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.
49 Resources Show all
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 existInvestigation 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 ActRequest 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—Substantial collation or research: A guide to section 18(f) of the OIA and section 17(f) of the LGOIMA
Official informationSection 18(f) of the OIA (section 17(f) of the LGOIMA) is one of a number of mechanisms under the Act for dealing with requests for information that are administratively challenging to meet.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 sustainedRequest 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 lapsesDecisions 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 notRequests for firearms statistics
Case notesRefusal under section 18(g) not justified—information held—Police could manually extract and compile statistics—where compilation involves substantial collation or research s 18(f) appliesHealth 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 informationMinistry 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.Request for video footage recorded during an investigation
Case notes1100 hours of video footage—extension of time limit reasonable—concerns about volume of information addressed by disclosing a sampleRequest for transcripts of post-Cabinet press conferences (substantial impact)
Case notesDifficulty involved in finding and bringing together the requested transcripts - adverse impact on operation of the Office—s 18(f) appliedRequest for briefing notes relating to state visits
Case notesInspection on conditions in order to identify the documents required provided means of resolving s 18(f) refusalPatient 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 beforeRequest for transcripts of post-Cabinet press conferences
Case notesPrime Minister’s office wanted to compare draft transcript with audio recording to check for errors—‘substantial collation or research’ does not encompass a quality assurance check of that nature—10 hours work did not amount to ‘substantial collation or research’District 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 matterRequest for information concerning review of Oil Pollution Fund and MNZ’s preparedness to respond to oil spill
Case notesConsulting with requester in fulsome way removed reason for refusalRequest for information on taser use
Case notesReview and manual extraction of details from 282 tactical operations reports—s 18(f) appliedRequest for copy of file of deceased brother held by NZSIS
Case notesReleasing information in alternative form enabled accountability without prejudicing security or efficient working of agencyDistrict 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 matterMinistry 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 operationsCanterbury District Health Board received inadequate advice about historic place
Case notesDistrict 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 siteRequest for recruitment consultant expenditure
Case notesNo cost code specifically and solely for recruitment fees—information could not be made available without ‘substantial collation or research’—release of other information resolved the complaintReport on complaints arising from aerial spraying
Systemic investigationsIn 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 details of 404 land covenants
Case notesComplaint about s 18(f) refusal resolved by release of other informationRequest for list of reports received by Minister
Case notesRequest for four months worth of dates, titles and reference numbers of reports—decision making and quality assurance did not constitute ‘collation’ or ‘research’—release with caveat would address issues around reliability of data—s 18(f) did not apply, particularly in light of ability to extend time to respond