Resources and publications

Ngā rauemi me ngā tānga

Search guidescase notesopinionsreports 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. 

  • Request for MSD historic claims guidebook

    Case notes
    Complaint about the decision to withhold a document containing procedures and guidance under section 9(2)(j) of the Official Information Act—section 9(2)(j) did not apply—engagements conducted on a ‘take it or leave it’ basis are not clearly ‘negotiatio
  • Request for staff names and initials in Commerce Commission memorandum

    Case notes
    Section 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 reason
  • Request for political consultation emails

    Opinions
    The Minister of State Services refused to provide two emails that revealed the comments provided by the Green Party in response to consultation on a proposed Cabinet paper.
  • Fact sheet: Oranga Tamariki

    Factsheets
    This fact sheet explains the Ombudsman's role in relation to complaints made against Oranga Tamariki. Also available in Easy Read format.
  • The OIA and the public policy making process: A guide to how the OIA applies to information generated in the context of the public policy making process

    Official information
    This guide explains the most common reasons why it can sometimes be necessary to withhold official information generated in the context of the public policy making process.
  • Free and frank opinions: A guide to section 9(2)(g)(i) of the OIA and section 7(2)(f)(i) of the LGOIMA

    Official information
    This guide deals with the 'free and frank opinions' withholding ground in section 9(2)(g)(i) of the OIA and section 7(2)(f)(i) of the LGOIMA.
  • The OIA and draft documents: A guide to how the OIA applies to requests for draft documents

    Official information
    This guide explains some of the most common reasons why it can sometimes be necessary to withhold draft documents. These reasons relate to the free and frank opinions and confidentiality withholding grounds in the OIA and LGOIMA.
  • Request for emails between officials discussing the advice that should be tendered on the answering of parliamentary questions

    Case notes
    Parliamentary Privilege Act 2014 did not provide a statutory bar on the Ombudsman’s investigation of a complaint under the OIA—section 9(2)(g)(i) applied—release would prejudice the free and frank expression of similar communications in future—no public
  • Request for draft report prepared by PwC on Auckland Stadium

    Case notes
    Report refused because it was in draft form and commercially sensitive—parts of report withholdable however no basis for blanket withholding—strong public interest in release of report in part
  • Request for draft guidelines on religious instruction and observance in schools

    Case notes
    Officials still in the process of drafting—premature disclosure in advance of the planned public consultation process was not in the overall public interest
  • Request for draft reports prepared by EY on Information Services

    Case notes
    Draft reports were in fact final reports—some information publicly available—negotiations had been concluded—neither s 7(2)(c)(ii) nor s 7(2)(i) apply—significant public interest in release to promote transparency of Council’s decision making processes and accountability for expenditure of ratepayer money
  • Ministry of Social Development (CYF) failings at Family Group Conference and remedy of ex gratia payment required

    Case notes
    Ministry of Social Development (CYF—later Oranga Tamariki) fails to recognise impact and stress caused by failings by its staff at a family Group Conference to discuss child’s future—Advisory Panel had already acknowledged many of the failings but MSD had not accepted the gravity thereof—Ombudsman’s opinion on the matter accepted and MSD (OT) finally offered reasonable ex gratia payment and meaningful apology to complainant
  • Request for Skypath business case and procurement plan

    Case notes
    Releasing business case and procurement plan would unreasonably prejudice the commercial position of the private partner in a public private partnership—withholding strengths and weaknesses of negotiating position necessary to enable Council to carry on negotiations without prejudice or disadvantage—ss 7(2)(b)(ii), 7(2)(c)(i), 7(2)(i) apply
  • Request for draft internal review of International Visitor Survey

    Case notes
    Internal review still in draft form—redacted comments comprised preliminary views of individual within agency—s 9(2)(g)(i) applied—no overriding public interest in disclosure
  • Request for agency peer review of Family Violence Death Review Committee draft annual report

    Case notes
    Release of free and frank comments made in the context of peer reviewing a draft annual report would inhibit the expression of similar comments in future—s 9(2)(g)(i) applied
  • Request for due diligence report, site visit reports and reference checks

    Case notes
    Section 9(2)(ba)(i) applies in part to the due diligence report and to the correspondence from supplier—public interest in accountability of Department for steps taken to satisfy itself regarding supplier’s performance—sections 9(2)(ba)(i) and 9(2)(g)(i) apply to information obtained from site visits, but not to the executive summary of the reports—public interest in accountability for decision to award contract—sections 9(2)(ba)(i) applies to reference checks—release would deter referees from providing full and complete information in future—public interest requires release of summary information about the reference checks
  • Request for draft job sizing reports

    Case notes
    Reports formed an early stage of developing options for consideration and consultation— disclosure would likely inhibit the willingness of officials and consultants to tender a wide range of preliminary options, and to canvass issues in comprehensive written form, to the detriment of prudent and effective decision making
  • Ministry of Social Development’s Advisory Panel will make administrative change as a result of complaint

    Case notes
    Complaint about MSD CEO’s Advisory Panel—MSD appointed panel outside governing terms of reference—Chair of Panel was formerly employed by Child Youth and Family (CYF)—Ombudsman found composition reasonable in the circumstances but on second matter, that the Panel should have in its reports, a record of consideration of compensation requests and reasons why payment would/would not be recommended
  • Request for CAA investigation report on Minister’s airport security breach

    Case notes
    Section 9(2)(a) OIA applied to information that would identify Minister’s staff—s 9(2)(a) did not apply to non-sensitive information about actions that occurred in a public place, or to the name of the Investigator—s 6(c) did not apply to information su
  • Request for draft terms of reference for an inquiry

    Case notes
    Draft terms of reference largely the same as publicly available final ones—release would not inhibit the future free and frank expression of opinion or provision of advice to the Prime Minister—s 9(2)(g)(i) did not apply
  • Ministry of Social Development’s decision not to review student allowance application

    Case notes
    The Ministry of Social Development refused an application for a student allowance and on review, concluded that the application should not proceed—Chief Ombudsman concluded that the decision to review the application as an administrative review (rather than a statutory review pursuant to section 305 of the Education Act 1989), was unreasonable—Ministry agreed to reconsider the application under the Education Act 1989
  • Request for evaluation and audit reports regarding extended supervision orders

    Case notes
    Evaluation report comprised largely academic material and statistical analysis—9(2)(g)(i) did not apply—audit report had been submitted to senior management but marked as draft—disclosure of majority not likely to prejudice future exchange of free and frank opinions—significant public interest considerations in favour of disclosure—audit report released with deletion of names and detailed findings relating to individual service providers
  • Request for DHB Commissioner’s draft work plan

    Case notes
    Release of draft work plan would likely result in reluctance by staff to draft and consult on document—components of plan, once confirmed, were to be included in the 2016/17 annual plan—s 9(2)(g)(i) provided good reason to withhold
  • Request for draft financial performance analysis

    Case notes
    Draft financial performance analysis prepared by Alma Consulting—s 9(2)(g)(i) did not apply— strong public interest in release
  • Request for handwritten comments on draft walking and cycling strategy

    Case notes
    Release would inhibit willingness of Council staff to provide free and frank opinions on drafts circulated by colleagues, or to test the content and recommendations of such documents, which would undermine the accuracy and value of the material that eventuates—s 7(2)(f)(i) applies
  • Adequacy of ex gratia payment to remedy mistake by Customs

    Case notes
    NZ 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 losses
  • Request for Pre-Cabinet précis briefings

    Case notes
    Disclosure of short and incisive pre-Cabinet briefings and risk assessments would inhibit future expression of free and frank opinions
  • Department of Internal Affairs provides reasonable service and advice to traveller on temporary passport

    Case notes
    Whether 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 validated
  • Request for draft ‘Alternatives Paper’ prepared by consultants on CBD rail link

    Case notes
    Release would inhibit exchange of drafts and views between staff and consultants, which would undermine the drafting process—s 7(2)(f)(i) applied—public interest met by the release of the final report and the peer reviews by relevant agencies
  • Request for literature review on youth desistance

    Case notes
    Draft review provided to successful tenderer as starting point for an external research project— information not in the nature of free and frank opinions—disclosure would not undermine interest in s 9(2)(g)(i)—release accompanied by contextual statement
  • Request for minutes of Council workshops

    Case notes
    Request for minutes of Unitary Plan Political Working Party—minutes related to Council ‘workshops’—s 7(2)(f)(i) applied in part—minutes could be disclosed in part without inhibiting people from contributing to workshops in future
  • Request for draft report on NZX compliance with general obligations

    Case notes
    Release would inhibit the free and frank expression of opinions by officials during the drafting process, and the exchange of opinions between the NZX and FMA—it is in the interests of the ‘effective conduct of public affairs’ for the review process to be robust and conducted in a manner that supported the FMA’s main objective of promoting and facilitating the development of fair, efficient and transparent markets—s 9(2)(g)(i) applied