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 company’s annual report

    Case notes
    Releasing cost of sales, expenses and revenue would enable competitors to determine the underlying cost of the company’s products and undercut them thereby prejudicing their commercial position—s 7(2)(b)(ii) applies
  • Charge for supply of animal usage statistics

    Case notes
    Cannot charge for decision making time—charge reduced
  • Request for tender proposals, evaluation and scoring material relating to appointment of default KiwiSaver providers

    Case notes
    Release of detailed organisational information including information about products and fees would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the default providers’ commercial positions—section 9(2)(b)(ii) applies to tender proposals—explicit obligation of confidence—release would make it more difficult for MED to monitor compliance of default providers with their instruments of appointment and have a damaging effect on the success of the KiwiSaver scheme itself—section 9(2)(ba)(ii) applies to evaluation and scoring information
  • Request for Information relating to appointment of an honorary consul in Monaco

    Case notes
    Confidentiality can diminish over time—s 9(2)(f)(iv) does not apply
  • Annual Report 2007/2008

    Annual reports
    The challenge for Ombudsmen everywhere is to remain relevant in a changing social, political and technological environment. This Office is responding to that challenge in a variety of ways.
  • Request for documentation about ‘Ageing in Place’ contract

    Case notes
    Release of detailed proposals and component prices would have an adverse effect on tenderers’ responses to future tenders issued by the DHB, which would damage the public interest—s 9(2)(ba)(ii) OIA applies—release would have an inhibiting effect in future on the quality of the documentation associated with the DHB’s contract negotiations and tender evaluation, which would be prejudicial to the future conduct of such tenders—s 9(2)(g)(i) applies
  • Request for recruitment consultant expenditure

    Case notes
    No 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 complaint
  • Request for identities of contractors

    Case notes
    Privacy interest outweighed by overriding public interest in promoting accountability, transparency and public confidence and trust in the integrity of the public sector
  • Request for advice on electoral finance, after the introduction of the Electoral Finance Bill

    Case notes
    Introduction of Bill constituted discrete end-point in the policy development process—disclosure would not prejudice ability of Ministers to consider advice eventually tendered by officials—s 9(2)(f)(iv) does not apply
  • Request for vehicle registration information available for purchase

    Case notes
    Request for information available for purchase could be refused on the basis that it was publicly available under s 18(d)
  • Request for lecture research notes

    Case notes
    Information held in staff member’s private capacity not held
  • Statement of Intent 2008/11

    Strategic intentions
    This statement of intent sets out the nature and scope of our functions, the strategic direction of our organisation, what we are hoping to achieve, and some key measures.
  • Request for information about issues raised by the Legislation Advisory Committee in relation to the Public Transport Management Bill

    Case notes
    Section 18(c)(ii) OIA did not apply—information was not advice to select committee but advice to Minister about what the advice to select committee might be—sections 9(2)(f)(iv) and 9(2)(h) OIA applied—no public interest override
  • Request for options and analysis in review of NZ Superannuation Portability

    Case notes
    Cabinet had agreed to package of proposals but agreement was subject to funding in Budget— Budget secrecy only applies if decision has been made to include proposals in Budget—analysis protected by s 9(2)(f)iv) but not bare options—advice two years old and no advice issued about which options were under consideration—strong public interest in release of bare options
  • Request for discussions between Ministers on business before Cabinet

    Case notes
    Discussions between Ministers on business before Cabinet imbued with a presumption of confidentiality—s 9(2)(g)(i) provides good reason to withhold undocumented discussions
  • Request for information comparing preferred and declined proposals

    Case notes
    Requested document did not exist but would need to be created—s 18(e) applies
  • Request for information about funding of Resource Teachers

    Case notes
    Advice provided in context of Budget but bid unsuccessful—Minister asked for bid to be resubmitted in next Budget—9(2)(f)(iv) applied to much of the information at issue, but not all of it—Minister released some general information but continued to withhold detailed analysis—overall public interest not served by the disclosure of advice that may undermine the effective preparation of next Budget
  • Request for information concerning South Auckland primary teacher supply

    Case notes
    Decisions had been made—disclosure of abandoned options posed no risk—s 9(2)(f)(iv) does not apply
  • Charge for supply of official information—staff rates in excess of Charging Guidelines

    Case notes
    Staff rates in excess of those in the Charging Guidelines unreasonable
  • Request for video footage of DHB meeting

    Case notes
    Video footage of a DHB meeting was not publicly available just because minutes of the meeting were—s 18(d) did not apply
  • Request for Immigration New Zealand’s policies, procedures and guidelines concerning removal practices

    Case notes
    Status of a ‘mind map’—‘mind map’ did not provide administrative guidance to INZ’s staff on decision—s 22 did not apply
  • Request for draft public discussion document regarding auditor regulation

    Case notes
    Close-to-final draft containing limited evidence of opinion material—risk of public misunderstanding of the status of this draft document did not justify withholding and could be addressed by disclosure of contextual information—strong public interest in transparency of the policy development process given full-scale public consultation no longer intended
  • Request for names of teaching staff at Massey University

    Case notes
    Section 9(2)(a) OIA did not apply—names already in the public domain and known to students—public-facing nature of the role means that University teaching staff would not ordinarily expect their names to remain private—risk of spam email was not a reaso
  • Immigration New Zealand's error in granting permit in one case raises no legitimate expectation for another applicant in same situation

    Case notes
    Immigration New Zealand (INZ) declined application for a graduate work permit because applicant did not meet the criteria applicable at the time—complainant claimed decision unreasonable because other applicants in his situation were granted permits—Ombudsman found no evidence that INZ made a practice of granting graduate work permits outside the terms of the policy as a matter of course and failure (to correctly apply policy) in one case should not raise legitimate expectations for other applicants
  • Regional Authority not unreasonable in approach to Council’s earthworks activity

    Case notes
    Local Authority constructed walkway—Regional Authority took reasonable action against Council—whether application for resource consent should have been notified
  • Local Authority’s management of consent process not unreasonable

    Case notes
    Local Authority proposal for Youth Zone to be included in Reserves Management Plan criticised—alleged lack of public consultation—concern that the report recommending inclusion of a Youth Zone was biased and misleading—Ombudsman finds Council did not act unreasonably
  • Inland Revenue Department not unreasonable to decline ex gratia payment

    Case notes
    Inland 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 complainant
  • Local Authority agrees to pay difference in solicitor fees

    Case notes
    Local Authority—fees charged to complainant for legal work required in relation to a building consent—not unreasonable to require Council solicitors to carry out the work as long as their fees are no higher than complainant’s own solicitor—failure to inform complainant of liability for legal fees but no material disadvantage caused by this
  • Inland Revenue agrees to offer ex gratia payment for error

    Case notes
    IRD 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 outstanding
  • Request for offender’s photo on police file

    Case notes
    Rape victim sought photograph of attacker whose face she had never seen—Police refused the request to protect the privacy of the offender—s 9(2)(a) applied—public interest in assisting victims of crime to recover from trauma and move on with their lives—balance of competing privacy and public interest considerations needed to be made—appropriate to make photograph available for viewing subject to appropriate conditions
  • Request for qualifications and work history of staff at Polytechnic Department

    Case notes
    Request for details about staff at Polytechnic—withheld under s 9(2)(a) to protect privacy—public interest in ensuring employment practices of Polytechnic are transparent and fair—met by summary release of staff details and selection process
  • Request for copy of competitor’s licence deed

    Case notes
    Ferry service operator requested copy of competitor’s licence deed from ferry terminal facility owner—request refused under s 7(2)(b)(ii) LGOIMA on basis release would prejudice commercial position of licensee—licensee argued that it had originally negotiated licence in atmosphere of complete commercial confidentiality with then port authority at a time when neither party was subject to LGOIMA—Ombudsman considered s 8 LGOIMA and s 75 Local Government Act 2002—neither Act contains transitional or saving provisions concerning information held by private bodies that later become subject to this legislation—request for such information should therefore be considered in same way as any other LGOIMA request—Ombudsman found no commercial prejudice likely and strong public interest in release—facility owner released information.