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

28 Resources Show all

  • Training Institution fails to adequately address a complaint about its course

    Case notes
    Whether a training institution failed to address a complaint made by a student—Ombudsman found the institution’s appeals and complaints processes to have been inadequate—the institution accepted the finding and agreed to re-hear the appeal and then refunded the complainant’s course fees in resolution of the complaint

  • 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

  • Earthquake Commission’s handling of a claim unreasonable in the circumstances

    Case notes
    Whether the Earthquake Commission (EQC) had handled a claim for drapes and carpets in a reasonable manner—Chief Ombudsman found aspects of EQC’s handling of the matter to have been unsatisfactory

  • Request for CAA investigation report on Minister’s airport security breach

    Case notes
    Section 9(2)(a) OIA applied to information that would identify Minister’s staff—s 9(2)(a) did not apply to non-sensitive information about actions that occurred in a public place, or to the name of the Investigator—s 6(c) did not apply to information su

  • Request for draft terms of reference for an inquiry

    Case notes
    Draft terms of reference largely the same as publicly available final ones—release would not inhibit the future free and frank expression of opinion or provision of advice to the Prime Minister—s 9(2)(g)(i) did not apply

  • 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 evaluation and audit reports regarding extended supervision orders

    Case notes
    Evaluation report comprised largely academic material and statistical analysis—9(2)(g)(i) did not apply—audit report had been submitted to senior management but marked as draft—disclosure of majority not likely to prejudice future exchange of free and frank opinions—significant public interest considerations in favour of disclosure—audit report released with deletion of names and detailed findings relating to individual service providers

  • 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 DHB Commissioner’s draft work plan

    Case notes
    Release of draft work plan would likely result in reluctance by staff to draft and consult on document—components of plan, once confirmed, were to be included in the 2016/17 annual plan—s 9(2)(g)(i) provided good reason to withhold

  • Request for draft financial performance analysis

    Case notes
    Draft financial performance analysis prepared by Alma Consulting—s 9(2)(g)(i) did not apply— strong public interest in release

  • 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

  • Information fault lines: accessing EQC information in Canterbury

    Systemic investigations
    A joint report of the Chief Ombudsman and the Privacy Commissioner into the Earthquake Commission's handling of information requests in Canterbury.

  • Request for draft advice on establishing a reserve

    Case notes
    Release of early and annotated advice would inhibit the free and frank exchange of opinions between officials drafting advice—general public interest in transparency had been met by disclosure of technical papers that formed the basis of the advice to the Minister, together with the final advice paper

  • Request for draft ministerial and chief executive correspondence

    Case notes
    Release of draft ministerial and chief executive correspondence would inhibit the free and frank expression opinions—s 9(2)(g)(i) applies

  • Request for draft document on Starting Price Adjustment Input Methodology

    Opinions
    For the reasons set out below, I am of the opinion that the Commerce Commission was entitled, under section 9(2)(g)(i) of the Official Information Act 1982 (OIA), to withhold a copy of a draft of a Starting Price Adjustment Input Methodology reque

  • Department of Corrections reasonable to seek removal of prisoner from study course in some circumstances

    Case notes
    Whether the Department of Corrections was reasonable to request the tertiary institution to remove a prisoner from a course at a polytechnic—Ombudsman found Department’s decision to have been reasonable in part

  • Earthquake Commission not unreasonable to decline payment for engineering reports commissioned by property owner

    Case notes
    Whether it was reasonable for EQC to decline payment for two engineering reports—Ombudsman considered that EQC had not acted unreasonably in this respect

  • 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 total amounts paid for parking services

    Case notes
    Release of total amounts paid would not unreasonably prejudice the commercial position of the incumbent providers in future tender rounds, nor would it disadvantage the Council in carrying on negotiations—ss 7(2)(b)(ii) and 7(2)(i) do 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

  • Investigation of the Department of Corrections in relation to the complaint procedures of Corrections Inmate Employment

    Systemic investigations
    Corrections Inmate Employment (CIE) is a branch of the Department of Corrections’ (the Department) Rehabilitation and Re-integration Services group. It operates various industries at the prisons, which afford prisoners employment while they are in prison. Following the receipt of complaints from prisoners employed by CIE, concern was expressed about how CIE was handling prisoners’ complaints. I was uncertain whether this concern was justified. I decided it was appropriate on my own motion to undertake an investigation into the efficiency and effectiveness of the complaint procedures by which prisoners employed by CIE may complain to the Department about CIE and its staff.

  • Request for reports of unannounced inspections of rest homes and hospitals

    Case notes
    Release of adverse findings might damage providers’ reputations and therefore their commercial position, but this would not be unreasonable—s 9(2)(b)(ii) does not apply—public interest in promoting public safety and consumer protection

  • 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

  • Complaints arising out of bullying at Hutt Valley High School in December 2007

    Systemic investigations
    This is a report on an investigation into a series of violent incidents that occurred at Hutt Valley High School in December 2007. The incidents attracted considerable media attention and led to wider studies of bullying in schools by the Commissioner for Children and the Human Rights Commission.

  • 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