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 tender submissions to replace jetty at Philomel Landing

    Case notes
    Release of tenderers’ pricing strategy would give an unfair advantage to their competitors and unreasonably prejudice their commercial position—s 9(2)(b)(ii) OIA applies—release would make tenderers reluctant to provide as much detail about their design specifications in future— s 9(2)(ba)(i) applies—it was in the public interest for NZDF to receive full and detailed submissions as this would otherwise undermine its ability to make an informed decision on the best tenderer to award a contract
  • Request for successful tenderer’s proposal

    Case notes
    Release would reveal successful tenderer’s marketing strategy which would unreasonably prejudice its commercial position— s 9(2)(b)(ii) applies—public interest met by disclosure of tender scores and minutes of evaluation panel
  • Request for briefing notes relating to state visits

    Case notes
    Inspection on conditions in order to identify the documents required provided means of resolving s 18(f) refusal
  • Request for copy of reviewers’ training manual

    Case notes
    Information was not a trade secret—although FairWay was engaged in commercial activities, it was not clear how disclosure would prejudice or disadvantage those activities—the manual was largely in the public domain, and there was little prospect of competition—ss 9(2)(b)(i), 9(2)(i) do not apply
  • Request for copy of competitor’s licence deed

    Case notes
    Ferry service operator requested copy of competitor’s licence deed from ferry terminal facility owner—request refused under s 7(2)(b)(ii) LGOIMA on basis release would prejudice commercial position of licensee—licensee argued that it had originally negotiated licence in atmosphere of complete commercial confidentiality with then port authority at a time when neither party was subject to LGOIMA—Ombudsman considered s 8 LGOIMA and s 75 Local Government Act 2002—neither Act contains transitional or saving provisions concerning information held by private bodies that later become subject to this legislation—request for such information should therefore be considered in same way as any other LGOIMA request—Ombudsman found no commercial prejudice likely and strong public interest in release—facility owner released information.
  • Request for land exchange agreement and valuations

    Case notes
    NZDF exchanging land with private land owners under the Public Works Act 1981—OIA request made to NZDF for copies of the exchange agreement and valuations of respective properties—NZDF refused under s 9(2)(i)—Ombudsman noted majority of information in standard form and already publicly available—unable to identify ‘commercial activity’—rather transaction was for defence purposes within the terms of the Public Works Act—NZDF released the information subject to the withholding of some information under s 9(2)(j) and s 9(2)(b)(ii)
  • Department of Corrections required to state reasons for security classification

    Case notes
    Prison inmate complained that his security classification had been unreasonably assessed and Ombudsman concluded the Department failed to provide ‘strong reasons’ (which must be stated)—Ombudsman found the Prison officers had based their classification on uncorroborated, unrecorded, verbal statement made by another inmate—Ombudsman upheld complaint based on inequitable situation that would result if prison relied solely on this information, however, the inmate released before any recommendation could be made
  • Department of Corrections revises guidelines on implications for visitors possessing drugs

    Case notes
    Prison banned inmate’s family members from visiting for 12-months after small amount of cannabis found in their possession—the inmate complained that the duration of ban was unreasonable but the Department of Corrections noted it had zero tolerance policy for drugs with an automatic 12-month prohibition order to be placed on anyone found with them on prison property—Ombudsman concluded blanket ban unreasonable and the Department agreed each case to be considered on merits and prepared guidelines for prisons—Ombudsman advised inmate to apply for a review of prohibition order under the new guidelines