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 MSD historic claims guidebook

    Case notes
    Complaint about the decision to withhold a document containing procedures and guidance under section 9(2)(j) of the Official Information Act—section 9(2)(j) did not apply—engagements conducted on a ‘take it or leave it’ basis are not clearly ‘negotiatio
  • 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 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 list of proposed Significant Natural Areas

    Case notes
    Negotiations concluded—s 7(2)(i) does not apply
  • 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 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
  • 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
  • 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 cost of recruiting Vice-Chancellor

    Case notes
    Release of total cost would not unreasonably prejudice third party’s commercial position—no specific negotiations—release of total costs would not deter businesses from treating with government—public interest in accountability for spending public money
  • Request for price of successful tenderer (weekly license fee to operate and occupy Riverbank Market)

    Case notes
    No need to withhold successful tender price—s 7(2)(i) does not apply—public interest in release to promote integrity and transparency of tender process
  • 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 information associated with PHARMAC’s 2016/17 budget bid

    Case notes
    PHARMAC did not have a commercial position and was not engaged in commercial activities—s 9(2)(j) applies to information about PHARMAC’s willingness to pay for pharmaceuticals but not to PHARMAC’s indicative budget in out-years
  • Request for correspondence about Total Mobility Scheme

    Case notes
    Revealing the respective positions and concerns of the parties to the negotiation would lead to reduced cooperation and information sharing, and decrease likelihood of compromise—s 7(2)(i) applies
  • Request for amount budgeted for staff remuneration

    Case notes
    Releasing staff remuneration budget would undermine the Council’s bargaining position and prejudice ability to negotiate effectively with staff and representatives—s 7(2)(i) applies
  • Request for capping data

    Case notes
    Release eight weeks after refusal was ‘soon’—s 18(d) applied
  • 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 copy of Teachers Register

    Case notes
    Information was not publicly available in the form requested—s 18(d) did not apply
  • Request for information about Hauraki Treaty negotiations

    Case notes
    Release would prejudice the goodwill of the parties and the progress of the negotiations—s 9(2)(j) applies
  • 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
  • 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 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 about DHB’s dispute with South Link Health

    Case notes
    Releasing statement of claim in breach of confidentiality agreement would disadvantage the DHB by diminishing trust and goodwill between the parties—releasing report would disadvantage the DHB by assisting the other party to counter DHB’s position—public interest in disclosure outweighed the need to withhold the statement of claim but not the report
  • Request for information about dispute between South Link Health and Southern District Health Board

    Case notes
    Good reason to withhold information that would reveal negotiating position and strategy or further deteriorate the relationship between the parties—s 9(2)(j) does not apply to some factual information and information that was known to the other party to the negotiation
  • 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 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 rent paid for transmission and broadcast sites

    Case notes
    Requester could use knowledge of other site rental rates to try and obtain a higher rate in their rent review—s 9(2)(j) applies