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.
51 Resources Show all
Report on an unannounced follow-up inspection of Arohata Prison
OPCAT reportsIn 2007, the Ombudsmen were designated one of the National Preventive Mechanisms (NPMs) under the Crimes of Torture Act (COTA), with responsibility for examining and monitoring the general conditions and treatment of detainees in New Zealand prisons.Report on an unannounced follow-up inspection of Manawatu Prison
OPCAT reportsIn 2007, the Ombudsmen were designated one of the National Preventive Mechanisms (NPMs) under the Crimes of Torture Act (COTA), with responsibility for examining and monitoring the general conditions and treatment of detainees in New Zealand prisons.Report on an unannounced follow-up inspection of Rolleston Prison
OPCAT reportsIn 2007, the Ombudsmen were designated one of the National Preventive Mechanisms (NPMs) under the Crimes of Torture Act (COTA), with responsibility for examining and monitoring the general conditions and treatment of detainees in New Zealand prisons.Report on an unannounced inspection of Christchurch Men's Prison
OPCAT reportsChristchurch Prison is one of New Zealand’s larger prisons, and the largest in the South Island.Decisions 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 informationReport on an unannounced inspection of Spring Hill Corrections Facility
OPCAT reportsSpring Hill Corrections Facility (the Prison) opened in 2007. The Prison accommodates male prisoners with security classifications ranging from minimum to high, as well as a growing remand population. Currently, it has an operating capacity of 1038.Report on an unannounced inspection of Hawke's Bay Regional Prison
OPCAT reportsHawke’s Bay Regional Prison was opened in 1989. The Prison accommodates male prisoners with security classifications ranging from minimum to high, as well as a growing remand population.Cancellation of transport card and refusal to refund money stored on the card
Case notesA complaint was made against Auckland Transport (AT) about its cancellation of an ‘AT HOP’ card used by commuters on Auckland’s public transport system.Local Authority’s efforts to mitigate effects of resource consent errors not unreasonable
Case notesLocal Authority decision about wall constructed on boundary—Council erred by not requiring resource consent and then offered assistance to owners to lodge application—complainant considered Council unfair not to offer assistance to him to oppose the consentLocal Authority’s Code of Compliance Certificate on drainage reasonable in circumstances
Case notesLocal Authority decision on detection of cross connection piping problem not unreasonable—Body Corporation of building forced to pay costs—question whether Code of Compliance Certificate should have been issued—Ombudsman concluded Council not aware of problemRegional Authority decision on resource consent for pergola on non-notified basis not unreasonable
Case notesRegional Authority’s decision to grant resource consent for a pergola on a non-notified basis was reasonable in the circumstance—permitted baseline test under section 95E of the Resource Management Act 1991Local Authority’s Trespass Notice unreasonable in circumstances
Case notesLocal Authority issued Trespass Notice for two years at sports stadium—Ombudsman noted serious misconduct on part of complainant to warrant action but trespass sanction extreme—complaint sustained and Council implemented Ombudsman’s recommendationsLocal Authority did not act unreasonably in remedying damage following tree removal
Case notesLocal Authority—removal of two pohutukawa trees—Council agreed to mitigate loss of these in conjunction with the land owner—Ombudsman considered Council did not act unreasonablyMinistry 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 auditDepartment 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 instanceMinistry 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.Local Authority unreasonably failed to consult with residents about building relocation
Case notesLocal Authority allowed relocation of building without providing for adequate consultation process with the local community—Ombudsman upheld complaintInvestigation of the Department of Corrections in relation to the provision, access and availability of prisoner health services
Systemic investigationsThis own motion report, unlike others we have undertaken, did not arise from specific incidents within the prison system, nor from the number of complaints we receive from prisoners. Our investigation has identified that prisoners have reasonable access to Health Services and generally they receive healthcare equivalent to members of the wider community. However, the service is not without its problems and in the future, it may not be able to meet the healthcare needs of such a diverse population effectively.Submission of the Ombudsmen - Corrections Amendment Bill
SubmissionsWe had a limited opportunity to comment on the draft Corrections Amendment Bill (the Bill) and some amendments were made as a consequence of our submissions. However, there remain other matters which concern us.Local Authority unreasonably failed to provide information on LIM
Case notesLocal Authority failed to provide information in a Land Information Memorandum(LIM) about outstanding capital contribution for a sewer—Ombudsman considered Council acted unreasonably—Council made payment to complainant in resolution of complaintOmbudsman has no jurisdiction over District Council electoral officer
Case notesJurisdiction—Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over Council electoral officer—electoral expense returns not subject to Local Government Information and Meetings Act 1982Regional Authority not unreasonable in approach to Council’s earthworks activity
Case notesLocal Authority constructed walkway—Regional Authority took reasonable action against Council—whether application for resource consent should have been notifiedLocal Authority’s management of consent process not unreasonable
Case notesLocal 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 unreasonablyLocal Authority agrees to pay difference in solicitor fees
Case notesLocal 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 thisReport on complaints arising from aerial spraying
Systemic investigationsIn June 2003 I received complaints from Ms Jane Schaverien, then of Auckland but now of Wellington, to investigate under the Ombudsmen Act 1975 the question whether the information given to Ministers by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry was inadequate regarding the possible dangers associated with the widespread concentrated use of Foray 48B in West Auckland, and in relation to the Ministry of Health, whether the Ministry had failed to pursue its responsibilities under the Health Act, 1956, or had abdicated those responsibilities in favour of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. In September 2003 I received a complaint from a Hamilton resident, Ms Michelle Rhodes, in generally similar terms regarding the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. These complaints arose from the aerial spraying operations carried out on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry in West Auckland to eliminate the Painted Apple Moth, and in parts of Hamilton to eliminate the Asian Gypsy Moth. In relation to West Auckland these operations began on a comparatively small-scale in January 2002, they were continued on a much larger scale through to May 2003, and were finally completed in May 2004.Report on issues involving the criminal justice sector
Systemic investigationsThe following is my report consequent on a reference directed to me by the Prime Minister to investigate the administration of the criminal justice system. The Terms of Reference directed to me are attached as Appendix A. By agreement the reporting date was extended to 1 December 2007. I note that my report is to be tabled in Parliament. My investigation has been conducted in accordance with the provisions in the Ombudsmen Act 1975.Local Authority unreasonably created expectation concerning amenity design
Case notesLocal Authority refused to redesign toilet block as promised—Ombudsman considered advice to complainant unreasonable—Council then agreed to redesignCorrections 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 access to papers deposited in National Archives
Case notesRequest for access to certain papers deposited in National Archives—request declined on basis that access to the papers was restricted—condition made by former Minister at time of deposit that access subject to his consent—he declined to give consent—release would be contrary to specified enactment—Archives Act 1957, s 20(1)