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.
59 Resources Show all
Decision 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 ofRequest 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 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 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 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 DHB financial reporting data
Case notesWhile 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 applyRequest 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 recidivism statistics
Case notesNo certainty that information would be released in the near future—release 13 weeks after refusal was not ‘soon’—s 18(d) did not applyRequest for quarterly justice sector report
Case notesRelease 12-16 weeks after refusal was not ‘soon’—s 18(d) did not applyRequest for CSV copy of the Teachers Register
Case notesSection 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 releasedDepartment 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 names of frontline forestry officers in information about the felling and milling of kauri
Case notesSection 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 administratRequest for briefing notes relating to state visits
Case notesInspection on conditions in order to identify the documents required provided means of resolving s 18(f) refusalAdequacy of ex gratia payment to remedy mistake by Customs
Case notesNZ Customs officer rejected passenger on flight because water damage on passport—Ombudsman found officers failed to process the passport adequately and caused considerable cost to passenger because of this failure—complainant upheld and complainant received full payment to cover financial lossesRequest for research behind a published statement
Case notesRequester must be told where they can access the publicly available informationRequest for holiday period excess speed infringement data
Case notesRelease 23 working days after refusal was ‘soon’—s 18(d)Request for restorative justice data
Case notesNo certainty that information would be released in the near future—release 14-16 weeks after refusal was not ‘soon’—s 18(g) did not applyDepartment of Internal Affairs provides reasonable service and advice to traveller on temporary passport
Case notesWhether the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) reasonably handled revalidation of a passport for New Zealand citizen travelling on temporary passport—Ombudsman concluded DIA had made every effort to inform the complainant of the steps needed to have his passport validatedNames of senior and principal historian involved in writing treaty settlement memo
Case notesSections 9(2)(a) and 9(2)(g)(ii) OIA did not apply—information publicly available—seniority—degree of responsibility—no material supporting likelihood of pressure or harassmentRequest for information about the Rugby World Cup
Case notesNo certainty that information would be released in the near future—s 18(d) did not applyRequest for name of Auckland Transport employee who requested trade plate cancellation
Case notesSection 7(2)(f)(ii) LGOIMA applied—Auckland Transport provided examples of situations where its employees had been personally targeted and subjected to behaviour that was perceived to be threatening and intimidating by requester—reasonable likelihood thDepartment of Corrections reasonable to seek removal of prisoner from study course in some circumstances
Case notesWhether the Department of Corrections was reasonable to request the tertiary institution to remove a prisoner from a course at a polytechnic—Ombudsman found Department’s decision to have been reasonable in partRequest for operational protocols and governance arrangements for the retention of new born blood spot cards (‘Guthrie’ cards)
Case notesRequest for protocols for Guthrie cards—requester advised protocols would be reported back to government by end of April and released in due course—some documents subsequently released but not the documents requested—it must be the actual information requested that is to be made publicly available, not other information, even if it is related, or the final version of the information—s 18(d) not applicableRequest for property valuation data which was available for purchase
Case notesInformation available for a charge is publicly available—s 17(d) appliedDepartment of Corrections made errors in documentation but parole hearing set correctly
Case notesWhether Department of Corrections staff failed complainant with respect to a Parole Board hearing—Ombudsman found errors in documentation but complainant not disadvantagedDepartment of Corrections unreasonable to place prisoner with mental illness in mainstream unit
Case notesWhether the Department of Corrections was unreasonable to place prisoner in mainstream unit given specific medical condition of mental illness—Ombudsman upheld complaintRequest for staff named in emails about genetically modified corn
Case notesSection 6(d) OIA did not apply—no real and objective risk of danger to safety—s 9(2)(g)(ii) OIA did not apply—many of the names were already publicly available in connection with this issue and no harm had ensued—section 9(2)(g)(i) OIA did not apply—infRequest for names of members of advisory committee on national standards for abortion services in New Zealand
Case notesSection 9(2)(g)(ii) OIA applied— Abortion Supervisory Committee provided evidence of past instances of harassment—reasonable likelihood that release would lead to improper pressure or harassment which would impact on the ability and willingness of commi