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

34 Resources Show all

  • Report on an unannounced inspection of Tongariro Prison under the Crimes of Torture Act 1989

    OPCAT reports
    The following report has been prepared in my capacity as a National Preventive Mechanism (NPM) under the Crimes of Torture Act 1989 (COTA).

  • Report on an unannounced inspection of Northland Regional Corrections Facility - August 2019

    Reports, OPCAT reports
    The Chief Ombudsman Peter Boshier says the Northland Regional Corrections Facility is persisting with policies that are preventing it from achieving its full potential.

  • Request for information on public service chief executive pay and remuneration

    Case notes
    Request for information on chief executive pay and remuneration—s 9(2)(a) did not provide good reason to withhold total chief executive pay—disclosure recommended by the Chief Ombudsman—s 9(2)(a) did provide good reason to withhold individual compon

  • Request for Police Commissioner’s letter to the Minister about Deputy Commissioner

    Case notes
    Request for letter written by the Police Commissioner to the Minister of Police about response to Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) findings on bullying complaints about Deputy Police Commissioner—s 9(2)(a) applied—information related to t

  • Request for Chief Executive’s performance agreement and KPIs

    Case notes
    Request for Chief Executive’s performance agreement and KPIs—s 7(2)(a) LGOIMA did not provide good reason to withhold most of the performance agreements and KPIs—however, s 7(2)(c)(ii) provided good reason to withhold ‘stretch targets’—there was a m

  • Request for staff names and initials in Commerce Commission memorandum

    Case notes
    Section 9(2)(a) OIA did not apply—not necessary to withhold staff names to protect their privacy—section 9(2)(g)(ii) did not apply—no information to suggest release would lead to improper pressure or harassment—section 9(2)(g)(i) did not apply—no reason

  • Report on an unannounced follow up inspection of Otago Corrections Facility - June 2019

    OPCAT reports
    From 28 January to 1 February 2019 my Inspectors (whom I have authorised to carry out visits of places of detention under COTA) visited Otago Corrections Facility (the Prison) to follow up on recommendations made in a previous OPCAT report (May 2016).

  • The OIA for Ministers and agencies: A guide to processing official information requests

    Official information
    The purpose of this guide is to assist Ministers and government agencies in recognising and responding to requests for official information under the OIA.

  • The LGOIMA for local government agencies: A guide to processing requests and conducting meetings

    Official information
    The purpose of this guide is to assist local government agencies in recognising and responding to requests for official information under the LGOIMA.

  • Making official information requests: A guide for requesters

    Official information
    If you are seeking information from a Minister, or central or local government agency, you may be able to ask for it under either the OIA or LGOIMA.

  • Request for names and contact details in Department of Corrections’ emails

    Case notes
    Section 9(2)(a) OIA did not apply to names—many of the names were publicly available— seniority— section 9(2)(g)(ii) did not apply to names—no evidence to suggest release would lead to improper pressure or harassment—section 9(2)(a) did not apply to ema

  • Chief executive expenses

    Official information
    This guide sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to requests for information about state sector Chief Executives’ expenses.

  • Report on an announced inspection of Auckland South Corrections Facility - 20 February 2019

    OPCAT reports
    The Chief Ombudsman, Peter Boshier, has released his first inspection report into the treatment and conditions of prisoners at Auckland South Corrections Facility (also known as Kohuora).

  • Request for officials’ names in information about glyphosate

    Case notes
    Section 9(2)(a) OIA did not apply—not necessary to withhold staff names to protect their privacy—section 9(2)(g)(ii) did not apply—no information to suggest release would lead to improper pressure or harassment—possibility of public criticism not enough

  • Request for camera footage of three Taser incidents

    Case notes
    Section 9(2)(a) OIA applied—footage of two incidents particularly sensitive—pixelation not sufficient to address privacy interests—footage of third incident not so sensitive—pixelation would make the risk of identification negligible—strong public inter

  • Report on an unannounced inspection of Whanganui Prison - 4 September 2018

    OPCAT reports
    The following report has been prepared in my capacity as a National Preventive Mechanism under the Crimes of Torture Act 1989 (COTA). My function under the COTA is to examine and make any recommendations that I consider appropriate to improve the treatment and conditions of detained persons in a number of places of detention, including prisons. This report examines the treatment and conditions of persons detained in Whanganui Prison.

  • Request for names of staff and contractors involved in producing crime and safety survey

    Case notes
    Section 9(2)(g)(ii) OIA applied to staff names—on basis of past conduct Ombudsman satisfied that requester would engage in improper pressure or harassment that would impact on the Ministry’s ability to attract and retain staff and contactors—section 9(2

  • Request for information about staff grievances and allegations of bullying

    Opinions
    Sam Sherwood, on behalf of Stuff, made a request to Selwyn District Council for information about staff grievances and allegations of bullying.

  • Request for names of MSD staff in emails about the drafting of a Bill

    Case notes
    Section 9(2)(a) OIA did not apply—not necessary to withhold staff names to protect their privacy—no information to suggest privacy or safety concerns, or risk of improper pressure or harassment.

  • Report on an unannounced follow-up inspection of Christchurch Women's Prison - 4 April 2018

    OPCAT reports
    In 2007, the Ombudsmen were designated one of the National Preventive Mechanisms (NPMs) under the Crimes of Torture Act (COTA), with responsibility for examining and monitoring the general conditions and treatment of detainees in New Zealand prisons.

  • Report on an unannounced inspection of Arohata Upper Prison - 21 March 2018

    OPCAT reports
    The Upper Prison was facing considerable challenges. Resources, infrastructure and staffing were under pressure, which was compounded by the geographical separation from the administrative centre at Tawa. Day-to-day operating systems and arrangements for dealing with women were not fully embedded. Reception and induction processes were poor, and information for foreign prisoners was not available. Significant delays in access to personal property were a source of frustration for many women, reflected in the growing number of complaints and misconducts.

  • Request for staff names in employment investigation report into Joanne Harrison

    Case notes
    Section 9(2)(a) OIA applied—significant privacy interest given the nature and content of report and impact on individuals—no public interest override.

  • Request for names of members of the Auckland University European Students Association

    Case notes
    Section 9(2)(a) OIA applied—withholding necessary to protect high privacy interest in information that would directly or indirectly identify AUESA members—potential consequences of disclosure included harassment, threats and reputational damage—no publi

  • Request for statistics on allegations of assault by Corrections staff

    Case notes
    Requirements of Operations Manual meant source information to answer request should be held—manual compilation is not creation—s 18(g) does not apply—unreasonable to rely on s 18(f) when the fundamental difficulty in providing the information was down to the Department’s own administrative lapses

  • Request for names and address for service of two Police officers

    Case notes
    Section 9(2)(a) and 9(2)(g)(ii) OIA applied—past conduct suggested the requester would publish information targeting or encouraging others to target the officers in a way that would breach their personal privacy, and subject them to improper pressure or

  • Department of Corrections staff to follow legislative requirements when segregating inmate

    Case notes
    Department of Corrections held prisoner in Management Unit without following required procedure—segregation legislation and regulations are clear and prescriptive

  • Request for job application file of National MP

    Case notes
    Section 9(2)(a) OIA provided good reason to withhold some information—low privacy interest in other information about MP’s work and study history in China, due to the amount of information in the public domain and his high public profile—outweighed by p

  • Request for address information to assist enforcement of judgement orders

    Case notes
    Landlords obtained judgment orders from Courts or Tenancy Tribunal against former tenants but were unable to have them executed as current address for judgment debtors unknown— requested current address information from Department of Work and Income (now part of MSD)—information withheld to protect clients’ privacy, and future supply of information— public interest in maintaining the proper administration of justice and promoting respect for the law outweighed privacy interest—MSD agreed to provide address information direct to Department for Courts

  • Report on issues involving the criminal justice sector

    Systemic investigations
    The following is my report consequent on a reference directed to me by the Prime Minister to investigate the administration of the criminal justice system. The Terms of Reference directed to me are attached as Appendix A. By agreement the reporting date was extended to 1 December 2007. I note that my report is to be tabled in Parliament. My investigation has been conducted in accordance with the provisions in the Ombudsmen Act 1975.

  • Request for information about serious and sentinel event reports

    Case notes
    Request to District Health Board for information relating to ‘serious and sentinel events’—22 SSE reports withheld in full—s 9(2)(a) applies to information identifying patients’ families and medical staff—s 9(2)(ba)(i) applies to information identifying medical staff as release would impact negatively on willingness of staff to report incidents and to cooperate with subsequent investigations—s 9(1) public interest in release to promote the accountability of the DHB for management of individual cases and to assure the public that any identified deficiencies are being remedied—reports released with deletions—two ‘protected quality assurance activity’ reports withheld—s 59 of Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act prohibits disclosure of information gained in course of a protected quality assurance activity but s 60 allows release of information that does not identify a particular individual—reports released with deletions

  • Request for letter of complaint

    Case notes
    Withholding investigated by the Privacy Commissioner under the Privacy Act 1993 and the Ombudsman under the OIA—personal information about requester released—s 9(2)(a) OIA applied to the remainder—withholding necessary to protect the privacy of the comp

  • Request for information about Children’s Commissioner investigation

    Case notes
    Section 9(2)(a) OIA applied to redacted material from draft investigation report—requester no longer authorised to act as advocate for the family—withholding necessary to protect the family’s privacy—requester’s prior knowledge did not affect the family