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.
45 Resources Show all
Request for list of proposed Significant Natural Areas
Case notesNegotiations concluded—s 7(2)(i) does not applyLocal Authority excludes public from meeting when agenda item about water issues
Case notesComplaint about a Local Authority (the Council) to exclude the public from a part of its Audit and Risk Committee meeting regarding its discussion of agenda item relating to water quality and water restriction issues—insufficient weight was given to the public interest in the subject matter of the agenda itemEarly resolution of a potential water restriction to a family home
Case notesA family received notice that an agency would be severely restricting its water supply because of an overdue account. Once the Ombudsman became involved, the agency reviewed its accounts and realised it was in error. On the Ombudsman’s request, the agency apologised to the family and committed to reviewing its accounts more carefully before advising of possible water restrictions. From complaint to resolution, the issue was resolved in only 12 working days without the family suffering water restrictions.Administrative error leading to loss of opportunity to name a road
Case notesIn mid-2016, the owners of land containing a private road became aware that Kaipara District Council (the Council) had excluded them from a consultation process that it had initiated among residents earlier that year to determine a name for the road.Request 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 moneyLocal Authority not unreasonable to turn off water supply at property owned by a Trust
Case notesDecision by Local Authority to turn off water supply in building occupied intermittently—Ombudsman finds not unreasonableDepartment 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 prescriptiveLocal Authority fails to include relevant information on a Land Information Memorandum
Case notesLocal Authority omits to identify potential slippage risk on a Land Information Memorandum (LIM) issued to the complainant—Ombudsman sustains complaintImmigration New Zealand’s decision to issue Deportation Liability Notice unreasonable in circumstances
Case notesImmigration New Zealand (INZ)’s decision to issue a Deportation Liability Notice (DLN) was unreasonable—compliance officer inferred situation that complainant was then not given an opportunity to explain—Ombudsman sustained complaint—INZ restored immigration status to complainant with open conditionsRequest 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) applyImmigration New Zealand’s consideration of a section 61 visa request regarding complainant's family role, reasonably considered
Case notesWhether the approach taken by Immigration New Zealand (INZ) about the exercise of absolute discretion when determining requests for a visa under section 61 of the Immigration Act 2009 was reasonable—in this case whether INZ considered relevant considerations including whether it had considered the complainant’s submissions about the active role he had in raising his New Zealand citizen partner’s daughter—Chief Ombudsman concludes INZ’s consideration of the request was reasonableImmigration New Zealand’s consideration of a section 61 visa request deficient
Case notesWhether the approach taken by Immigration New Zealand (‘INZ’) about the exercise of absolute discretion when determining requests for a visa under section 61 of the Immigration Act 2009 was reasonable—in this case whether INZ considered relevant considerations including whether it had considered the complainant’s submissions about the health of his New Zealand citizen child—Chief Ombudsman concludes aspects of INZ’s decision-making processes were deficientImmigration New Zealand’s decision on section 61 visa request regarding complainant's safety, reasonably considered
Case notesWhether the approach taken by Immigration New Zealand (‘INZ’) about the exercise of absolute discretion when determining requests for a visa under section 61 of the Immigration Act 2009 was reasonable—in this case whether INZ considered relevant considerations including whether the complainant had legitimate concerns about his alleged safety if he was to return to his home country—Ombudsman concludes INZ’s decision making was reasonableImmigration New Zealand’s decision on section 61 visa request reasonably considered
Case notesWhether the approach taken by Immigration New Zealand (INZ) about the exercise of absolute discretion when determining requests for a visa under section 61 of the Immigration Act 2009 was reasonable—in this case whether INZ considered relevant considerations regarding international conventions that protect the rights of a child—Ombudsman concluded INZ’s decision-making process was reasonableRequest 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 price of successful tenderer (weekly license fee to operate and occupy Riverbank Market)
Case notesNo need to withhold successful tender price—s 7(2)(i) does not apply—public interest in release to promote integrity and transparency of tender processCancellation of transport card and refusal to refund money stored on the card
Case notesA complaint was made against Auckland Transport (AT) about its cancellation of an ‘AT HOP’ card used by commuters on Auckland’s public transport system.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-yearsRequest for correspondence about Total Mobility Scheme
Case notesRevealing the respective positions and concerns of the parties to the negotiation would lead to reduced cooperation and information sharing, and decrease likelihood of compromise—s 7(2)(i) appliesRequest for amount budgeted for staff remuneration
Case notesReleasing staff remuneration budget would undermine the Council’s bargaining position and prejudice ability to negotiate effectively with staff and representatives—s 7(2)(i) appliesRequest 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) appliesLocal Authority’s efforts to mitigate effects of resource consent errors not unreasonable
Case notesLocal Authority decision about wall constructed on boundary—Council erred by not requiring resource consent and then offered assistance to owners to lodge application—complainant considered Council unfair not to offer assistance to him to oppose the consentLocal Authority’s Code of Compliance Certificate on drainage reasonable in circumstances
Case notesLocal Authority decision on detection of cross connection piping problem not unreasonable—Body Corporation of building forced to pay costs—question whether Code of Compliance Certificate should have been issued—Ombudsman concluded Council not aware of problemRegional Authority decision on resource consent for pergola on non-notified basis not unreasonable
Case notesRegional Authority’s decision to grant resource consent for a pergola on a non-notified basis was reasonable in the circumstance—permitted baseline test under section 95E of the Resource Management Act 1991Local Authority’s Trespass Notice unreasonable in circumstances
Case notesLocal Authority issued Trespass Notice for two years at sports stadium—Ombudsman noted serious misconduct on part of complainant to warrant action but trespass sanction extreme—complaint sustained and Council implemented Ombudsman’s recommendationsLocal Authority did not act unreasonably in remedying damage following tree removal
Case notesLocal Authority—removal of two pohutukawa trees—Council agreed to mitigate loss of these in conjunction with the land owner—Ombudsman considered Council did not act unreasonablyDepartment 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 instanceImmigration New Zealand reasonable to conclude permit-holder working outside visa conditions and to issue Deportation Liability Notice
Case notesImmigration New Zealand (INZ) issued a Deportation Liability Notice (DLN) when complainant was observed working at a restaurant and outside conditions of work visa—Ombudsman found INZ’s decision reasonable in the circumstancesAssociate Minister of Immigration’s private secretary reasonably triages AMOI intervention requests
Case notesWhether Private Secretary for Associate Minister of Immigration (AMOI) acted unreasonably by not referring the complainant’s request for intervention to the AMOI—Ombudsman concludes AMOI practice for Private Secretary to triage, reasonableImmigration New Zealand reasonable to decline section 61 Visa request
Case notesImmigration New Zealand (INZ’s) decision to refuse complainant’s request for a visa under section 61 of the Immigration Act 2009, reasonable in the circumstances—issue concerned ‘shared care’ arrangement and whether INZ took this into account—complaint not upheldLocal Authority unreasonably failed to consult with residents about building relocation
Case notesLocal Authority allowed relocation of building without providing for adequate consultation process with the local community—Ombudsman upheld complaint