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

232 Resources Show all

  • Request for Minister/Chief Executive discussions

    Case notes
    Disclosure of full record of recollection of discussion between Minister and Chief Executive would inhibit future expression of free and frank opinions—summary of recollection released

  • Request for all information about an audit

    Case notes
    Section 9(2)(ba)(i) OIA applied to staff interview records—implied obligation of confidence—release would be likely to prejudice the future supply of information to auditors—it is in the public interest for staff members to cooperate with audits—s 9(2)(

  • Local Authority unreasonably applied incorrect rates remission policy to sports club

    Case notes
    Local Authority - incorrect application of rates remission policy—sports club application for partial remission declined on wrong basis—Ombudsman sustains complaint

  • Request for auditor’s working papers

    Case notes
    Disclosure of auditor’s scoping discussions and working papers would make auditors more circumspect in what they record, and when and how they record it—good reason to withhold under s 9(2)(g)(i)

  • Request for staff named in emails about genetically modified corn

    Case notes
    Section 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—inf

  • Request for public submissions on draft standard

    Case notes
    Members of the public with a vested interest in developing standards would not be deterred from expressing their opinions in future

  • Request for report on DHB governance issues

    Case notes
    Disclosure of report at time of request would have inhibited expression of free and frank opinions by officials—but passage of time and change in circumstances had diminished the likelihood of such prejudice—senior public servants would not be inhibited from expressing free and frank opinions in future

  • 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

  • Local Authority unreasonable to review peppercorn rental without prior notice

    Case notes
    Peppercorn rent paid to Council for encroachment licence fee for garage—Council increased amount—inconsistent process—Ombudsman viewed increase unreasonable because of lack of notice

  • Local Authority and property vendors both responsible for checking lease agreement

    Case notes
    Local Authority—unreasonable not to have contacted previous lease holder three months after licence to occupy had expired and before agreeing to lease land to another person—Local Authority agrees to apologise to complainant

  • Local Authority not unreasonable to allow retrospective consents on building already constructed

    Case notes
    Local Authority issued an abatement notice to developers—Ombudsman concludes it was reasonable for Council to allow building to proceed while consent process completed—Council acted in accordance with the Resource Management Act (RMA)

  • Local Authority unreasonably failed to consider planning implications for building addition

    Case notes
    Local Authority unreasonable to require the complainant to obtain a resource consent for completed building work, which had been authorised by the Council three years previously

  • Regional Authority’s tender process inadequate

    Case notes
    Regional Council’s tender processes unreasonable, although the tender was incomplete, the Council officer contacted complainant after close of tenders to clarify his tender—having allowed an incomplete tender to proceed and provided complainant with an opportunity to clarify the tender, it was unreasonable for that clarification not to have been provided to the Tender Committee

  • Department of Internal Affairs not unreasonable to cancel passport

    Case notes
    Department of Internal Affairs—decision to recall and cancel complainant’s NZ passport – position determined by terms of legislation

  • 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

  • Request for documentation about ‘Ageing in Place’ contract

    Case notes
    Release of detailed proposals and component prices would have an adverse effect on tenderers’ responses to future tenders issued by the DHB, which would damage the public interest—s 9(2)(ba)(ii) OIA applies—release would have an inhibiting effect in future on the quality of the documentation associated with the DHB’s contract negotiations and tender evaluation, which would be prejudicial to the future conduct of such tenders—s 9(2)(g)(i) applies

  • Request for discussions between Ministers on business before Cabinet

    Case notes
    Discussions between Ministers on business before Cabinet imbued with a presumption of confidentiality—s 9(2)(g)(i) provides good reason to withhold undocumented discussions

  • Request for draft public discussion document regarding auditor regulation

    Case notes
    Close-to-final draft containing limited evidence of opinion material—risk of public misunderstanding of the status of this draft document did not justify withholding and could be addressed by disclosure of contextual information—strong public interest in transparency of the policy development process given full-scale public consultation no longer intended

  • Regional Authority not unreasonable in approach to Council’s earthworks activity

    Case notes
    Local Authority constructed walkway—Regional Authority took reasonable action against Council—whether application for resource consent should have been notified

  • Local Authority’s management of consent process not unreasonable

    Case notes
    Local Authority proposal for Youth Zone to be included in Reserves Management Plan criticised—alleged lack of public consultation—concern that the report recommending inclusion of a Youth Zone was biased and misleading—Ombudsman finds Council did not act unreasonably

  • Local Authority agrees to pay difference in solicitor fees

    Case notes
    Local Authority—fees charged to complainant for legal work required in relation to a building consent—not unreasonable to require Council solicitors to carry out the work as long as their fees are no higher than complainant’s own solicitor—failure to inform complainant of liability for legal fees but no material disadvantage caused by this

  • 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.

  • Request for draft report on Department of Labour internal controls prepared by KPMG

    Case notes
    Document labelled ‘draft’ really a final—author was a consultant who would not be deterred from expressing free and frank opinions in future—s 9(2)(g)(i) does not apply

  • Charge for supply of information about Maori interests in the management of petroleum

    Case notes
    Charge avoided by allowing inspection subject to conditions

  • Request for transcripts of Police communications in relation to emergency calls

    Case notes
    No blanket protection for operational discussions between Police officers—need for withholding had to be assessed with regard to the content of the actual communications at issue—opinions expressed were ‘free and frank’ but were not ‘necessary’ for effective conduct of public affairs—details about the communications already publicly available—s 9(2)(g)(i) did not apply and even if it did it was outweighed by strong public interest in release

  • Request for draft responses to OIA requests

    Case notes
    Releasing draft OIA responses would be likely to inhibit the future free and frank expression of opinions—s 9(2)(g)(i) applies

  • Local Authority unreasonably created expectation concerning amenity design

    Case notes
    Local Authority refused to redesign toilet block as promised—Ombudsman considered advice to complainant unreasonable—Council then agreed to redesign

  • Request for advice and ‘think piece’ on reprioritisation or savings in Vote Education

    Case notes
    Disclosure of internal discussion documents and advice to Ministers would prejudice ongoing decision making process—disclosure of internal ‘think piece’ would inhibit future expression of free and frank opinions by officials—ss 9(2)(f)(iv) and 9(2)(g)(i) provide good reason to withhold

  • Request for draft briefings to the incoming government

    Case notes
    Disclosure of draft briefings to the incoming government would make officials reluctant to be so free and frank in expressing their initial and untested views and cause them to prefer less efficient and transparent verbal exchanges—section 9(2)(g)(i) applies

  • Request for report on suicide and the media

    Case notes
    Strong public interest in requester having access—participation in making of laws and policy— release on conditions

  • Complaint that notice of meeting did not comply with LGOIMA provisions and meeting minutes were not a true and correct record

    Case notes
    Member of public concerned that notice of meeting did not comply with relevant LGOIMA provisions and minutes of meeting were not a true and correct record—Ombudsman satisfied that meeting notified correctly—Ombudsman formed view that allowing one member of public to address subcommittee did not amount to a public forum and printing resolution on agenda was not sufficient to meet requirements of s 48(4)(a)—Council agreed to amend minutes and take steps to ensure staff aware of legal requirements

  • 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