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.
171 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.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.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.Privacy: A guide to section 9(2)(a) of the OIA and section 7(2)(a) of the LGOIMA
Official informationThis is a guide to the privacy withholding ground found in section 9(2)(a) of the OIA and section 7(2)(a) of the LGOIMA.Request for email between journalist and source
Case notesSection 9(2)(a) OIA did not apply—one party consented to release—both parties acting in their professional capacities—information already in the public domain—s 9(2)(ba)(ii) did not apply—no blanket confidentiality for all communications with journalistDecision to release tender information in response to Official Information Act request
Case notesComplaint about a decision to release information under the Official Information Act—Ministry consulted adequately with affected party—Ministry took into account affected party’s submissions, all relevant considerations, principle of availability, legisRequest for average remuneration of 10 highest paid staff broken down by gender
Case notesSection 9(2)(a) OIA applied—small numbers in top 10 meant there was a real likelihood release could reveal fairly accurate salary information about identifiable individuals—withholding necessary to protect their privacy—s 9(2)(i) did not apply—insufficiRequest for information about death in custody
Case notesRequest for all correspondence about death in custody—unreasonable to rely on sections 9(2)(a) and 9(2)(ba)(i) without compiling and reviewing the information—subsequent reliance on section 18(f) (substantial collation or research) also unjustified—Request for information on public service chief executive pay and remuneration
Case notesRequest for information on chief executive pay and remuneration—s 9(2)(a) did not provide good reason to withhold total chief executive pay—disclosure recommended by the Chief Ombudsman—s 9(2)(a) did provide good reason to withhold individual componRequest for Police Commissioner’s letter to the Minister about Deputy Commissioner
Case notesRequest for letter written by the Police Commissioner to the Minister of Police about response to Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) findings on bullying complaints about Deputy Police Commissioner—s 9(2)(a) applied—information related to tRequest for Chief Executive’s performance agreement and KPIs
Case notesRequest for Chief Executive’s performance agreement and KPIs—s 7(2)(a) LGOIMA did not provide good reason to withhold most of the performance agreements and KPIs—however, s 7(2)(c)(ii) provided good reason to withhold ‘stretch targets’—there was a mRequest 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 emaChief executive expenses
Official informationThis guide sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to requests for information about state sector Chief Executives’ expenses.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 camera footage of three Taser incidents
Case notesSection 9(2)(a) OIA applied—footage of two incidents particularly sensitive—pixelation not sufficient to address privacy interests—footage of third incident not so sensitive—pixelation would make the risk of identification negligible—strong public interRequest 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 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.Request for names of MSD staff in emails about the drafting of a Bill
Case notesSection 9(2)(a) OIA did not apply—not necessary to withhold staff names to protect their privacy—no information to suggest privacy or safety concerns, or risk of improper pressure or harassment.Request for staff names in employment investigation report into Joanne Harrison
Case notesSection 9(2)(a) OIA applied—significant privacy interest given the nature and content of report and impact on individuals—no public interest override.Request for names of members of the Auckland University European Students Association
Case notesSection 9(2)(a) OIA applied—withholding necessary to protect high privacy interest in information that would directly or indirectly identify AUESA members—potential consequences of disclosure included harassment, threats and reputational damage—no publiRequest 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 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 reasonableRequest for names of staff involved in sending email to parents about Pink Shirt Day
Case notesSection 9(2)(a) OIA applied—correspondence with the requester and information supplied by the New Zealand Police suggested the requester would approach the staff outside of the official complaints process, and may have behaved in an abusive and threatenRequest for names of guests invited to Mayor’s Christmas function
Case notesSection 7(2)(a) LGOIMA applied—low privacy interest in the names of the guests—as guests were representatives of local businesses or other organisations the information was more about their public lives than their private ones—the function was a publicRequest for information about decision to grant diversion
Case notesSection 9(2)(a) OIA applied—withholding necessary to protect highly private details of alleged offender’s personal life—public interest in accountability for the Police decision to grant diversion in contentious circumstances required disclosure of summRequest for approved codes of ethical conduct for animal testing
Case notesSection 9(2)(ba)(i) OIA did not apply—25 of 26 code holders had voluntarily released their codes—no obligation of confidence—release of ‘benign’ information would not be likely to prejudice the future supply of similar information—information released