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
Guides
Commonly used guides include:
- The OIA for Ministers and agencies
- The LGOIMA for local government agencies
- Making official information requests: a guide for requesters
Detailed guidance on the official information legislation and aspects of good administrative practice.
We also have guidance on disability rights and protected disclosures.
Case notes and opinions
Case notes are a short case summary, often demonstrating an aspect of a case.
An Ombudsman's Opinion is published where there is public interest in showing the full details of a case.
Reports
Reports include OPCAT, disability rights, official information practice and systemic investigation.
Outreach
Contains our media releases, newsletters, pamphlets, speeches and fact sheets. Fact sheets are published in multiple language and accessible formats.
Corporate documents
This includes our annual reports and strategic intentions.
Projects, reference and data
This includes our official information complaints data, updates on investigations and other projects, and submissions by the Ombudsman.
View all projects, reference and data
Template letters and work sheets
These template letters and work sheets can be used by agencies to help respond to official information requests.
52 Resources Show all
Decision to decline a character waiver and associated visa application
Case notesImmigration New Zealand acted unreasonably in deciding not to grant a character waiver and in subsequently declining a visa application.Failure of Immigration New Zealand to provide interpreter at border
Case notesIn March 2016, an Immigration New Zealand (INZ) officer interviewed the complainant upon their arrival to New Zealand. The complainant’s first language is Hindi and they speak relatively limited English. The interview was conducted in English and was video-recorded.Request for staff names and initials in Commerce Commission memorandum
Case notesSection 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 reasonRequest for names and contact details in Department of Corrections’ emails
Case notesSection 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 emaRequest for officials’ names in information about glyphosate
Case notesSection 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 enoughRequest for contact details of Housing New Zealand staff
Case notesSection 9(2)(g)(ii) OIA applied—there was a strong likelihood that staff would be subjected to further harassment or improper pressure if the requester obtained their contact details—this conduct could detrimentally affect staff thus impairing HNZ’s abiRequest for names of staff and contractors involved in producing crime and safety survey
Case notesSection 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(2Request for names and address for service of two Police officers
Case notesSection 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 orImmigration New Zealand’s decision to issue Deportation Liability Notice unreasonable in circumstances
Case notesImmigration New Zealand (INZ)’s decision to issue a Deportation Liability Notice (DLN) was unreasonable—compliance officer inferred situation that complainant was then not given an opportunity to explain—Ombudsman sustained complaint—INZ restored immigration status to complainant with open conditionsImmigration New Zealand’s consideration of a section 61 visa request regarding complainant's family role, reasonably considered
Case notesWhether the approach taken by Immigration New Zealand (INZ) about the exercise of absolute discretion when determining requests for a visa under section 61 of the Immigration Act 2009 was reasonable—in this case whether INZ considered relevant considerations including whether it had considered the complainant’s submissions about the active role he had in raising his New Zealand citizen partner’s daughter—Chief Ombudsman concludes INZ’s consideration of the request was reasonableImmigration New Zealand’s consideration of a section 61 visa request deficient
Case notesWhether the approach taken by Immigration New Zealand (‘INZ’) about the exercise of absolute discretion when determining requests for a visa under section 61 of the Immigration Act 2009 was reasonable—in this case whether INZ considered relevant considerations including whether it had considered the complainant’s submissions about the health of his New Zealand citizen child—Chief Ombudsman concludes aspects of INZ’s decision-making processes were deficientImmigration New Zealand’s decision on section 61 visa request regarding complainant's safety, reasonably considered
Case notesWhether the approach taken by Immigration New Zealand (‘INZ’) about the exercise of absolute discretion when determining requests for a visa under section 61 of the Immigration Act 2009 was reasonable—in this case whether INZ considered relevant considerations including whether the complainant had legitimate concerns about his alleged safety if he was to return to his home country—Ombudsman concludes INZ’s decision making was reasonableImmigration New Zealand’s decision on section 61 visa request reasonably considered
Case notesWhether the approach taken by Immigration New Zealand (INZ) about the exercise of absolute discretion when determining requests for a visa under section 61 of the Immigration Act 2009 was reasonable—in this case whether INZ considered relevant considerations regarding international conventions that protect the rights of a child—Ombudsman concluded INZ’s decision-making process was reasonableImmigration New Zealand reasonable to conclude permit-holder working outside visa conditions and to issue Deportation Liability Notice
Case notesImmigration New Zealand (INZ) issued a Deportation Liability Notice (DLN) when complainant was observed working at a restaurant and outside conditions of work visa—Ombudsman found INZ’s decision reasonable in the circumstancesAssociate Minister of Immigration’s private secretary reasonably triages AMOI intervention requests
Case notesWhether Private Secretary for Associate Minister of Immigration (AMOI) acted unreasonably by not referring the complainant’s request for intervention to the AMOI—Ombudsman concludes AMOI practice for Private Secretary to triage, reasonableImmigration New Zealand reasonable to decline section 61 Visa request
Case notesImmigration New Zealand (INZ’s) decision to refuse complainant’s request for a visa under section 61 of the Immigration Act 2009, reasonable in the circumstances—issue concerned ‘shared care’ arrangement and whether INZ took this into account—complaint not upheldImmigration New Zealand unreasonable to proceed with deportation when inadequate reasons were given for decision
Case notesWhether INZ gave adequate consideration of interests of deported person and of his New Zealand partner and their New Zealand citizen child before work permit declined and deportation order put in place—also whether partner received adequate information about deportation and if deportee had a reasonable opportunity to consult lawyer—Chief Ombudsman found INZ failed to consider the deportee’s section 61 requests following the issue of a deportation order, under s177 of the Immigration Act 2009 and proceeded with the deportation on the basis of an assessment by a Compliance Officer who did not record reasons for his decision, nor the matters required by s177 of the ActRequest for names of frontline forestry officers in information about the felling and milling of kauri
Case notesSection 9(2)(g)(ii) OIA applied—MPI provided evidence of past instances of harassment and comments from the staff concerned—reasonable expectation that release would lead to improper pressure or harassment which would be detrimental to MPI’s administratNames of senior and principal historian involved in writing treaty settlement memo
Case notesSections 9(2)(a) and 9(2)(g)(ii) OIA did not apply—information publicly available—seniority—degree of responsibility—no material supporting likelihood of pressure or harassmentRequest for name of Auckland Transport employee who requested trade plate cancellation
Case notesSection 7(2)(f)(ii) LGOIMA applied—Auckland Transport provided examples of situations where its employees had been personally targeted and subjected to behaviour that was perceived to be threatening and intimidating by requester—reasonable likelihood thUnreasonable delay in residence application that warranted urgency
OpinionsThe complainant and his family are living in a refugee camp in Kenya. The complainant’s sister lives in New Zealand. On 22 January 2009, the complainant applied for residence in New Zealand under the Adult Sibling policy. Immigration New Zealand (INZImmigration New Zealand unreasonable to stamp person's passport when visa application declined
Case notesWhether Immigration New Zealand (INZ) was reasonable to stamp words in a person’s passport when that person had been declined a residence visa application—Ombudsman concluded the stamp had no legal authority and the practice was unreasonableRequest for staff named in emails about genetically modified corn
Case notesSection 6(d) OIA did not apply—no real and objective risk of danger to safety—s 9(2)(g)(ii) OIA did not apply—many of the names were already publicly available in connection with this issue and no harm had ensued—section 9(2)(g)(i) OIA did not apply—infRequest for names of members of advisory committee on national standards for abortion services in New Zealand
Case notesSection 9(2)(g)(ii) OIA applied— Abortion Supervisory Committee provided evidence of past instances of harassment—reasonable likelihood that release would lead to improper pressure or harassment which would impact on the ability and willingness of commiImmigration New Zealand’s advice to Associate Minister of Immigration unreasonable
Case notesImmigration New Zealand (INZ)—misleading and inadequate advice provided to Associate Minister of ImmigrationImmigration New Zealand officials’ poor record keeping resulted in unreasonable intervention in appeal process
Case notesImmigration New Zealand (INZ)—incorrect advice given to complainant based on misunderstanding of complainant’s situation—misunderstanding caused by lack of proper record keeping by INZ—failure to refer complainant to her legal advisor before she made a significant change to her immigration situation—removal order cancelled, person returned to NZ with ongoing permitsImmigration New Zealand unreasonable to stamp decline in passport
Case notesImmigration New Zealand unreasonable to stamp passport to show application was declined when no legal authority for this practiceDepartment of Internal Affairs accepts process cancelling citizenship managed unreasonably
Case notesComplaint about decision of Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) to de-register complainant’s NZ citizenship by descent - complainant adopted in India by uncle who was NZ citizen - adoption considered to be a ‘recognised overseas adoption’ and complainant was registered as a citizen by descent in October 2002Immigration New Zealand's error in granting permit in one case raises no legitimate expectation for another applicant in same situation
Case notesImmigration New Zealand (INZ) declined application for a graduate work permit because applicant did not meet the criteria applicable at the time—complainant claimed decision unreasonable because other applicants in his situation were granted permits—Ombudsman found no evidence that INZ made a practice of granting graduate work permits outside the terms of the policy as a matter of course and failure (to correctly apply policy) in one case should not raise legitimate expectations for other applicantsRequest for names of psychiatrists who undertake section 60 reviews under the Mental Health Act
Case notesSection 9(2)(g)(ii) OIA applied—MOH provided evidence of past instances of harassment—Ombudsman consulted employees—reasonable likelihood that release would lead to improper pressure or harassment which would detrimentally impact on willingness and abilImmigration New Zealand unreasonable to rely on inaccurate and prejudicial health information when declining permit
Case notesWhether Immigration New Zealand was reasonable to decline to grant a work permit on health grounds because the applicant had active multidrug-resistant tuberculosis—Ombudsman concluded INZ policy and case law requires an applicant to be given a reasonable opportunity to comment on information which is potentially prejudicial to an application before a decision is madeImmigration New Zealand conducts unreasonable interview for residence applicant
Case notesImmigration New Zealand (INZ) accepts its interview of residence applicant had been unreasonable and offered fresh assessment following Ombudsman’s investigation