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.
37 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.Requests to Ministry of Health and ESR for Covid-19 cycle threshold values
Case notesInformation requested initially refused for privacy reasons. The agencies subsequently focused on section 9(2)(c) of the OIA (to avoid prejudice to public health or safety measures).WorkSafe’s decision not to formally investigate an incident
Case notesComplaint about WorkSafe’s decision not to investigate and lay charges following an accident causing injury – failure to consider all relevant information – failure to engage meaningfully with the complainant – no evidence that documents had been faThe OIA for Ministers and agencies: A guide to processing official information requests
Official informationThe purpose of this guide is to assist Ministers and government agencies in recognising and responding to requests for official information under the OIA.The LGOIMA for local government agencies: A guide to processing requests and conducting meetings
Official informationThe purpose of this guide is to assist local government agencies in recognising and responding to requests for official information under the LGOIMA.Making official information requests: A guide for requesters
Official informationIf you are seeking information from a Minister, or central or local government agency, you may be able to ask for it under either the OIA or LGOIMA.Requests for reasons for a decision or recommendation: A guide to section 23 of the OIA and section 22 of the LGOIMA
Official informationThis is a guide to requests made under section 23 of the OIA (section 22 of the LGOIMA).Dealing with OIA requests involving Ministers: A guide to transfer, consultation, and the notification of decisions on OIA requests
Official informationThis guide provides advice for agencies dealing with OIA requests where Ministers might need to be involved.Earthquake 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 unreasonableEarthquake 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 unsatisfactoryAdequacy 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 lossesEarthquake 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 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 validatedInformation 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 reasons about unsuccessful reappointment
Case notesExtent of detail required in response to s 23 request depends on circumstances of particular case – a requester may still have questions after they receive statement of reasons but that does not mean statement is inadequate – s 23(2A) only protects evaluative material that has been ‘supplied’ by someone elseDepartment 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 reasons about non-appointment
Case notesInadequate statement of reasons – more detail and specificity necessary to meet the requirements of s 23Transfer of request for information on Bill from Ministry of Justice to Associate Minister
Case notesResearcher complained that transfer had the effect of narrowing the scope of his request— complaint reviewed under OA—information ‘more closely connected’ to functions of Associate Minister—decision to transfer request was reasonableTransfer of request from Tertiary Education Commission to Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)
Case notesMinister had instructed Commission to transfer all requests regarding a training centre for his consideration—OIA does not provide for blanket policy to transfer all requests on a subject— Commission must consider requests on case by case basis—information in this case not more closely related to functions of Associate Minister—decision to transfer request contrary to lawDecision to transfer OIA request based on identity of requester
Case notesRequest for official information specifically held by Ministry of Education—Ministry transferred request to Minister of Education on the basis that the information was more closely connected to the functions of that Minister—request specifically for information held by Secretary and Ministry officials—Ministry advised Chief Ombudsman that decision to transfer based on a directive that all media requests should be transferred to Minister for reply—not sufficient grounds for transfer under s 14(b)(ii)—complaint sustained—Ministry reviewed its processes for transferring requestsTransfer of media request from Ministry of Education to Minister
Case notesRequested information not more closely connected with the Minister’s functions—blanket policy to transfer all media requests to Minister unlawfulRequest for Department’s reasons for declining application
Case notesDepartment maintains it had given its reasons previously, in writing and verbally on many occasions—requirements of s 23 had not been met—compliant statement of reasons providedRequest for reasons for decision made three years earlier
Case notesRequest for reasons for decision made three years earlier—request declined on grounds it was not ‘made within a reasonable time of the making of the decision’—decision to decline request upheldCharge for information requested from the Minister of Revenue
Case notesRequest by Parliamentary Research Unit to Minister of Revenue—convention for requests to be made to appropriate Minister and not to charge for supply of information—information held by Inland Revenue Department—request not transferred by Minister but responded to by Department— ss 13, 14, 15, 18(f).New Zealand Customs Service questioned over acceptance of deposit pursuant to legislation
Case notesRefusal to pay interest following resolution of dispute over Customs value of goods—whether relevant documentation provided at the time of importation—whether s 140 of the Customs Act 1966 (repealed) conferred authority on Department to take deposit—investigation discontinued following discovery that company did not exist as legal entity at the time complaint was madeRequest for information framed in terms of section 23
Case notesRequest framed in terms of s 23—Crown Law sought details of requester’s personal interest in information at issue—requester objected on grounds of his right to seek information—Crown Law had not acted improperly in seeking further information from the requester—if an organisation fails to recognise that a request falls within the scope of s 23 and by error processes it pursuant to the more general provisions in Part 2 of the Act, a requester may be deprived of information to which he or she is entitled—no formal investigation—requester invited to advise Crown Law whether he had any personal interest in the decision in questionDepartment of Conservation resolves impasse concerning ivory-key piano held by New Zealand Customs
Case notesRefusal to release piano imported from United Kingdom—family heirloom from 1920s—need for approval of Department of Conservation under CITES because of ivory content—conflict between New Zealand legislation implementing CITES and European Community Regulations—impasse resolved by acceptance of statutory declaration by family—conflict to be raised with CITES SecretariatEarthquake 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 excess