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.
46 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 record of ‘without prejudice’ meeting
Case notesSection 7(2)(g) LGOIMA did not apply—‘without prejudice’ privilege is not an aspect of legal professional privilege—s 7(2)(c)(ii) applied—obligation of confidence attaches to information subject to without prejudice privilege—release would make people rLegal professional privilege: A guide to section 9(2)(h) of the OIA and section 7(2)(g) of the LGOIMA
Official informationThis is a guide to the legal professional privilege withholding ground found in section 9(2)(h) of the OIA and section 7(2)(g) of the LGOIMA.Request for drafting instructions on the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Bill
Case notesParliamentary Privilege Act 2014 did not provide a statutory bar on the Ombudsman’s investigation of a complaint under the OIA—section 9(2)(h) applied—withholding necessary to maintain legal professional privilege—no public interest overrideRequest for statistics on allegations of assault by Corrections staff
Case notesRequirements 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 lapsesRequest for information about access to staff records
Case notesInformation held is incomplete but it should be released along with a contextual statement—s 18(g) does not apply—staff recollections should also be providedRequest for footage of battle of Baghak
Case notesNZDF deemed to hold battle footage recorded by soldiers on their personal devices in their official capacityRequests for firearms statistics
Case notesRefusal under section 18(g) not justified—information held—Police could manually extract and compile statistics—where compilation involves substantial collation or research s 18(f) appliesRequest for employee’s recollection of events
Case notesRequest for DIA employee’s recollection of events that occurred when she was employed by another agency—DIA not deemed to hold information because not held by employee in that person’s capacity as such an employee—information that cannot be recalled is not held—s 18(g) appliesEnergy Efficiency and Conservation Authority not unreasonable in tender process
Case notesComplaint about tender process when tenderer found its partner had also bid individually but was not informed by EECA—Ombudsman concluded the process followed was not unreasonable and had already been reviewed by independent reviewerRequest for information about mental health
Case notesRefusal 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 researchRequest for CAA investigation report on Minister’s airport security breach
Case notesSection 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 suRequests for emails of former Minister
Case notesEmails of former Ministers held by Parliamentary Services pursuant to contract with DIA deemed to be official information held by DIARequest for evidentiary conclusions in respect of 15 issues or assertions and information about religious affiliation or association of staff
Case notesInformation 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 capacityAdequacy 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 lossesCharge for the creation of statistics
Case notesOIA and Charging Guidelines did not apply to request for statistics that were not held but could be created for a fee—fee for the creation of statistics was calculated in accordance with the agency’s Sales and Pricing Policy and was not unreasonableDepartment 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 validatedRequest for information about tangata whenua rights
Case notesRequester seeking official statement from Minister—information not held—explanation would need to be createdRequest for legal opinions concerning Russian adoptions
Case notesRequest for legal opinions concerning Russian adoptions—withheld to maintain legal professional privilege—s 9(2)(h)—public disclosures of first opinion meant waiver had occurred—s 9 ‘necessity’ test not met—while section 9(2)(h) applies to second opinion need to withhold outweighed by a strong public interest in release of the information (with the exception of three paragraphs)Department 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 legislationRequest for lecture research notes
Case notesInformation held in staff member’s private capacity not heldRequest for information comparing preferred and declined proposals
Case notesRequested document did not exist but would need to be created—s 18(e) appliesReport on complaints arising from aerial spraying
Systemic investigationsIn June 2003 I received complaints from Ms Jane Schaverien, then of Auckland but now of Wellington, to investigate under the Ombudsmen Act 1975 the question whether the information given to Ministers by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry was inadequate regarding the possible dangers associated with the widespread concentrated use of Foray 48B in West Auckland, and in relation to the Ministry of Health, whether the Ministry had failed to pursue its responsibilities under the Health Act, 1956, or had abdicated those responsibilities in favour of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. In September 2003 I received a complaint from a Hamilton resident, Ms Michelle Rhodes, in generally similar terms regarding the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. These complaints arose from the aerial spraying operations carried out on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry in West Auckland to eliminate the Painted Apple Moth, and in parts of Hamilton to eliminate the Asian Gypsy Moth. In relation to West Auckland these operations began on a comparatively small-scale in January 2002, they were continued on a much larger scale through to May 2003, and were finally completed in May 2004.Department of Conservation unreasonable to cease administrative practice without notice
Case notesDepartment of Conservation to discontinue without notice a practice which people had come to reasonably rely on—Ombudsman concludes it was unreasonable to cease this administrative practice without noticeRequest for ACC notice board bulletin
Case notesRequester sought a copy of ACC notice board bulletin - bulletin contains commentary and advice on various court decisions - prepared by practising solicitor in his professional capacity - purpose is to give general legal advice to case managers who routinely request and rely upon it - refused under s 9(2)(h) - legal professional privilege applies - no waiver even though it was distributed widely amongst ACC staff - marked confidential and subject to privilege - no public interest in release that outweighed strong public interest in ensuring privilege is maintained.Request for Crown Law opinion
Case notesRequest for Crown Law opinion that Creative NZ referred to in correspondence—withheld under s 9(2)(h)—legal professional privilege attached to information—whether partial disclosure of contents of opinion sufficient to constitute waiver—s 9(2)(h) appliedRequest for a police report relating to the Cave Creek tragedy
Case notesRequest for a Police report relating to the Cave Creek tragedy—existence of the report confirmed—search undertaken in Christchurch, Greymouth and Wellington—author of report consulted, as well as members of the Commission of Inquiry—report unable to be foundRequest for advice relating to an independent review, including legal advice transferred between agencies
Case notesRequest for information relating to independent review of PHARMAC’S Operating Policies and Procedures—some information withheld as it was considered legally privileged—legal advice transferred between agencies did not constitute a waiver of the privilege—common interest privilege appliedRequest to Reserve Bank regarding advice it had prepared relating to New Zealand Post's banking proposal
Case notesSeries of questions put to Reserve Bank—whether information was held by the Reserve Bank or whether it would have to be created in order to answer questions—one question sought factual information which was held—remainder of the questions sought opinions which could be refused under s 18(g)Department of Conservation within rights on Memorandum of Transfer for land easement agreement
Case notesAgreement for Sale and Purchase between private landowner and Crown—creation of equitable easement—registered Memorandum of Transfer creates legal easement but excludes reference to ‘members of the public’ referred to in equitable easement—whether conduct of Department of Conservation was reasonable—Ombudsman could not assist—effect of Court of Appeal decisionRequest to Crown Law Office for legal advice given to Minister
Case notesRequest to Crown Law Office for legal advice given to a Minister—no information falling within the scope of the specific request—legal advice had been given by Attorney-General—information held solely on behalf of Attorney-General as first Law Officer of the Crown—not official informationRequest for policy on settling disputes
Case notesRequest for policy on settling disputes—information withheld on basis of legal professional privilege—consideration of s 22 and relationship with s 9(2)(h)