Resources and publications

Ngā rauemi me ngā tānga

Search guidescase notesopinionsreports 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. 

  • Request for information about death in custody

    Case notes
    Request 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 staff names and initials in Commerce Commission memorandum

    Case notes
    Section 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 reason
  • Request for names and contact details in Department of Corrections’ emails

    Case notes
    Section 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 ema
  • Request for officials’ names in information about glyphosate

    Case notes
    Section 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 enough
  • Request for emails between officials discussing the advice that should be tendered on the answering of parliamentary questions

    Case notes
    Parliamentary 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 public
  • Request for contact details of Housing New Zealand staff

    Case notes
    Section 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 abi
  • Request for names of staff and contractors involved in producing crime and safety survey

    Case notes
    Section 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(2
  • Request for draft report prepared by PwC on Auckland Stadium

    Case notes
    Report 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 part
  • Request for draft guidelines on religious instruction and observance in schools

    Case notes
    Officials still in the process of drafting—premature disclosure in advance of the planned public consultation process was not in the overall public interest
  • Request for draft reports prepared by EY on Information Services

    Case notes
    Draft 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 money
  • Request for names and address for service of two Police officers

    Case notes
    Section 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 or
  • Request for Skypath business case and procurement plan

    Case notes
    Releasing 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) apply
  • Request for draft internal review of International Visitor Survey

    Case notes
    Internal 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 disclosure
  • Department of Corrections staff to follow legislative requirements when segregating inmate

    Case notes
    Department of Corrections held prisoner in Management Unit without following required procedure—segregation legislation and regulations are clear and prescriptive
  • Request for agency peer review of Family Violence Death Review Committee draft annual report

    Case notes
    Release of free and frank comments made in the context of peer reviewing a draft annual report would inhibit the expression of similar comments in future—s 9(2)(g)(i) applied
  • Request for due diligence report, site visit reports and reference checks

    Case notes
    Section 9(2)(ba)(i) applies in part to the due diligence report and to the correspondence from supplier—public interest in accountability of Department for steps taken to satisfy itself regarding supplier’s performance—sections 9(2)(ba)(i) and 9(2)(g)(i) apply to information obtained from site visits, but not to the executive summary of the reports—public interest in accountability for decision to award contract—sections 9(2)(ba)(i) applies to reference checks—release would deter referees from providing full and complete information in future—public interest requires release of summary information about the reference checks
  • Request for internal and external correspondence relating to OIA requests

    Case notes
    Request not frivolous or vexatious—information not trivial—agency should have met or at least talked with the requester before changing its practice of providing this type of information
  • Request for draft job sizing reports

    Case notes
    Reports formed an early stage of developing options for consideration and consultation— disclosure would likely inhibit the willingness of officials and consultants to tender a wide range of preliminary options, and to canvass issues in comprehensive written form, to the detriment of prudent and effective decision making
  • Department of Corrections unreasonably declines computer access to inmate

    Case notes
    Access 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 litigation
  • Department of Corrections not unreasonable to decline face to face interview between prisoner and journalist in particular case

    Case notes
    Prisoner 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 instance
  • Request for information about mental health

    Case notes
    Refusal justified but not because request was vexatious—some information not held but would need to be created—some information could not be provided without substantial collation or research
  • Request for ‘movement log’ and police file

    Case notes
    Requester not deprived of right to access official information because he had already received all relevant information—requester not deprived of access to justice because his underlying concerns had been conclusively resolved in a range of forums¬—vexatious complaint, Ombudsman refuses to investigate
  • Request for draft terms of reference for an inquiry

    Case notes
    Draft terms of reference largely the same as publicly available final ones—release would not inhibit the future free and frank expression of opinion or provision of advice to the Prime Minister—s 9(2)(g)(i) did not apply
  • Request for names of frontline forestry officers in information about the felling and milling of kauri

    Case notes
    Section 9(2)(g)(ii) OIA applied—MPI provided evidence of past instances of harassment and comments from the staff concerned—reasonable expectation that release would lead to improper pressure or harassment which would be detrimental to MPI’s administrat
  • Request for evaluation and audit reports regarding extended supervision orders

    Case notes
    Evaluation report comprised largely academic material and statistical analysis—9(2)(g)(i) did not apply—audit report had been submitted to senior management but marked as draft—disclosure of majority not likely to prejudice future exchange of free and frank opinions—significant public interest considerations in favour of disclosure—audit report released with deletion of names and detailed findings relating to individual service providers
  • Request for briefing notes relating to state visits

    Case notes
    Inspection on conditions in order to identify the documents required provided means of resolving s 18(f) refusal
  • Request for information relating to proposed parking changes in a street

    Case notes
    Volume of correspondence and requests created challenges but requester had a legitimate interest in obtaining information to help them understand the intended changes and make submissions—no evidence the request was made for irrational, mischievous or malicious reasons—no evidence that the agency had helped the requester to refine the request, reduce the scope, or clarify the specific information sought—request not frivolous or vexatious
  • Request for DHB Commissioner’s draft work plan

    Case notes
    Release of draft work plan would likely result in reluctance by staff to draft and consult on document—components of plan, once confirmed, were to be included in the 2016/17 annual plan—s 9(2)(g)(i) provided good reason to withhold
  • Request for draft financial performance analysis

    Case notes
    Draft financial performance analysis prepared by Alma Consulting—s 9(2)(g)(i) did not apply— strong public interest in release
  • Request for copy of LGOIMA request

    Case notes
    Earlier decision to supply the (wrong) information undermined later decision to declare the request vexatious—request arose out of genuine interest in the subject—while the requester had been critical of Council that did not mean the purpose of his request was to harass or annoy—s 18(h) does not apply—information should be released
  • Request for handwritten comments on draft walking and cycling strategy

    Case notes
    Release 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) applies
  • Request for evidentiary conclusions in respect of 15 issues or assertions and information about religious affiliation or association of staff

    Case notes
    Information not held—evidentiary conclusions would need to be created—to the extent that information about religious affiliation or association of staff was held in mind of Commissioner it would be held in a personal capacity