Open main menu Close main menu
Search by keyword

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
Search by keyword

149 Resources Show all

  • Request for official information about scholarship criteria framed as question

    Case notes
    Failure by the Ministry of Education to respond to a request for official information within the statutory timeframe – Ministry did not process the request as an OIA request as Ministry considered that it required the generation of comment – Ombudsm

  • Delay in responding to a request for information about cannabis-related medicines

    Case notes
    Failure by the Ministry of Health to make and communicate a decision on a request for official information within extended time limit— contrary to law— decision to extend the time limit also unreasonable

  • Unreasonable extension of time limit for internal consultations

    Case notes
    Request for information about OIA statistics—extension to time limit for responding to request – notified on basis of need to undertake consultations—internal review and sign-out process is part of making a decision and not consultation for the purpose of s15A – decision to extend unreasonable

  • Request for information concerning increase in number of cochlear implants

    Case notes
    Section 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 exist

  • Delay in responding to request for certain briefings

    Case notes
    Failure by the Minister for Courts to make and communicate his decision on a request for official information within extended time limit— contrary to law

  • Request for information about volunteer rural constabulary programme

    Case notes
    Section 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 proce

  • Consultation on health and safety processes for Managed Isolation Facility

    Case notes
    Complaint 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 did

  • Request for names of clusters that COVID-19 cases were linked to

    Case notes
    Section 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 Act

  • Decision to implement locked cell policy

    Case notes
    Complaint 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 of

  • 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 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 information about ERO review

    Case notes
    Section 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 co

  • 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

  • Administrative error resulting in lost opportunity for ACC claim

    Case notes
    A 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 notes
    Whether 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 sustained

  • Request for DHB financial reporting data

    Case notes
    While release 1 month after refusal would have been ‘soon’ there was no reasonable certainty release would occur by then—agency should reasonably have foreseen delay in obtaining Ministerial input due to election—Section 18(d) did not apply

  • 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

  • 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 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

  • Decisions of PHARMAC to fund Opdivo and Keytruda

    Case notes
    A 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]

  • Ministry of Health policy on reimbursement of expenses for house modification unreasonable

    Case notes
    Whether the Ministry of Health’s policy to require prior approval for funding for house modification was reasonable—Ombudsman concluded it was not

  • 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

  • Health and Disability Commissioner not unreasonable to refer matter to Medical Council without advising complainant

    Case notes
    Whether the Health and Disability Commissioner legally or otherwise required to inform complainant of a referral made to the Medical Council of New Zealand—Ombudsman concluded HDC not bound to divulge this information

  • 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 recidivism statistics

    Case notes
    No certainty that information would be released in the near future—release 13 weeks after refusal was not ‘soon’—s 18(d) did not apply

  • Request for quarterly justice sector report

    Case notes
    Release 12-16 weeks after refusal was not ‘soon’—s 18(d) did not apply

  • Request for CSV copy of the Teachers Register

    Case notes
    Section 18(d) OIA did not apply—information was not publicly available in the form requested—s 9(2)(a) did not apply—not necessary to withhold publicly available information in order to protect privacy—information released

  • 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