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

47 Resources Show all

  • Request for information concerning increase in number of cochlear implants

    Case notes
    Section 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 exist

  • Investigation into the Health and Disability Commissioner’s assessment of three complaints

    Opinions
    Summary 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 notes
    Complaint 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 did

  • Request for names of clusters that COVID-19 cases were linked to

    Case notes
    Section 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 Act

  • Conclusive reasons for refusing requests: A guide to the conclusive withholding grounds in section 6 of the OIA and LGOIMA

    Official information
    This 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 information about Operation Burnham

    Case notes
    Section 6(c) can potentially apply to prevent prejudice to the conduct of an inquiry under the Inquiries Act—however, blanket refusal was not justified—basic and uncontested factual material could be provided—section 6(c) applied where questions sought

  • Request for information about staff grievances and allegations of bullying

    Opinions
    Sam Sherwood, on behalf of Stuff, made a request to Selwyn District Council for information about staff grievances and allegations of bullying.

  • Administrative error resulting in lost opportunity for ACC claim

    Case notes
    A 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 notes
    Whether 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 sustained

  • Decisions of PHARMAC to fund Opdivo and Keytruda

    Case notes
    A 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 notes
    Whether the Ministry of Health’s policy to require prior approval for funding for house modification was reasonable—Ombudsman concluded it was not

  • Health and Disability Commissioner not unreasonable to refer matter to Medical Council without advising complainant

    Case notes
    Whether 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 information

  • Ministry of Health’s decision following audit of aged care facility not unreasonable

    Case notes
    Ministry of Health’s HealthCERT not unreasonable to issue an aged care facility with ‘partial attainment’ in its August 2016 surveillance audit

  • Ministry of Health agrees to increase what was an unreasonably low offer of ex gratia payment

    Case notes
    Ministry 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 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

  • Patient eligibility for publicly funded healthcare

    Case notes
    This 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 before

  • District Health Board decision not to consult on provision of abortion services at a Hospital was unreasonable

    Case notes
    Whether the District Health Board was unreasonable to offer abortion services at a hospital without consultation with the local community

  • Pharmac decision not to fund drug was not unreasonable or contrary to law

    Case notes
    Whether 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 matter

  • Request for information about Pike River Mine

    Case notes
    Section 6(c) OIA applied—release of information directly relevant to the Royal Commission of Inquiry would be likely to prejudice the effective conduct of the Inquiry

  • Request for information about the operation of the Spring Creek Coal Mine

    Case notes
    Information was ‘official information’—Section 6(c) OIA did not apply—information not directly relevant to inquiry—release not likely to prejudice the effective conduct of the Royal Commission of Inquiry

  • District Health Board’s processes regarding informed consent for assisted reproductive procedure not unreasonable

    Case notes
    Whether 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 matter

  • Request for information about Police investigation into complaint against Minister

    Case notes
    Section 6(c) OIA did not apply—no prejudice to the maintenance of the law in circumstances where the investigation had concluded and no charges had been laid—s 9(2)(a) applied—high privacy interest given the nature of the allegations and the fact that n

  • Ministry of Agriculture’s aerial spray programme had unreasonable impact on population

    Case notes
    Ministry 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 operations

  • Canterbury District Health Board received inadequate advice about historic place

    Case notes
    District Health Board’s decision to sell land around disused hospital in Hanmer Springs—requirements for consultation discussed—requirement for keeping open mind referred to—an inadequate summary of submissions provided to Board—Department of Conservation asked to reassess site

  • Report on complaints arising from aerial spraying

    Systemic investigations
    In 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.

  • Ministry of Health reconsiders decision to charge for collation of information

    Case notes
    Requester sought draft and final copies of public health contracts for four financial years between Ministry of Health and 42 providers—Ministry agreed to release but subject to charge of $24,000—Ombudsman sought basis for charge—request for vast amount of information requiring substantial collation—charge applied in accordance with Ministry of Justice Charging Guidelines—however, Ministry had previously released part of requested information to an MP free of charge—Ombudsman did not consider it reasonable now to charge member of public for same information—Ministry agreed to review decision and release that particular information again free of charge and assist requester to refine request for outstanding information

  • Request for information relating to an investigation into alleged destruction of documents held by NZDF

    Case notes
    Request for information relating to an investigation into alleged destruction of documents held by New Zealand Defence Force—information withheld to prevent prejudice to the outcome of those inquiries—s 6(c) applied at the time the request was refused—information later released due to change in circumstances

  • Medical Practitioners’ Disciplinary Tribunal outside Ombudsman’s jurisdiction

    Case notes
    Complaint about Medical Practitioners’ Disciplinary Tribunal decision to strike off a doctor and media coverage of the hearing—no jurisdiction to investigate—Ombudsman has discretion to investigate matters of administration with respect to the Health and Disability Commissioner’s investigation into the doctor’s medical practices but only if complainant has sufficient interest in the subject-matter of complaint and consent from the doctor

  • Failure by health funding body to honour undertaking by predecessor funding body to fund gender reassignment surgery unreasonable

    Case notes
    The Health Funding Authority (disestablished in 2001) was required to consider a complaint against its predecessor (Regional Health Authority) about an agreement by RHA to fund gender reassignment surgery—the RHA had initially agreed to fund this surgery but then changed its policy—the Ombudsman concluded that it was unreasonable for the RHA not to honour this undertaking on the basis of a subsequent change in policy and that its successor, the HFA should remedy the unreasonable actions of its predecessor—the HFA agreed with the Ombudsman’s recommendations to fund the gender reassignment surgery in the manner originally approved—as the HFA was by this time disestablished the matter was passed to the Ministry of Health for completion

  • Request for details of prison security system

    Case notes
    Prison inmate sought details of prison security system and name of company who installed it—release would be likely to prejudice the integrity of system

  • Request to Police for information regarding alleged threats made against Judge

    Case notes
    Request for information provided to Police concerning alleged threats made by person/s connected with the requester’s family—refused on the basis that disclosure would reveal identity of the informant—mixture of ’personal information’ and ‘official information’—joint investigation with Privacy Commissioner

  • Request by shareholder of a company to the Securities Commission for a copy of a report of an investigation carried out on the company

    Case notes
    Request by a shareholder of a company to the Securities Commission for copy of a report of an investigation carried out on the company—information withheld to protect the maintenance of the law and obligations of confidence—test for withholding under s 6(c) not met—s 9(2)(ba)(i) provided good reason to withhold some information