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.
42 Resources Show all
Request for draft advice on establishing a reserve
Case notesRelease of early and annotated advice would inhibit the free and frank exchange of opinions between officials drafting advice—general public interest in transparency had been met by disclosure of technical papers that formed the basis of the advice to the Minister, together with the final advice paperRequest for draft ministerial and chief executive correspondence
Case notesRelease of draft ministerial and chief executive correspondence would inhibit the free and frank expression opinions—s 9(2)(g)(i) appliesRequest for draft document on Starting Price Adjustment Input Methodology
OpinionsFor the reasons set out below, I am of the opinion that the Commerce Commission was entitled, under section 9(2)(g)(i) of the Official Information Act 1982 (OIA), to withhold a copy of a draft of a Starting Price Adjustment Input Methodology requeDepartment of Corrections reasonable to seek removal of prisoner from study course in some circumstances
Case notesWhether the Department of Corrections was reasonable to request the tertiary institution to remove a prisoner from a course at a polytechnic—Ombudsman found Department’s decision to have been reasonable in partRequest for advice regarding proposals for the future of Christchurch education
Case notesDecision was not justified under s 9(2)(f)(iv) because Cabinet had already made high level decisions and the key elements of the plan had been announced—strong public interest in releaseRequest for information about senior employee’s departure and personal expenses
Case notesSection 9(2)(a) OIA applied—privacy and confidentiality in employment context—s 9(2)(ba)(ii) OIA applied—settlement agreement contained express obligation of confidence—release would be likely to damage the public interest by making it more difficult toRequest for information about Police investigation into complaint against Minister
Case notesSection 6(c) OIA did not apply—no prejudice to the maintenance of the law in circumstances where the investigation had concluded and no charges had been laid—s 9(2)(a) applied—high privacy interest given the nature of the allegations and the fact that nRequest for information about investigation of ECan’s performance
Case notesSection 9(2)(ba)(i) OIA did not apply to interview notes in their ‘totality’—however, it applied to names and identifying details—express obligation of confidence—release would be likely to prejudice the future supply of similar information—it is in theRequest for information about Half Moon Bay Marina arbitration
Case notesSection 7(2)(c)(ii) LGOIMA applied—obligation of confidence under Arbitration Act 1996—release would be likely to damage the public interest in maintaining the integrity of the arbitral process, and reduce the effectiveness of arbitration as a means forRequest for policy advice behind merger of Archives and National Library
Case notesRelease of formal advice to Ministers about abandoned options after decisions had been made would not inhibit the free and frank expression of opinions by officials—s 9(2)(g)(i) does not applyInvestigation of the Department of Corrections in relation to an incident of self-harm at Christchurch Women’s Prison and the issuing of strip gowns to prisoners at risk of self harm
Systemic investigationsIn July 2009, in accordance with the Protocol made pursuant to section 160 of the Corrections Act, I received notification from the Department of Corrections of an incident of prisoner self-harm that had occurred in the At-Risk Unit (ARU) of Christchurch Women’s Prison (CHWO).Investigation of the Department of Corrections in relation to an incident of self-harm at New Plymouth Prison and the Department’s disposable safety razor policy
Systemic investigationsOn 11 May 2009, the Department of Corrections instituted a new national policy on razor blades for prisoners. The purpose of the policy was to reduce the number of incidents involving razor blades. It applied to those prisoners accommodated in High Security, Remand and Youth Units. These prisoners would no longer be allowed to stockpile or keep issue razor blades. The aim of the policy was interpreted as intending to limit the opportunity for self-harm by misuse of razor blades.Request for Cabinet paper relating to review of Overseas Investment Act
Case notesDisclosure would prejudice orderly and effective conduct of ongoing advisory and decision making processesDepartment of Corrections made errors in documentation but parole hearing set correctly
Case notesWhether Department of Corrections staff failed complainant with respect to a Parole Board hearing—Ombudsman found errors in documentation but complainant not disadvantagedDepartment of Corrections unreasonable to place prisoner with mental illness in mainstream unit
Case notesWhether the Department of Corrections was unreasonable to place prisoner in mainstream unit given specific medical condition of mental illness—Ombudsman upheld complaintRequest for information relating to Whānau Ora
Case notesDisclosure while policy advice still under consideration by Ministers would prejudice ongoing decision making process—disclosure of inter-agency consultation would inhibit future expression of free and frank opinions by officialsRequest for audit information regarding JobPlus scheme
Case notesDraft audit report was identical to final audit report—no good reason to withhold the final audit report so no good reason to withhold the draft—good reason to withhold auditor’s informal and early working papers under s 9(2)(g)(i)—disclosure of the working papers would make auditors more circumspect in what they record, and when and how they record itRequest for Minister/Chief Executive discussions
Case notesDisclosure of full record of recollection of discussion between Minister and Chief Executive would inhibit future expression of free and frank opinions—summary of recollection releasedRequest for all information about an audit
Case notesSection 9(2)(ba)(i) OIA applied to staff interview records—implied obligation of confidence—release would be likely to prejudice the future supply of information to auditors—it is in the public interest for staff members to cooperate with audits—s 9(2)(Request for auditor’s working papers
Case notesDisclosure of auditor’s scoping discussions and working papers would make auditors more circumspect in what they record, and when and how they record it—good reason to withhold under s 9(2)(g)(i)Request for tender proposals, evaluation and scoring material relating to appointment of default KiwiSaver providers
Case notesRelease 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 informationRequest for Information relating to appointment of an honorary consul in Monaco
Case notesConfidentiality can diminish over time—s 9(2)(f)(iv) does not applyRequest for documentation about ‘Ageing in Place’ contract
Case notesRelease 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) appliesRequest for advice on electoral finance, after the introduction of the Electoral Finance Bill
Case notesIntroduction 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 applyRequest for information about severance payment
Case notesSection 9(2)(a) OIA applied—withholding necessary to protect strong privacy interests—significant impact of further media scrutiny on personal privacy—s 9(2)(ba)(ii) applied— settlement agreement contained express obligation of confidence—release wouldRequest for options and analysis in review of NZ Superannuation Portability
Case notesCabinet 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 optionsRequest for discussions between Ministers on business before Cabinet
Case notesDiscussions between Ministers on business before Cabinet imbued with a presumption of confidentiality—s 9(2)(g)(i) provides good reason to withhold undocumented discussionsRequest for information about funding of Resource Teachers
Case notesAdvice 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 BudgetRequest for information concerning South Auckland primary teacher supply
Case notesDecisions had been made—disclosure of abandoned options posed no risk—s 9(2)(f)(iv) does not applyRequest for draft public discussion document regarding auditor regulation
Case notesClose-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 intendedRequest for names and email addresses of people consulted on draft speech
Case notesRecipients and senders of emails consulted—disclosure would not inhibit senior public servants from expressing free and frank opinions in future—however others would be inhibitedRequest for draft answers to parliamentary questions prepared by Police staff
Case notesSection 9(2)(g)(i) applied—release would prejudice the free and frank expression of similar communications in future—no public interest override