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.
129 Resources Show all
Request for crisis group reports and working material regarding Government’s response to kidnapping
Case notesRequest for information about Government’s response to kidnapping of NZ resident in Baghdad—s 9(2)(g)(i) provides good reason to withhold crisis group reports and working material but not the final review of the hostage-taking—public interest met by disclosure of final review—final review released with redactionsDistrict 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 draft public consultation document
Case notesOnly minor differences between draft and final consultation document—final consultation document was publicly available—release would not inhibit the free and frank expression of opinions necessary for the effective conduct of public affairsRequest for internal discussion paper on privatisation
Case notesTwo drafts of an internal discussion paper commissioned by Treasury’s Executive Leadership Team—Government had not sought advice on the issue—s 9(2)(g)(i) provides good reason to withholdRequest for policy advice behind merger of Archives and National Library
Case notesRelease of formal advice to Ministers about abandoned options after decisions had been made would not inhibit the free and frank expression of opinions by officials—s 9(2)(g)(i) does not applyRequest for audit information regarding JobPlus scheme
Case notesDraft audit report was identical to final audit report—no good reason to withhold the final audit report so no good reason to withhold the draft—good reason to withhold auditor’s informal and early working papers under s 9(2)(g)(i)—disclosure of the working papers would make auditors more circumspect in what they record, and when and how they record itRequest for Minister/Chief Executive discussions
Case notesDisclosure of full record of recollection of discussion between Minister and Chief Executive would inhibit future expression of free and frank opinions—summary of recollection releasedRequest for all information about an audit
Case notesSection 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)(Request for auditor’s working papers
Case notesDisclosure 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 notesSection 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—infRequest for public submissions on draft standard
Case notesMembers of the public with a vested interest in developing standards would not be deterred from expressing their opinions in futureRequest for report on DHB governance issues
Case notesDisclosure 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 futureMinistry 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 operationsDepartment 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 legislationCanterbury 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 documentation about ‘Ageing in Place’ contract
Case notesRelease 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) appliesRequest for discussions between Ministers on business before Cabinet
Case notesDiscussions between Ministers on business before Cabinet imbued with a presumption of confidentiality—s 9(2)(g)(i) provides good reason to withhold undocumented discussionsRequest for draft public discussion document regarding auditor regulation
Case notesClose-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 intendedReport 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 draft report on Department of Labour internal controls prepared by KPMG
Case notesDocument 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 applyCharge for supply of information about Maori interests in the management of petroleum
Case notesCharge avoided by allowing inspection subject to conditionsRequest for transcripts of Police communications in relation to emergency calls
Case notesNo 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 releaseRequest for draft responses to OIA requests
Case notesReleasing draft OIA responses would be likely to inhibit the future free and frank expression of opinions—s 9(2)(g)(i) appliesRequest for advice and ‘think piece’ on reprioritisation or savings in Vote Education
Case notesDisclosure 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 withholdRequest for draft briefings to the incoming government
Case notesDisclosure 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) appliesAgreement by ACC to stop regular rehabilitation assessments in light of information it already holds
Case notesWhether the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) was reasonable to carry out regular assessments of a claimant for vocational rehabilitation despite already holding medical and occupational assessments confirming the claimant’s limitations—Ombudsman concluded this was not reasonable in the circumstancesRequest for report on suicide and the media
Case notesStrong public interest in requester having access—participation in making of laws and policy— release on conditionsACC delay to obtain opinion from Crown Solicitor unreasonable
Case notesA 17 month delay by ACC in deciding whether to prosecute claimant for fraud but this delay due to 16 month delay by Crown Solicitor in providing ACC with written legal opinion — Ombudsman unable to investigate actions of Crown Solicitor but could consider how ACC dealt with the delay—three emails by ACC sent in 13 month period, then a formal request sent in writing for legal opinion—no agreed timeframes for when advice could be expected and Ombudsman of view that it was unreasonable for ACC to wait 14 months before formally raising concerns about the delay with the Crown Solicitor—ACC apologised to complainant and agreement reached between ACC and Crown Solicitor that legal opinions will be provided within 21 days of receipt of requestMinistry of Health reconsiders decision to charge for collation of information
Case notesRequester 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 informationACC required to contribute towards client’s travel costs to attend hearing
Case notesACC client had difficulties with Individual Rehabilitation Plan and case manager—weekly earnings stopped—client sought review and later appealed decision to District Court but before hearing took place client moved to another town and had new IRP and case manager, and the earnings were reinstated—the client chose to continue with appeal in District Court but the appeal was unsuccessful—ACC refused to reimburse client for travel expenses but Ombudsman held this decision unreasonableRequest for names and email addresses of people consulted on draft speech
Case notesRecipients and senders of emails consulted—disclosure would not inhibit senior public servants from expressing free and frank opinions in future—however others would be inhibitedRequest for draft answers to parliamentary questions prepared by Police staff
Case notesSection 9(2)(g)(i) applied—release would prejudice the free and frank expression of similar communications in future—no public interest override