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 Case notes
- Deactivate facet Conditions
- Deactivate facet Confidentiality
- Deactivate facet Constitutional conventions
- Deactivate facet Customs
- Deactivate facet Free and frank opinions
- Deactivate facet Health
- Deactivate facet Improper pressure or harassment
- Deactivate facet Prisoners / Corrections
232 Resources Show all
Request for information concerning increase in number of cochlear implants
Case notesSection 9(2)(f)(iv) OIA applied to costing information and detailed analysis regarding unsuccessful Budget 2020 bid which had been resubmitted for consideration through the 2021 Budget process – small amount of high level information about the existRequest for information about volunteer rural constabulary programme
Case notesSection 9(2)(f)(iv) OIA applied to briefing from New Zealand Police to Minister—negotiations between coalition partners were still required, and disclosure would have prejudiced the orderly and effective conduct of the Government’s decision making proceConsultation on health and safety processes for Managed Isolation Facility
Case notesComplaint about level of consultation with residents before Stamford Plaza Hotel became a Managed Isolation Facility—Chief Ombudsman found that the Department did not consult appropriately with the residents before this occurred—the Department also didRequest for names of clusters that COVID-19 cases were linked to
Case notesSection 18(c)(i) OIA applied—release would be contrary to s 92ZZG(2) Health Act 1956— discretion to use or disclose contact tracing information for the ‘effective management of infectious diseases’—exercise of discretion reviewed under the Ombudsmen ActRequest for email between journalist and source
Case notesSection 9(2)(a) OIA did not apply—one party consented to release—both parties acting in their professional capacities—information already in the public domain—s 9(2)(ba)(ii) did not apply—no blanket confidentiality for all communications with journalistDecision 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 ofDecision to release tender information in response to Official Information Act request
Case notesComplaint about a decision to release information under the Official Information Act—Ministry consulted adequately with affected party—Ministry took into account affected party’s submissions, all relevant considerations, principle of availability, legisRequest for record of ‘without prejudice’ meeting
Case notesSection 7(2)(g) LGOIMA did not apply—‘without prejudice’ privilege is not an aspect of legal professional privilege—s 7(2)(c)(ii) applied—obligation of confidence attaches to information subject to without prejudice privilege—release would make people rFailure to appropriately apply Protected Disclosures Act
Case notesThe complainant made protected disclosures about health and safety issues in her workplace – she left the job after the employer found her disclosures to be serious misconduct - employer reported it to professional body - body found she did not meet proRequest for information about death in custody
Case notesRequest for all correspondence about death in custody—unreasonable to rely on sections 9(2)(a) and 9(2)(ba)(i) without compiling and reviewing the information—subsequent reliance on section 18(f) (substantial collation or research) also unjustified—Request for RMA side agreement between Council and iwi
Case notesSection 7(2)(c)(ii) LGOIMA applied—agreement contained express obligation of confidence— release would be likely to damage the public interest in encouraging parties to settle their disputes without resorting to litigation—public interest in accountabilRequest for Chief Executive’s performance agreement and KPIs
Case notesRequest for Chief Executive’s performance agreement and KPIs—s 7(2)(a) LGOIMA did not provide good reason to withhold most of the performance agreements and KPIs—however, s 7(2)(c)(ii) provided good reason to withhold ‘stretch targets’—there was a mRequest 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 names and contact details in Department of Corrections’ emails
Case notesSection 9(2)(a) OIA did not apply to names—many of the names were publicly available— seniority— section 9(2)(g)(ii) did not apply to names—no evidence to suggest release would lead to improper pressure or harassment—section 9(2)(a) did not apply to emaRequest for officials’ names in information about glyphosate
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—possibility of public criticism not enoughRequest for emails between officials discussing the advice that should be tendered on the answering of parliamentary questions
Case notesParliamentary Privilege Act 2014 did not provide a statutory bar on the Ombudsman’s investigation of a complaint under the OIA—section 9(2)(g)(i) applied—release would prejudice the free and frank expression of similar communications in future—no publicRequest for contact details of Housing New Zealand staff
Case notesSection 9(2)(g)(ii) OIA applied—there was a strong likelihood that staff would be subjected to further harassment or improper pressure if the requester obtained their contact details—this conduct could detrimentally affect staff thus impairing HNZ’s abiRequest for information about ERO review
Case notesSection 9(2)(ba)(i) OIA applied to information obtained from participants in review—express obligation of confidence—release would be likely to prejudice the future supply of information by participants—it is in the public interest for ERO to receive coRequest for names of staff and contractors involved in producing crime and safety survey
Case notesSection 9(2)(g)(ii) OIA applied to staff names—on basis of past conduct Ombudsman satisfied that requester would engage in improper pressure or harassment that would impact on the Ministry’s ability to attract and retain staff and contactors—section 9(2Request for business plan for Christchurch Convention and Exhibition Centre
Case notesCompetitors could copy or adopt third party’s methodology and strategy and devise plans based on its established operating systems which would unreasonably prejudice its commercial position—information subject to an explicit obligation of confidence and of a confidential nature—release would damage the public interest by making suppliers reluctant to participate in future procurement processesRequest 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 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 interestAdministrative error resulting in lost opportunity for ACC claim
Case notesA patient who was unaware he had asbestosis underwent a CT scan while being treated at a DHB Hospital. On the scan’s accompanying notes a radiologist noted previous asbestos exposure. This CT scan with accompanying notes was misfiled, for unknown reasons, and the patient’s diagnosis of asbestosis was not confirmed until autopsy.Ministry of Health unreasonably disallowed visiting Australian resident access to publicly funded health services
Case notesWhether the Ministry of Health was unreasonable to determine that medical treatment obtained by a visitor to New Zealand was not ‘immediately necessary’ and therefore not covered by reciprocal health agreement with Australia – Ombudsman considered the Ministry of Health erred – complaint sustainedRequest for emails between MP and university researchers
Case notesSection 9(2)(ba)(i) OIA did not apply—no obligation of confidence—information voluntarily supplied with no reference to confidentiality—release of ‘benign’ information with the consent of the supplier would not be likely to prejudice the future supply oRequest 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 moneyRequest for names and address for service of two Police officers
Case notesSection 9(2)(a) and 9(2)(g)(ii) OIA applied—past conduct suggested the requester would publish information targeting or encouraging others to target the officers in a way that would breach their personal privacy, and subject them to improper pressure orDepartment 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) applyRequest for draft venue development strategy
Case notesDraft venue development strategy prepared by consultant—refused because commercial and confidential—analysis preliminary and high-level—s 7(2)(f)(i) applies—public interest requires disclosure of a summary statementRequest 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 disclosureDecisions of PHARMAC to fund Opdivo and Keytruda
Case notesA complaint was made to the Ombudsman that PHARMAC took too long to approve the May 2015 application to fund the metastatic melanoma cancer drug Keytruda.[1]