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

6 Resources Show all

  • Report on complaints arising from aerial spraying

    Systemic investigations
    In 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 investigations
    The 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.

  • Inland Revenue Department not unreasonable to pay tax refund to estranged wife

    Case notes
    Inland Revenue (IRD) decision to pay complainant’s tax refund to estranged wife appropriate in the circumstances

  • Corrections unreasonable not to pay for inmate’s glasses for re-integration programme

    Case notes
    Long 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.

  • Inland Revenue Department agrees to review decision to withhold information under Tax Administration Act

    Case notes
    Inland Revenue withheld information requested by taxpayer relating to audit and prosecution and contained on taxpayer’s income tax review file and penal action file—the reason for withholding was pursuant to s 81(4)(I) of Tax Administration Act—the Department was encouraged to reconsider the discretion used in this case in light of Tax Disputes Resolution Procedures introduced subsequent to the decision having been made—IRD agreed and on review released most of the information, hence the investigation was closed as the complaint was resolved

  • Inland Revenue agrees to write-off Child Support debt in circumstances

    Case notes
    Woman was overpaid Child Support when the child was no longer in custodian’s care—despite advising the then Department of Social Welfare (now Ministry of Social Development) and the then Child Support Agency, Inland Revenue Department advised custodian she needed to repay payments—complainant custodian claimed she had no means of knowing payments were being made incorrectly—Ombudsman’s investigation indicated appropriate action had not been taken by the Department when the complainant made inquiries—as a result, IRD agreed to write-off the debt in accordance with s152 of the Child Support Act 1991 and apologise to complainant