Open main menu Close main menu
Search by keyword

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
Search by keyword

16 Resources Show all

  • Request for information about ERO review

    Case notes
    Section 9(2)(ba)(i) OIA applied to information obtained from participants in review—express obligation of confidence—release would be likely to prejudice the future supply of information by participants—it is in the public interest for ERO to receive co

  • Request for names of staff and contractors involved in producing crime and safety survey

    Case notes
    Section 9(2)(g)(ii) OIA applied to staff names—on basis of past conduct Ombudsman satisfied that requester would engage in improper pressure or harassment that would impact on the Ministry’s ability to attract and retain staff and contactors—section 9(2

  • Earthquake Commission’s interpretation of the Earthquake Commission Act 1993 regarding swimming pool building not unreasonable

    Case notes
    Whether the Earthquake Commission was unreasonable to decline compensation for damage to the pool house enclosing a swimming pool at a Christchurch property—Ombudsman concluded EQC’s decision was not unreasonable

  • 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 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 names and address for service of two Police officers

    Case notes
    Section 9(2)(a) and 9(2)(g)(ii) OIA applied—past conduct suggested the requester would publish information targeting or encouraging others to target the officers in a way that would breach their personal privacy, and subject them to improper pressure or

  • 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 notes of a telephone conversation between officials

    Case notes
    Request for notes of a telephone conversation between officials at the Commerce Commission and Ministry of Commerce—information withheld under s 9(2)(g)(ii)—factors to be considered when considering whether release would result in improper pressure or harassment of officials and thereby prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs

  • Request for reasons for decision made three years earlier

    Case notes
    Request 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 upheld

  • Request for Consultative Draft District Plan

    Case notes
    Consultative Draft District Plan refused under s 7(2)(f)(i)—information did not meet requirements of that section—no statutory prohibition in Resource Management Act which prevents information being made available before the date of notification—Resource Management Act 1991, s 35(2)

  • Request for reasons for mark awarded for university honours paper

    Case notes
    Request for reasons for mark awarded for university honours paper—refused on grounds information did not exist in documentary form and was not readily retrievable—obligation to provide statement under section 23—statement provided

  • Request for statement of reasons for non-appointment to board

    Case notes
    Request for statement of reasons for non-reappointment to board—matter pursued by third party with consent—information refused under s 9(2)(a)—statement of reasons provided to person not reappointed

  • Request for names of ‘eminent New Zealanders’ consulted during preparation of Intelligence and Security Agencies Bill

    Case notes
    Request for names of ‘eminent New Zealanders’ who were part of the consultative process in preparing the Intelligence and Security Agencies Bill—request refused under s 9(2)(g)(i) —individuals consulted—in respect of those who advised that disclosure would inhibit them from giving free and frank advice to the Government in future, section 9(2)(g)(i) applied—need to withhold outweighed by countervailing public interest

  • Earthquake Commission not required to cover buildings under construction in the event of a landslide

    Case notes
    Earthquake Commission and Insurer both decline cover for half-built structure on private property, damaged following a landslide—still being under construction meant the building was not being used for its intended purpose and EQC’s decision in this respect was correct—Ombudsman advised that the complainant could refer the matter back to the insurer for a reconsideration and the Insurer in this case took a liberal view of what had been an unusual event and settled the claim—case indicates the need to obtain cover for landslip while a building is under construction