refused to provide details of internal investigation of complaint under s 81(4) of the Tax Administration Act 1994—the information the complainant wanted concerned an investigation into his allegation of improper actions by IRD staff—Ombudsman found that the Commissioner’s discretion to withhold the information was unreasonable because the complainant was entitled to information about an investigation concerning him—IRD agreed with the Ombudsman’s decision and made most of the information availableInland Revenue Department asked to compensate complainant following errors made on GST claim
Case notesIRD failed to provide reasons for decisions to refuse a GST refund claim—there was no evidence for the basis of the refusal but the claim was accepted when similar supporting evidence was provided from another source—IRD gave no explanation for the change of decision—claimant sought compensation for unnecessary expenditure he had incurred to support his claim—Ombudsman found against IRD for errors made and IRD agreed to make an ex gratia payment of $1500 to the complainantDepartment 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 practice