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.
58 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).Request for information concerning increase in number of cochlear implants
Case notesSection 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 existWorkSafe’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 faInvestigation into the Health and Disability Commissioner’s assessment of three complaints
OpinionsSummary 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 notesComplaint 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 didRequest for names of clusters that COVID-19 cases were linked to
Case notesSection 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 ActMaking 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).Administrative error resulting in lost opportunity for ACC claim
Case notesA 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 notesWhether 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 sustainedDecisions of PHARMAC to fund Opdivo and Keytruda
Case notesA 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 notesWhether the Ministry of Health’s policy to require prior approval for funding for house modification was reasonable—Ombudsman concluded it was notHealth and Disability Commissioner not unreasonable to refer matter to Medical Council without advising complainant
Case notesWhether 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 informationOffice of Privacy Commissioner not unreasonable to decline to investigate complaint against Police
Case notesOffice of the Privacy Commissioner (OPC)—decision not to investigate a complaint against the New Zealand PoliceMinistry of Health’s decision following audit of aged care facility not unreasonable
Case notesMinistry of Health’s HealthCERT not unreasonable to issue an aged care facility with ‘partial attainment’ in its August 2016 surveillance auditMinistry of Health agrees to increase what was an unreasonably low offer of ex gratia payment
Case notesMinistry 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.Patient eligibility for publicly funded healthcare
Case notesThis 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 beforeAdequacy 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 lossesState Services Commission’s consideration of complaint about Treasury policy paper was not unreasonable
Case notesWhether the State Services Commission’s consideration of a complaint made by the New Zealand Post Primary Teachers’ Association about a Treasury policy paper, was reasonable—Ombudsman concluded SSC did not act unreasonably when it considered that complaintDepartment 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 validatedDistrict Health Board decision not to consult on provision of abortion services at a Hospital was unreasonable
Case notesWhether the District Health Board was unreasonable to offer abortion services at a hospital without consultation with the local communityPharmac decision not to fund drug was not unreasonable or contrary to law
Case notesWhether 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 matterMeridian Energy’s process for purchasing property not unreasonable
Case notesComplaint about price Meridian Energy paid for a property—Ombudsman found the process had been reasonableSecurities Commission did not unreasonably apply conflict of interest policy and procedure
Case notesWhether the Securities Commission’s policy and procedures relating to the management of conflicts of interest were applied appropriately in this case—Chief Ombudsman concluded the Commission did not act unreasonablyDistrict Health Board’s processes regarding informed consent for assisted reproductive procedure not unreasonable
Case notesWhether 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 matterRequest 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 elseCivil Aviation Authority changes its investigation practices following Ombudsman’s findings
Case notesComplaint about investigation by Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) of a light aircraft crash—criticism of way CAA conducted investigation into the crash which resulted in 2 deaths—after O’s investigation, CAA accepted a likely cause was from a crack in a conrod (engine part) which appeared shortly after the engine had been reconditioned—O considered CAA should not have asked the reconditioning company for assessment and that CAA was unreasonable not to interview engineers during its investigationMinistry of Agriculture’s aerial spray programme had unreasonable impact on population
Case notesMinistry 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 operationsActions of Office of Treaty Settlements reasonable in relation to a claim settlement process
Case notesOffice of Treaty Settlements—reasonable for OTS to rely on the findings of the Waitangi Tribunal that the South Island Landless Natives Act 1906 (SILNA) represented an inadequate response to the Ngāi Tahu landlessness and to regard any grievances that members of Ngāi Tahu might have with the adequacy of land granted under SILNA as a matter appropriately addressed during the Ngāi Tahu settlement process rather than remaining outside itEnergy Safety Service remedied initial inadequate investigation of accident
Case notesManner in which Energy Safety Service carried out investigation inadequate—however further inquiries made later—Ombudsman satisfied with later inquiries and concluded the decision not to prosecute not unreasonable in the circumstancesDepartment 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 legislation