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.
52 Resources Show all
Inland Revenue refusal to provide tracing information for overseas borrowers justified
Case notesA complainant requested information from Inland Revenue about how it traces student loan overseas. Inland Revenue refused the request on grounds it would be contrary to the provisions of the Tax Administration Act.Request for data gathered by Inland Revenue contractor
Case notesThe Ombudsman formed the opinion that it was unreasonable for IR to rely on sections 18(e) and 18(c)(i) of the OIA in this case.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 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 information about Operation Burnham
Case notesSection 6(c) can potentially apply to prevent prejudice to the conduct of an inquiry under the Inquiries Act—however, blanket refusal was not justified—basic and uncontested factual material could be provided—section 6(c) applied where questions soughtDepartment 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 prescriptiveDepartment 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 CAA investigation report on Minister’s airport security breach
Case notesSection 9(2)(a) OIA applied to information that would identify Minister’s staff—s 9(2)(a) did not apply to non-sensitive information about actions that occurred in a public place, or to the name of the Investigator—s 6(c) did not apply to information suDepartment 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 information about Pike River Mine
Case notesSection 6(c) OIA applied—release of information directly relevant to the Royal Commission of Inquiry would be likely to prejudice the effective conduct of the InquiryRequest for information about the operation of the Spring Creek Coal Mine
Case notesInformation was ‘official information’—Section 6(c) OIA did not apply—information not directly relevant to inquiry—release not likely to prejudice the effective conduct of the Royal Commission of InquiryRequest for information about Police investigation into complaint against Minister
Case notesSection 6(c) OIA did not apply—no prejudice to the maintenance of the law in circumstances where the investigation had concluded and no charges had been laid—s 9(2)(a) applied—high privacy interest given the nature of the allegations and the fact that nDepartment 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 complaintInland Revenue Department not unreasonable to decline ex gratia payment
Case notesInland Revenue Department (IRD) refused to provide financial compensation for error—complainant not affected financially by error—Ombudsman concluded IRD reasonable to offer apology and instalment plan for repayment of money sent in error to complainantInland Revenue agrees to offer ex gratia payment for error
Case notesIRD delayed advising student of loan liability—IRD agrees to offer complainant ex gratia payment representing the accrued interest for the period the loan repayment had been outstandingInland Revenue Department not unreasonable to pay tax refund to estranged wife
Case notesInland Revenue (IRD) decision to pay complainant’s tax refund to estranged wife appropriate in the circumstancesCorrections unreasonable not to pay for inmate’s glasses for re-integration programme
Case notesLong serving prison inmate required glasses to participate in reintegration programme and work in prison tailor shop—Department of Corrections refused to pay for glasses unless inmate would refund them through his prison earnings—inmate later found out Department had paid for another inmate’s glasses in full—Ombudsman sustained complaint that inmate was not treated fairly—refund to inmate of money paid recommended.Inland Revenue’s policy and procedures deficient in case of child support repayments
Case notesIRD reviewed child support payments for liable parent resulting in $180 per month increase backdated 3 months—parent advised he could not pay arrears in lump sum and sought payment in instalments—IRD agreed—custodial parent complained to Ombudsman—Ombudsman reviewed instalment policy—IRD’s decision made in accordance with policy—however policy did not require full disclosure or scrutiny of liable parent’s financial situation—Ombudsman of view decision in this case not unreasonable as followed policy, but policy and procedures deficient and unreasonable—IRD agreed to review policy and proceduresRequest for information relating to an investigation into alleged destruction of documents held by NZDF
Case notesRequest for information relating to an investigation into alleged destruction of documents held by New Zealand Defence Force—information withheld to prevent prejudice to the outcome of those inquiries—s 6(c) applied at the time the request was refused—information later released due to change in circumstancesDepartment of Corrections required to state reasons for security classification
Case notesPrison inmate complained that his security classification had been unreasonably assessed and Ombudsman concluded the Department failed to provide ‘strong reasons’ (which must be stated)—Ombudsman found the Prison officers had based their classification on uncorroborated, unrecorded, verbal statement made by another inmate—Ombudsman upheld complaint based on inequitable situation that would result if prison relied solely on this information, however, the inmate released before any recommendation could be madeDepartment of Corrections revises guidelines on implications for visitors possessing drugs
Case notesPrison banned inmate’s family members from visiting for 12-months after small amount of cannabis found in their possession—the inmate complained that the duration of ban was unreasonable but the Department of Corrections noted it had zero tolerance policy for drugs with an automatic 12-month prohibition order to be placed on anyone found with them on prison property—Ombudsman concluded blanket ban unreasonable and the Department agreed each case to be considered on merits and prepared guidelines for prisons—Ombudsman advised inmate to apply for a review of prohibition order under the new guidelinesInland Revenue provided incomplete advice therefore was unreasonable to decline remission application
Case notesProvisional taxpayer advised by IRD of date tax due—advice relied on was wrong—late provisional tax resulted in ‘Use of Money Interest’ imposed by IRD—remission sought on grounds that taxpayer relied on IRD advice—remission declined as advice considered to be correct on the basis of details originally provided by taxpayer—Ombudsman formed view that information provided by IRD was correct but incomplete therefore decision to decline remission application unreasonable—partial remission appropriate in circumstancesRequest for details of prison security system
Case notesPrison inmate sought details of prison security system and name of company who installed it—release would be likely to prejudice the integrity of systemRequest to Police for information regarding alleged threats made against Judge
Case notesRequest for information provided to Police concerning alleged threats made by person/s connected with the requester’s family—refused on the basis that disclosure would reveal identity of the informant—mixture of ’personal information’ and ‘official information’—joint investigation with Privacy CommissionerIRD delays verifying student’s address and unreasonably charged late payment penalties
Case notesStudent believed her student loan repaid by grandmother and she had had no contact from IRD for eight years—there was no evidence the loan was repaid and IRD accepted there had been an unreasonable excessive delay in contacting student due to lack of valid address—however the IRD had no power to write off initial loan balance but following the Ombudsman’s investigation, agreed to reinstate loan in the current year and cancel accumulated interest and penaltiesRequest by shareholder of a company to the Securities Commission for a copy of a report of an investigation carried out on the company
Case notesRequest by a shareholder of a company to the Securities Commission for copy of a report of an investigation carried out on the company—information withheld to protect the maintenance of the law and obligations of confidence—test for withholding under s 6(c) not met—s 9(2)(ba)(i) provided good reason to withhold some informationDepartment of Corrections failed to meet requirements before placing inmate in restrictive regime
Case notesDepartment of Corrections placement of inmate on restrictive regime designed for the most disruptive inmates unreasonable because criteria for placement not met—placement deemed unreasonable—inmate immediately returned to mainstreamDepartment of Corrections applies prison visiting rules too rigidly
Case notesSpecial family visit to inmate denied—decision contrary to Department's national standard—prison agreed to review its local instructions to ensure consistency with spirit and intent of national standardDepartment of Corrections delays prisoner release when segregation order expired
Case notesDelayed release from ‘precautionary segregation’—complaint upheld—implementation of computerised bring-up system to avoid recurrence of problem—no recommendation necessary