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 breakdown of invoice

    Case notes
    Council concerned that request was part of a strategy to delay or avoid payment—no basis to believe request was made in bad faith—request not frivolous or vexatious—information should be released
  • Request for draft documents, internal emails, handwritten notes regarding Government response to Law Commission discussion paper

    Case notes
    Disclosure of draft documents would inhibit future expression of free and frank opinions by officials—s 9(2)(g)(i) applies
  • Request for Ministerial briefing on Auckland CBD rail loop

    Case notes
    Disclosure of ministerial briefing conveyed under pressure of time would inhibit future expression of free and frank opinions by officials—s 9(2)(g)(i) applied—public interest met by release of later document
  • Request for internal complaint assessment memorandum

    Case notes
    Disclosure of preliminary complaint assessment memo would make complaints assessment staff reluctant in future to fully express their views in writing—s 9(2)(g)(i) provides good reason to withhold
  • Request for audit report of approved organisation under Animal Welfare Act

    Case notes
    Acrimonious history and prolonged legal dispute were relevant to decision whether or not request was vexatious—while future similar requests might be vexatious this one was not—the requester’s legitimate concern about effectiveness of Ministry’s oversight of approved organisations was the catalyst for the audit report, and she was initially promised a copy of it—requester was genuinely interested in and entitled to know the findings—request not frivolous or vexatious—Trust does not have a commercial position—s 9(2)(b)(ii) does not apply
  • Request for crisis group reports and working material regarding Government’s response to kidnapping

    Case notes
    Request for information about Government’s response to kidnapping of NZ resident in Baghdad—s 9(2)(g)(i) provides good reason to withhold crisis group reports and working material but not the final review of the hostage-taking—public interest met by disclosure of final review—final review released with redactions
  • District Health Board’s processes regarding informed consent for assisted reproductive procedure not unreasonable

    Case notes
    Whether a District Health Board (DHB) failed to ensure the complainant received adequate professional advice before being required to sign a legal document surrendering substantial legal rights—whether that document was ‘informed consent’—Ombudsman concluded DHB had not acted unreasonably in this matter
  • Request for draft public consultation document

    Case notes
    Only minor differences between draft and final consultation document—final consultation document was publicly available—release would not inhibit the free and frank expression of opinions necessary for the effective conduct of public affairs
  • Request for internal discussion paper on privatisation

    Case notes
    Two drafts of an internal discussion paper commissioned by Treasury’s Executive Leadership Team—Government had not sought advice on the issue—s 9(2)(g)(i) provides good reason to withhold
  • Health and Disability Commissioner unreasonably applied ‘gold standard’ when deciding on dental practitioner’s professional clinical standards

    Case notes
    Whether breach of professional clinical standards had been established—Health & Disability Commissioner (Code of Health & Disability Services Consumers’ Rights) Regulations 1996— whether Commissioner acted unreasonably in informing practitioner’s employer of alleged breach without first providing practitioner with adequate opportunity to respond—whether Commissioner unreasonable in failing to compensate practitioner
  • Ministry of Health decision not to respond to ‘open letter’ on baby food not unreasonable in circumstances

    Case notes
    Complainant wrote open letter to Ministry of Health expressing concerns about potential soy toxicity in baby food—no reply received—Ombudsman’s assistance sought—Ombudsman considered wording of letter—no specific information requested—Official Information Act did not apply—Ombudsman noted considerable correspondence on issue had already been exchanged between Ministry and complainant—open letter appeared to be a continuation of debate with Ministry—Ministry’s failure to respond unlikely to be unreasonable in the circumstances—Ombudsman exercised discretion under s.17(1)(b) Ombudsmen Act not to continue enquiries