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

11 Resources Show all

  • Request for policy advice behind merger of Archives and National Library

    Case notes
    Release 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 apply

  • Request for audit information regarding JobPlus scheme

    Case notes
    Draft 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 it

  • Request for Minister/Chief Executive discussions

    Case notes
    Disclosure of full record of recollection of discussion between Minister and Chief Executive would inhibit future expression of free and frank opinions—summary of recollection released

  • Request for all information about an audit

    Case notes
    Section 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 notes
    Disclosure 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)

  • Transfer of request for information on Bill from Ministry of Justice to Associate Minister

    Case notes
    Researcher complained that transfer had the effect of narrowing the scope of his request— complaint reviewed under OA—information ‘more closely connected’ to functions of Associate Minister—decision to transfer request was reasonable

  • Transfer of request from Tertiary Education Commission to Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)

    Case notes
    Minister had instructed Commission to transfer all requests regarding a training centre for his consideration—OIA does not provide for blanket policy to transfer all requests on a subject— Commission must consider requests on case by case basis—information in this case not more closely related to functions of Associate Minister—decision to transfer request contrary to law

  • Decision to transfer OIA request based on identity of requester

    Case notes
    Request for official information specifically held by Ministry of Education—Ministry transferred request to Minister of Education on the basis that the information was more closely connected to the functions of that Minister—request specifically for information held by Secretary and Ministry officials—Ministry advised Chief Ombudsman that decision to transfer based on a directive that all media requests should be transferred to Minister for reply—not sufficient grounds for transfer under s 14(b)(ii)—complaint sustained—Ministry reviewed its processes for transferring requests

  • Transfer of media request from Ministry of Education to Minister

    Case notes
    Requested information not more closely connected with the Minister’s functions—blanket policy to transfer all media requests to Minister unlawful

  • ACC delay to obtain opinion from Crown Solicitor unreasonable

    Case notes
    A 17 month delay by ACC in deciding whether to prosecute claimant for fraud but this delay due to 16 month delay by Crown Solicitor in providing ACC with written legal opinion — Ombudsman unable to investigate actions of Crown Solicitor but could consider how ACC dealt with the delay—three emails by ACC sent in 13 month period, then a formal request sent in writing for legal opinion—no agreed timeframes for when advice could be expected and Ombudsman of view that it was unreasonable for ACC to wait 14 months before formally raising concerns about the delay with the Crown Solicitor—ACC apologised to complainant and agreement reached between ACC and Crown Solicitor that legal opinions will be provided within 21 days of receipt of request

  • ACC required to contribute towards client’s travel costs to attend hearing

    Case notes
    ACC client had difficulties with Individual Rehabilitation Plan and case manager—weekly earnings stopped—client sought review and later appealed decision to District Court but before hearing took place client moved to another town and had new IRP and case manager, and the earnings were reinstated—the client chose to continue with appeal in District Court but the appeal was unsuccessful—ACC refused to reimburse client for travel expenses but Ombudsman held this decision unreasonable