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 draft ‘Alternatives Paper’ prepared by consultants on CBD rail link

    Case notes
    Release would inhibit exchange of drafts and views between staff and consultants, which would undermine the drafting process—s 7(2)(f)(i) applied—public interest met by the release of the final report and the peer reviews by relevant agencies
  • Request for information redacted from Ministerial briefings and Cabinet papers on telecommunications and ultra-fast broadband

    Case notes
    While some decisions had been made, others were still required, and disclosure would prejudice the orderly and effective conduct of ongoing advisory and decision making processes
  • Request for advice to Local Government Commission

    Case notes
    No ministerial or executive government decision making process would be undermined by release—draft and final versions of the advice were substantially similar and the advice was in the nature of a careful and considered critique—no good reason to withhold
  • Request for literature review on youth desistance

    Case notes
    Draft review provided to successful tenderer as starting point for an external research project— information not in the nature of free and frank opinions—disclosure would not undermine interest in s 9(2)(g)(i)—release accompanied by contextual statement
  • Request for minutes of Council workshops

    Case notes
    Request for minutes of Unitary Plan Political Working Party—minutes related to Council ‘workshops’—s 7(2)(f)(i) applied in part—minutes could be disclosed in part without inhibiting people from contributing to workshops in future
  • Request for draft report on NZX compliance with general obligations

    Case notes
    Release would inhibit the free and frank expression of opinions by officials during the drafting process, and the exchange of opinions between the NZX and FMA—it is in the interests of the ‘effective conduct of public affairs’ for the review process to be robust and conducted in a manner that supported the FMA’s main objective of promoting and facilitating the development of fair, efficient and transparent markets—s 9(2)(g)(i) applied
  • Request for handwritten notes of discussions between MFAT Chief Executive and Minister of Foreign Affairs

    Case notes
    Request for handwritten notes of Chief Executive’s discussions with Minister—confidentiality is necessary to protect the ongoing effectiveness and conduct of the relationship—public interest in disclosure not sufficient to outweigh s 9(2)(g)(i) interest
  • Request for stock take report on the Crime Reduction Strategy

    Case notes
    Report by external consultant not advice tendered by Ministers or officials—s 9(2)(f)(iv) did not apply
  • Request for Treasury analysis on emissions trading scheme

    Case notes
    Information part of ongoing stream of work—release, with or without the context, would compromise the policy development process—s 9(2)(f)(iv) applies—overall public interest not served by disclosure of information that would undermine policy development—most advice would be released proactively when the framework document was released
  • Request for advice on daylight savings and 2011 Rugby World Cup

    Case notes
    Anticipatory advice—no opinions or recommendations—s 9(2)(f)(iv) does not apply—public interest in disclosure—issues of national importance demand timely transparency
  • Request for draft report on Department of Labour internal controls prepared by KPMG

    Case notes
    Document labelled ‘draft’ really a final—author was a consultant who would not be deterred from expressing free and frank opinions in future—s 9(2)(g)(i) does not apply
  • Request for draft answers to parliamentary questions

    Case notes
    Draft answers to parliamentary questions protected by s 9(2)(f)(iv)—parliamentary process sufficiently held the Minister to account
  • Request for advice on electoral finance

    Case notes
    Request for advice generated on Government’s proposals for electoral finance—advice formed part of ongoing process and no decisions had been made—s 9(2)(f)(iv) provides good reason to withhold
  • Request for CAB 100 forms

    Case notes
    Request for all CAB 100 forms since the 2005 general election—convention of confidentiality surrounding the Government’s political consultation processes—public interest in disclosure not sufficiently compelling to outweigh the need to withhold under s 9(2)(f)(iv)—need for confidentiality extended beyond the resolution of the particular issues—at least as long as the particular governmental arrangement endured
  • Charge for supply of information about Maori interests in the management of petroleum

    Case notes
    Charge avoided by allowing inspection subject to conditions
  • Request for advice relating to Amendment Bill

    Case notes
    Cabinet had approved legislative proposals in principle but still key steps to be taken before Bill could be introduced to the House—confidentiality required in order to protect the executive government’s ability to develop and negotiate political support for the draft legislation, in a timely and orderly fashion—s 9(2)(f)(iv) applies—opportunities for public participation in legislative process once draft legislation introduced
  • Request for Ministerial briefing on citizenship review

    Case notes
    Information not of an advisory nature—information not related to executive government decision making process—s 9(2)(f)(iv) does not apply
  • Request for transcripts of Police communications in relation to emergency calls

    Case notes
    No blanket protection for operational discussions between Police officers—need for withholding had to be assessed with regard to the content of the actual communications at issue—opinions expressed were ‘free and frank’ but were not ‘necessary’ for effective conduct of public affairs—details about the communications already publicly available—s 9(2)(g)(i) did not apply and even if it did it was outweighed by strong public interest in release
  • Request for draft responses to OIA requests

    Case notes
    Releasing draft OIA responses would be likely to inhibit the future free and frank expression of opinions—s 9(2)(g)(i) applies