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.
50 Resources Show all
OIA compliance and practice in New Zealand Customs Service 2022
Official Information Practice InvestigationsThis report was released as part of ‘Ready or not?’, an investigation into OIA practices at 12 core agencies.Request for information concerning increase in number of cochlear implants
Case notesSection 9(2)(f)(iv) OIA applied to costing information and detailed analysis regarding unsuccessful Budget 2020 bid which had been resubmitted for consideration through the 2021 Budget process – small amount of high level information about the existInvestigation into the Health and Disability Commissioner’s assessment of three complaints
OpinionsSummary It is my opinion that the former Health and Disability Commissioner’s (HDC’s) handling of three separate complaints was unreasonable.Consultation on health and safety processes for Managed Isolation Facility
Case notesComplaint about level of consultation with residents before Stamford Plaza Hotel became a Managed Isolation Facility—Chief Ombudsman found that the Department did not consult appropriately with the residents before this occurred—the Department also didRequest for names of clusters that COVID-19 cases were linked to
Case notesSection 18(c)(i) OIA applied—release would be contrary to s 92ZZG(2) Health Act 1956— discretion to use or disclose contact tracing information for the ‘effective management of infectious diseases’—exercise of discretion reviewed under the Ombudsmen ActRequest 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 emaConclusive reasons for refusing requests: A guide to the conclusive withholding grounds in section 6 of the OIA and LGOIMA
Official informationThis is a guide to section 6 of the OIA and LGOIMA, which provides conclusive reasons for withholding official information. These reasons are not subject to a public interest test.Request 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(2Administrative error resulting in lost opportunity for ACC claim
Case notesA patient who was unaware he had asbestosis underwent a CT scan while being treated at a DHB Hospital. On the scan’s accompanying notes a radiologist noted previous asbestos exposure. This CT scan with accompanying notes was misfiled, for unknown reasons, and the patient’s diagnosis of asbestosis was not confirmed until autopsy.Ministry of Health unreasonably disallowed visiting Australian resident access to publicly funded health services
Case notesWhether the Ministry of Health was unreasonable to determine that medical treatment obtained by a visitor to New Zealand was not ‘immediately necessary’ and therefore not covered by reciprocal health agreement with Australia – Ombudsman considered the Ministry of Health erred – complaint sustainedRequest 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 orDecisions of PHARMAC to fund Opdivo and Keytruda
Case notesA complaint was made to the Ombudsman that PHARMAC took too long to approve the May 2015 application to fund the metastatic melanoma cancer drug Keytruda.[1]Ministry of Health policy on reimbursement of expenses for house modification unreasonable
Case notesWhether the Ministry of Health’s policy to require prior approval for funding for house modification was reasonable—Ombudsman concluded it was notHealth and Disability Commissioner not unreasonable to refer matter to Medical Council without advising complainant
Case notesWhether the Health and Disability Commissioner legally or otherwise required to inform complainant of a referral made to the Medical Council of New Zealand—Ombudsman concluded HDC not bound to divulge this informationMinistry of Health’s decision following audit of aged care facility not unreasonable
Case notesMinistry of Health’s HealthCERT not unreasonable to issue an aged care facility with ‘partial attainment’ in its August 2016 surveillance auditMinistry of Health agrees to increase what was an unreasonably low offer of ex gratia payment
Case notesMinistry of Health’s decision in December 2016 to offer complainant $8000 by way of an ex gratia payment for mistakes made by the Ministry and lengths complainant had to go to in having the Funded Family Care hours reinstated unreasonable—Ministry of Health agreed to increase the amount following the complaint.Request 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 administratPatient eligibility for publicly funded healthcare
Case notesThis case note concerns an investigation under the Ombudsmen Act 1975, resulting from a complaint to the Ombudsman about the failure of a district health board (DHB) to identify that a patient was ineligible to receive publicly funded health care beforeAdequacy of ex gratia payment to remedy mistake by Customs
Case notesNZ 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 lossesDepartment of Internal Affairs provides reasonable service and advice to traveller on temporary passport
Case notesWhether 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 validatedNames 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 thDistrict Health Board decision not to consult on provision of abortion services at a Hospital was unreasonable
Case notesWhether the District Health Board was unreasonable to offer abortion services at a hospital without consultation with the local communityPharmac decision not to fund drug was not unreasonable or contrary to law
Case notesWhether PHARMAC decision not to fund a drug was unreasonable or contrary to law—Ombudsman concluded that this case did not reach the threshold of being unreasonable or contrary to law but made suggestions to PHARMAC about the matterDistrict Health Board’s processes regarding informed consent for assisted reproductive procedure not unreasonable
Case notesWhether a District Health Board (DHB) failed to ensure the complainant received adequate professional advice before being required to sign a legal document surrendering substantial legal rights—whether that document was ‘informed consent’—Ombudsman concluded DHB had not acted unreasonably in this matterRequest 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 commiMinistry of Agriculture’s aerial spray programme had unreasonable impact on population
Case notesMinistry of Agriculture and Fisheries—Ministry of Health—actions in relation to the aerial spraying of Foray 48B (to eliminate the Painted Apple Moth) in West Auckland and Hamilton—inadequate advice to ministers about impact of spray operationsDepartment of Internal Affairs not unreasonable to cancel passport
Case notesDepartment of Internal Affairs—decision to recall and cancel complainant’s NZ passport – position determined by terms of legislation