[4] Requests to government departments or state agencies for information must be answered "as soon as reasonably practicable", and within 20 working days.

[8][9] Under the Official Secrets Act 1951, disclosure of information by public servants without specific reason and authorisation was a criminal offence.

In 1962, a Royal Commission of Inquiry into state services declared that "Government administration is the public’s business, and that the people are entitled to know more than they do of what is being done, and why.

"[13] The creation of the Office of the Ombudsman and changes of administrative law created a presumption that people were entitled to know the reasons for decisions made about them.

[13] A freedom of information bill was introduced to parliament by opposition Labour MP Richard Prebble in 1977 but this failed to progress beyond a second reading.

[14] In 1979, the Coalition for Open Government explicitly campaigned for greater access to official information as part of its opposition to Robert Muldoon's Think Big programme.

As part of this, the committee was to review the application of the Official Secrets Act 1951 and "advance appropriate recommendations on changes in policies and procedures which would contribute to the aim of freedom of information".

[17] In 1981 the committee released a supplementary report with recommendations about the oversight and administration of the act and the treatment of classified information.

[23] The act applies to "information", regardless of form, not just documents, and includes "not only recorded data but also knowledge of a particular fact or state of affairs held by officers in a named organisation or Department in their official capacity".

[25] The act creates a regime by which people can request and receive information held by government officials and bodies.

The Ombudsman has extensive guidance available on public interest factors which may apply to any particular request, including transparency, participation, accountability, and the administration of justice.

Decisions to transfer requests are not specifically mentioned, and so can only be investigated where they are made by agencies, using the Ombudsman's general jurisdiction under the Ombudsmen Act 1975.

[46] If they find a complaint is justified, the Ombudsman can make formal recommendations, including to release information.

[48] Initially such a recommendation could be overturned by a Minister giving a directive in writing, but in 1987 the act was amended[49] so that vetoing an Ombudsman's decision required an order in council.

[57] Initially dismissed as a "nine-day wonder" by Prime Minister Robert Muldoon, the act has since been recognised as a part of New Zealand's unwritten constitution.

[69] There is evidence that there are significant differences in treatment between uncontroversial and politically sensitive requests,[9] and frequent claims in the media that the law is being violated.

[70][71][72] Then-Prime Minister John Key admitted explicitly delaying the release of information to suit the interests of the government,[73] while in another case the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service was found to have provided a speedy release to a blogger in order to embarrass the leader of the opposition.

[13] The review did not report back until 1997 due to the transition to MMP and recommended reducing the time limit for requests to 15 working days as well as a number of technical and administrative reforms.

[89] In 2018 the New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties made a number of recommendations for reform of the act, including expanding coverage to Parliament, companies in which the government has majority control, and quasi-judicial agencies such as the Independent Police Complaints Authority; greater proactive release; limiting commercial and legal withholding grounds; and various measures to reduce political interference with the operation of the act.