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

  • OIA compliance and practice in New Zealand Customs Service 2022

    Official Information Practice Investigations
    This report was released as part of ‘Ready or not?’, an investigation into OIA practices at 12 core agencies.

  • Requests to Ministry of Health and ESR for Covid-19 cycle threshold values

    Case notes
    Information requested initially refused for privacy reasons. The agencies subsequently focused on section 9(2)(c) of the OIA (to avoid prejudice to public health or safety measures).

  • WorkSafe’s decision not to formally investigate an incident

    Case notes
    Complaint about WorkSafe’s decision not to investigate and lay charges following an accident causing injury – failure to consider all relevant information – failure to engage meaningfully with the complainant – no evidence that documents had been fa

  • 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.

  • Requests for reasons for a decision or recommendation: A guide to section 23 of the OIA and section 22 of the LGOIMA

    Official information
    This is a guide to requests made under section 23 of the OIA (section 22 of the LGOIMA).

  • Template letter 16: Refusal letter under section 18(h) OIA / section 17(h) LGOIMA

    Template letters and worksheets, Template letters
    Use this letter if you need to refuse a request under section 18(h) OIA / section 17(h) LGOIMA—Frivolous or vexatious request. 

  • Frivolous, vexatious and trivial: A guide to section 18(h) of the OIA and section 17(h) of the LGOIMA

    Official information
    Under section 18(h) of the OIA (17(h) of the LGOIMA) a request can be refused if it is frivolous or vexatious, or the information is trivial.

  • Request for internal and external correspondence relating to OIA requests

    Case notes
    Request not frivolous or vexatious—information not trivial—agency should have met or at least talked with the requester before changing its practice of providing this type of information

  • Request for information about mental health

    Case notes
    Refusal justified but not because request was vexatious—some information not held but would need to be created—some information could not be provided without substantial collation or research

  • Request for ‘movement log’ and police file

    Case notes
    Requester not deprived of right to access official information because he had already received all relevant information—requester not deprived of access to justice because his underlying concerns had been conclusively resolved in a range of forums¬—vexatious complaint, Ombudsman refuses to investigate

  • Request for information relating to proposed parking changes in a street

    Case notes
    Volume of correspondence and requests created challenges but requester had a legitimate interest in obtaining information to help them understand the intended changes and make submissions—no evidence the request was made for irrational, mischievous or malicious reasons—no evidence that the agency had helped the requester to refine the request, reduce the scope, or clarify the specific information sought—request not frivolous or vexatious

  • Request for copy of LGOIMA request

    Case notes
    Earlier decision to supply the (wrong) information undermined later decision to declare the request vexatious—request arose out of genuine interest in the subject—while the requester had been critical of Council that did not mean the purpose of his request was to harass or annoy—s 18(h) does not apply—information should be released

  • Request for correspondence regarding dog control officer’s actions

    Case notes
    Request related to dispute some 16 years prior that had already been the subject of court proceedings and inquiries by this Office—request was an attempt to re-litigate already long concluded matters and an abuse of the right to access official information—vexatious complaint—Ombudsman refuses to investigate

  • Request for evidentiary conclusions in respect of 15 issues or assertions and information about religious affiliation or association of staff

    Case notes
    Information not held—evidentiary conclusions would need to be created—to the extent that if information about religious affiliation or association of staff was held in mind of Commissioner, it would be held in a personal capacity

  • Adequacy of ex gratia payment to remedy mistake by Customs

    Case notes
    NZ Customs officer rejected passenger on flight because water damage on passport—Ombudsman found officers failed to process the passport adequately and caused considerable cost to passenger because of this failure—complainant upheld and complainant received full payment to cover financial losses

  • Department of Internal Affairs provides reasonable service and advice to traveller on temporary passport

    Case notes
    Whether the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) reasonably handled revalidation of a passport for New Zealand citizen travelling on temporary passport—Ombudsman concluded DIA had made every effort to inform the complainant of the steps needed to have his passport validated

  • Request for information about tangata whenua rights

    Case notes
    Requester seeking official statement from Minister—information not held—explanation would need to be created

  • Request for breakdown of invoice

    Case notes
    Council concerned that request was part of a strategy to delay or avoid payment—no basis to believe request was made in bad faith—request not frivolous or vexatious—information should be released

  • 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

  • Requests by lawyer for information about client

    Case notes
    A proportion of the large volume of information at issue could fairly be characterised as ‘trivial’, bearing in mind the purpose of the request—this included auto replies, read receipts, undeliverable messages, emails arranging meetings and information generated to facilitate the proper processing of the requester’s OIA and Privacy Act requests

  • Request for reasons about unsuccessful reappointment

    Case notes
    Extent of detail required in response to s 23 request depends on circumstances of particular case – a requester may still have questions after they receive statement of reasons but that does not mean statement is inadequate – s 23(2A) only protects evaluative material that has been ‘supplied’ by someone else

  • Department of Internal Affairs not unreasonable to cancel passport

    Case notes
    Department of Internal Affairs—decision to recall and cancel complainant’s NZ passport – position determined by terms of legislation

  • Request for reasons about non-appointment

    Case notes
    Inadequate statement of reasons – more detail and specificity necessary to meet the requirements of s 23

  • Request for Department’s reasons for declining application

    Case notes
    Department maintains it had given its reasons previously, in writing and verbally on many occasions—requirements of s 23 had not been met—compliant statement of reasons provided

  • Request for reasons for decision made three years earlier

    Case notes
    Request for reasons for decision made three years earlier—request declined on grounds it was not ‘made within a reasonable time of the making of the decision’—decision to decline request upheld

  • New Zealand Customs Service questioned over acceptance of deposit pursuant to legislation

    Case notes
    Refusal to pay interest following resolution of dispute over Customs value of goods—whether relevant documentation provided at the time of importation—whether s 140 of the Customs Act 1966 (repealed) conferred authority on Department to take deposit—investigation discontinued following discovery that company did not exist as legal entity at the time complaint was made

  • Request for information framed in terms of section 23

    Case notes
    Request framed in terms of s 23—Crown Law sought details of requester’s personal interest in information at issue—requester objected on grounds of his right to seek information—Crown Law had not acted improperly in seeking further information from the requester—if an organisation fails to recognise that a request falls within the scope of s 23 and by error processes it pursuant to the more general provisions in Part 2 of the Act, a requester may be deprived of information to which he or she is entitled—no formal investigation—requester invited to advise Crown Law whether he had any personal interest in the decision in question

  • Department of Conservation resolves impasse concerning ivory-key piano held by New Zealand Customs

    Case notes
    Refusal to release piano imported from United Kingdom—family heirloom from 1920s—need for approval of Department of Conservation under CITES because of ivory content—conflict between New Zealand legislation implementing CITES and European Community Regulations—impasse resolved by acceptance of statutory declaration by family—conflict to be raised with CITES Secretariat

  • Request for information refused due to offensive and repetitive nature

    Case notes
    Number of requests made to Police over several years—recent request considered frivolous and vexatious—refused under s 18(h) in light of tone of correspondence and previous similar requests—requester had genuine interest in obtaining the requested information—requester agreed to withdraw the abusive remarks and redraft his requests purged of derogatory and intemperate comment

  • Request for reasons for mark awarded for university honours paper

    Case notes
    Request for reasons for mark awarded for university honours paper—refused on grounds information did not exist in documentary form and was not readily retrievable—obligation to provide statement under section 23—statement provided

  • Request for statement of reasons for non-appointment to board

    Case notes
    Request for statement of reasons for non-reappointment to board—matter pursued by third party with consent—information refused under s 9(2)(a)—statement of reasons provided to person not reappointed

  • Requests for information about decision making declined for being vexatious

    Case notes
    Requests for further information declined under s 18(h)—requests not frivolous or vexatious—the information had not previously been made available Request to Apple and Pear Marketing Board involved substantial collation or research and the creation of explanations— ss 18(f) and 18(g) apply