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.
55 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 statistics on allegations of assault by Corrections staff
Case notesRequirements of Operations Manual meant source information to answer request should be held—manual compilation is not creation—s 18(g) does not apply—unreasonable to rely on s 18(f) when the fundamental difficulty in providing the information was down to the Department’s own administrative lapsesDepartment 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 prescriptiveRequests for firearms statistics
Case notesRefusal under section 18(g) not justified—information held—Police could manually extract and compile statistics—where compilation involves substantial collation or research s 18(f) appliesDepartment 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 video footage recorded during an investigation
Case notes1100 hours of video footage—extension of time limit reasonable—concerns about volume of information addressed by disclosing a sampleRequest for transcripts of post-Cabinet press conferences (substantial impact)
Case notesDifficulty involved in finding and bringing together the requested transcripts - adverse impact on operation of the Office—s 18(f) appliedRequest 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) refusalRequest for transcripts of post-Cabinet press conferences
Case notesPrime Minister’s office wanted to compare draft transcript with audio recording to check for errors—‘substantial collation or research’ does not encompass a quality assurance check of that nature—10 hours work did not amount to ‘substantial collation or research’Department 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 concerning review of Oil Pollution Fund and MNZ’s preparedness to respond to oil spill
Case notesConsulting with requester in fulsome way removed reason for refusalRequest for information on taser use
Case notesReview and manual extraction of details from 282 tactical operations reports—s 18(f) appliedRequest for copy of file of deceased brother held by NZSIS
Case notesReleasing information in alternative form enabled accountability without prejudicing security or efficient working of agencyDepartment 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 recruitment consultant expenditure
Case notesNo cost code specifically and solely for recruitment fees—information could not be made available without ‘substantial collation or research’—release of other information resolved the 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 outstandingRequest for details of 404 land covenants
Case notesComplaint about s 18(f) refusal resolved by release of other informationRequest for list of reports received by Minister
Case notesRequest for four months worth of dates, titles and reference numbers of reports—decision making and quality assurance did not constitute ‘collation’ or ‘research’—release with caveat would address issues around reliability of data—s 18(f) did not apply, particularly in light of ability to extend time to respondRequest for medical waiver statistics
Case notesTask involved in manually reviewing tens of thousands of applications was ‘substantial’Request for numbers of staff with criminal convictions
Case notesRequest involved manual search of over 4,500 files and 2000 hours—refusal under s 18(f) justifiedInland 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.Request for Treasury reports
Case notesConsultation and decision making not relevant for the purposes of establishing ‘substantial collation or research’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 proceduresDepartment 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 made