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.
42 Resources Show all
Requests to Ministry of Health and ESR for Covid-19 cycle threshold values
Case notesInformation requested initially refused for privacy reasons. The agencies subsequently focused on section 9(2)(c) of the OIA (to avoid prejudice to public health or safety measures).Request for information concerning increase in number of cochlear implants
Case notesSection 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 existWorkSafe’s decision not to formally investigate an incident
Case notesComplaint about WorkSafe’s decision not to investigate and lay charges following an accident causing injury – failure to consider all relevant information – failure to engage meaningfully with the complainant – no evidence that documents had been faConsultation on health and safety processes for Managed Isolation Facility
Case notesComplaint 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 didRequest for names of clusters that COVID-19 cases were linked to
Case notesSection 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 ActAdministrative error resulting in lost opportunity for ACC claim
Case notesA 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 notesWhether 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 sustainedDecisions of PHARMAC to fund Opdivo and Keytruda
Case notesA 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 notesWhether the Ministry of Health’s policy to require prior approval for funding for house modification was reasonable—Ombudsman concluded it was notHealth and Disability Commissioner not unreasonable to refer matter to Medical Council without advising complainant
Case notesWhether 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 informationMinistry of Health’s decision following audit of aged care facility not unreasonable
Case notesMinistry of Health’s HealthCERT not unreasonable to issue an aged care facility with ‘partial attainment’ in its August 2016 surveillance auditMinistry of Health agrees to increase what was an unreasonably low offer of ex gratia payment
Case notesMinistry of Health’s decision in December 2016 to offer complainant $8000 by way of an ex gratia payment for mistakes made by the Ministry and lengths complainant had to go to in having the Funded Family Care hours reinstated unreasonable—Ministry of Health agreed to increase the amount following the complaint.Patient eligibility for publicly funded healthcare
Case notesThis case note concerns an investigation under the Ombudsmen Act 1975, resulting from a complaint to the Ombudsman about the failure of a district health board (DHB) to identify that a patient was ineligible to receive publicly funded health care beforeAdequacy 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 lossesDepartment 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 validatedDistrict Health Board decision not to consult on provision of abortion services at a Hospital was unreasonable
Case notesWhether the District Health Board was unreasonable to offer abortion services at a hospital without consultation with the local communityPharmac decision not to fund drug was not unreasonable or contrary to law
Case notesWhether PHARMAC decision not to fund a drug was unreasonable or contrary to law—Ombudsman concluded that this case did not reach the threshold of being unreasonable or contrary to law but made suggestions to PHARMAC about the matterDistrict Health Board’s processes regarding informed consent for assisted reproductive procedure not unreasonable
Case notesWhether a District Health Board (DHB) failed to ensure the complainant received adequate professional advice before being required to sign a legal document surrendering substantial legal rights—whether that document was ‘informed consent’—Ombudsman concluded DHB had not acted unreasonably in this matterRequest for reasons about unsuccessful reappointment
Case notesExtent of detail required in response to s 23 request depends on circumstances of particular case – a requester may still have questions after they receive statement of reasons but that does not mean statement is inadequate – s 23(2A) only protects evaluative material that has been ‘supplied’ by someone elseMinistry of Agriculture’s aerial spray programme had unreasonable impact on population
Case notesMinistry of Agriculture and Fisheries—Ministry of Health—actions in relation to the aerial spraying of Foray 48B (to eliminate the Painted Apple Moth) in West Auckland and Hamilton—inadequate advice to ministers about impact of spray operationsDepartment of Internal Affairs not unreasonable to cancel passport
Case notesDepartment of Internal Affairs—decision to recall and cancel complainant’s NZ passport – position determined by terms of legislationCanterbury District Health Board received inadequate advice about historic place
Case notesDistrict Health Board’s decision to sell land around disused hospital in Hanmer Springs—requirements for consultation discussed—requirement for keeping open mind referred to—an inadequate summary of submissions provided to Board—Department of Conservation asked to reassess siteRequest for reasons about non-appointment
Case notesInadequate statement of reasons – more detail and specificity necessary to meet the requirements of s 23Ministry of Health reconsiders decision to charge for collation of information
Case notesRequester sought draft and final copies of public health contracts for four financial years between Ministry of Health and 42 providers—Ministry agreed to release but subject to charge of $24,000—Ombudsman sought basis for charge—request for vast amount of information requiring substantial collation—charge applied in accordance with Ministry of Justice Charging Guidelines—however, Ministry had previously released part of requested information to an MP free of charge—Ombudsman did not consider it reasonable now to charge member of public for same information—Ministry agreed to review decision and release that particular information again free of charge and assist requester to refine request for outstanding informationMedical Practitioners’ Disciplinary Tribunal outside Ombudsman’s jurisdiction
Case notesComplaint about Medical Practitioners’ Disciplinary Tribunal decision to strike off a doctor and media coverage of the hearing—no jurisdiction to investigate—Ombudsman has discretion to investigate matters of administration with respect to the Health and Disability Commissioner’s investigation into the doctor’s medical practices but only if complainant has sufficient interest in the subject-matter of complaint and consent from the doctorFailure by health funding body to honour undertaking by predecessor funding body to fund gender reassignment surgery unreasonable
Case notesThe Health Funding Authority (disestablished in 2001) was required to consider a complaint against its predecessor (Regional Health Authority) about an agreement by RHA to fund gender reassignment surgery—the RHA had initially agreed to fund this surgery but then changed its policy—the Ombudsman concluded that it was unreasonable for the RHA not to honour this undertaking on the basis of a subsequent change in policy and that its successor, the HFA should remedy the unreasonable actions of its predecessor—the HFA agreed with the Ombudsman’s recommendations to fund the gender reassignment surgery in the manner originally approved—as the HFA was by this time disestablished the matter was passed to the Ministry of Health for completionMinistry of Health decision not to respond to ‘open letter’ on baby food not unreasonable in circumstances
Case notesComplainant wrote open letter to Ministry of Health expressing concerns about potential soy toxicity in baby food—no reply received—Ombudsman’s assistance sought—Ombudsman considered wording of letter—no specific information requested—Official Information Act did not apply—Ombudsman noted considerable correspondence on issue had already been exchanged between Ministry and complainant—open letter appeared to be a continuation of debate with Ministry—Ministry’s failure to respond unlikely to be unreasonable in the circumstances—Ombudsman exercised discretion under s.17(1)(b) Ombudsmen Act not to continue enquiriesHealth and Disability Commissioner unreasonably applied ‘gold standard’ when deciding on dental practitioner’s professional clinical standards
Case notesWhether breach of professional clinical standards had been established—Health & Disability Commissioner (Code of Health & Disability Services Consumers’ Rights) Regulations 1996— whether Commissioner acted unreasonably in informing practitioner’s employer of alleged breach without first providing practitioner with adequate opportunity to respond—whether Commissioner unreasonable in failing to compensate practitionerRequest for Department’s reasons for declining application
Case notesDepartment maintains it had given its reasons previously, in writing and verbally on many occasions—requirements of s 23 had not been met—compliant statement of reasons providedRequest for reasons for decision made three years earlier
Case notesRequest for reasons for decision made three years earlier—request declined on grounds it was not ‘made within a reasonable time of the making of the decision’—decision to decline request upheldNew Zealand Customs Service questioned over acceptance of deposit pursuant to legislation
Case notesRefusal to pay interest following resolution of dispute over Customs value of goods—whether relevant documentation provided at the time of importation—whether s 140 of the Customs Act 1966 (repealed) conferred authority on Department to take deposit—investigation discontinued following discovery that company did not exist as legal entity at the time complaint was madeRequest for information framed in terms of section 23
Case notesRequest framed in terms of s 23—Crown Law sought details of requester’s personal interest in information at issue—requester objected on grounds of his right to seek information—Crown Law had not acted improperly in seeking further information from the requester—if an organisation fails to recognise that a request falls within the scope of s 23 and by error processes it pursuant to the more general provisions in Part 2 of the Act, a requester may be deprived of information to which he or she is entitled—no formal investigation—requester invited to advise Crown Law whether he had any personal interest in the decision in question