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.
28 Resources Show all
Conclusive 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 information about Operation Burnham
Case notesSection 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 soughtEarthquake Commission’s interpretation of the Earthquake Commission Act 1993 regarding swimming pool building not unreasonable
Case notesWhether the Earthquake Commission was unreasonable to decline compensation for damage to the pool house enclosing a swimming pool at a Christchurch property—Ombudsman concluded EQC’s decision was not unreasonableRequest for information about staff grievances and allegations of bullying
OpinionsSam Sherwood, on behalf of Stuff, made a request to Selwyn District Council for information about staff grievances and allegations of bullying.Earthquake Commission should reimburse claimant’s travel costs when staff fail to attend meeting
Case notesEarthquake Commission asked to reimburse claimants who travelled to Christchurch from Auckland to attend a meeting with EQC officials who failed to arrive—Ombudsman concluded EQC failed to provide the level of service required in the circumstances—EQC asked to offer ex gratia payment to compensate losses incurred and to apologiseEarthquake Commission must follow legislation on claim lodgement time but Ombudsman considers law harsh
Case notesEarthquake Commission (EQC) not unreasonable to decline a claim lodged out of time because this is required under the legislation—Ombudsman considers the law unreasonably harsh and it should be changed—EQC advised it will look into amending the lawEarthquake Commission’s handling of a claim unreasonable in the circumstances
Case notesWhether the Earthquake Commission (EQC) had handled a claim for drapes and carpets in a reasonable manner—Chief Ombudsman found aspects of EQC’s handling of the matter to have been unsatisfactoryRequest 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 suEarthquake Commission’s assessment of emergency repairs on red zone property not unreasonable
Case notesWhether Earthquake Commission (EQC) reasonably addressed concerns about emergency repair work on property affected by earthquake damage—Chief Ombudsman concluded EQC’s handling of this claim had not been unreasonableInformation fault lines: accessing EQC information in Canterbury
Systemic investigationsA joint report of the Chief Ombudsman and the Privacy Commissioner into the Earthquake Commission's handling of information requests in Canterbury.Earthquake Commission not unreasonable to decline payment for engineering reports commissioned by property owner
Case notesWhether it was reasonable for EQC to decline payment for two engineering reports—Ombudsman considered that EQC had not acted unreasonably in this respectEarthquake Commission unreasonable not to settle claim in the particular circumstances
Case notesEarthquake Commission (EQC) refused to proceed with contents claim without explaining to claimant, even though the claim had been assessed and approved—Ombudsman finds EQC’s actions unreasonable—complaint settled when EQC agreed to rectify its omissionRequest for information about Pike River Mine
Case notesSection 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 InquiryRequest for information about the operation of the Spring Creek Coal Mine
Case notesInformation 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 InquiryRequest for information about Police investigation into complaint against Minister
Case notesSection 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 nRequest for information relating to an investigation into alleged destruction of documents held by NZDF
Case notesRequest 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 circumstancesRequest for details of prison security system
Case notesPrison inmate sought details of prison security system and name of company who installed it—release would be likely to prejudice the integrity of systemRequest to Police for information regarding alleged threats made against Judge
Case notesRequest 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 CommissionerRequest by shareholder of a company to the Securities Commission for a copy of a report of an investigation carried out on the company
Case notesRequest 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 informationRequest for sentencing schedule database
Case notesRequest for sentencing schedule database—request declined—release of some information ‘would be likely’ to prejudice maintenance of the law—information released subject to deletionsRequests for names of food outlets which did not meet food hygiene standards
Case notesRequests for names of food outlets which did not meet food hygiene standards—requests refused—disclosure would be likely to prejudice the investigation and detection of food hygiene and health offencesRequest for details of APEC security arrangements
Case notesRequest for details of APEC security arrangements declined—information withheld—disclosure would be likely to prejudice effectiveness of future security arrangementsRequest by Land Transport Safety Authority to Police for details of ‘diversion’ of applicant seeking driver identification card
Case notesRequest by Land Transport Safety Authority to Police for details of ‘diversion’ of applicant for a driver identification card—request declined—disclosure would undermine purposes of ‘diversion scheme’—maintenance of the lawEarthquake Commission can impose excess levy under the regulations
Case notesTwo adjoining properties affected by a landslide – EQC levied an excess on both properties in accordance with the Earthquake Commission Act 1993 (Regulations 1993, reg 4(1)(b)—the Ombudsman concluded EQC was entitled to impose the excessRequest for health information about person charged with murder
Case notesRequest for information about care of patient by mental health services of person charged with murder—information withheld under s 6(c) to avoid prejudice to right to a fair trialRequest for names of informants
Case notesRequest for names of informants—information withheld under section 6(a)—general approach appliedRequest for information relating to alleged violation of a hospital patient
Case notesRequest for information relating to alleged violation of a hospital patient—right to a fair trial—information withheld under s 6(c) pending outcome of legal proceedings—information released after proceedings concludedEarthquake Commission not required to cover buildings under construction in the event of a landslide
Case notesEarthquake Commission and Insurer both decline cover for half-built structure on private property, damaged following a landslide—still being under construction meant the building was not being used for its intended purpose and EQC’s decision in this respect was correct—Ombudsman advised that the complainant could refer the matter back to the insurer for a reconsideration and the Insurer in this case took a liberal view of what had been an unusual event and settled the claim—case indicates the need to obtain cover for landslip while a building is under construction