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 agency peer review of Family Violence Death Review Committee draft annual report

    Case notes
    Release of free and frank comments made in the context of peer reviewing a draft annual report would inhibit the expression of similar comments in future—s 9(2)(g)(i) applied
  • Request for due diligence report, site visit reports and reference checks

    Case notes
    Section 9(2)(ba)(i) applies in part to the due diligence report and to the correspondence from supplier—public interest in accountability of Department for steps taken to satisfy itself regarding supplier’s performance—sections 9(2)(ba)(i) and 9(2)(g)(i) apply to information obtained from site visits, but not to the executive summary of the reports—public interest in accountability for decision to award contract—sections 9(2)(ba)(i) applies to reference checks—release would deter referees from providing full and complete information in future—public interest requires release of summary information about the reference checks
  • Request for draft job sizing reports

    Case notes
    Reports formed an early stage of developing options for consideration and consultation— disclosure would likely inhibit the willingness of officials and consultants to tender a wide range of preliminary options, and to canvass issues in comprehensive written form, to the detriment of prudent and effective decision making
  • 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 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 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
  • 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
  • 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 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)
  • New Zealand Customs Service questioned over acceptance of deposit pursuant to legislation

    Case notes
    Refusal to pay interest following resolution of dispute over Customs value of goods—whether relevant documentation provided at the time of importation—whether s 140 of the Customs Act 1966 (repealed) conferred authority on Department to take deposit—investigation discontinued following discovery that company did not exist as legal entity at the time complaint was made
  • Inland Revenue Department accepts misleading advice caused detriment to holder of student loan

    Case notes
    Inland Revenue Department (IRD) provided misleading advice to student about status of his student loan account— he undertook on-going financial commitments in reliance on that advice— IRD was found to have erred by not providing regular statements of the student loan and accepted that this had caused detriment to the student—there had also been unreasonable delay in responding to the student’s wife’s inquiries about the loan debt and whether it had been cleared—in resolution, IRD agreed with the Ombudsman’s recommendation to put the student back into the position he would have been without relying on misleading advice and to pay an ex gratia payment of $2,400 which was credited to the loan account
  • Inland Revenue Department’s unreasonable use of discretion to withhold information under the Tax Administration Act

    Case notes
    IRD refused to provide details of internal investigation of complaint under s 81(4) of the Tax Administration Act 1994—the information the complainant wanted concerned an investigation into his allegation of improper actions by IRD staff—Ombudsman found that the Commissioner’s discretion to withhold the information was unreasonable because the complainant was entitled to information about an investigation concerning him—IRD agreed with the Ombudsman’s decision and made most of the information available
  • Inland Revenue Department asked to compensate complainant following errors made on GST claim

    Case notes
    IRD failed to provide reasons for decisions to refuse a GST refund claim—there was no evidence for the basis of the refusal but the claim was accepted when similar supporting evidence was provided from another source—IRD gave no explanation for the change of decision—claimant sought compensation for unnecessary expenditure he had incurred to support his claim—Ombudsman found against IRD for errors made and IRD agreed to make an ex gratia payment of $1500 to the complainant