Thomas Vialletet was the core provider for his family.Supplied
More than $26,000 has been raised so far for the family of a Wānaka-based mountain guide who died on Aoraki Mt Cook.
Wānaka’s Thomas Vialletet and a United States client were in a party of four, roped together in pairs, climbing from Empress Hut to the summit when the two fell from the mountain’s west ridge on Monday night.
The other two climbers – a New Zealand guide and their client – were flown from the mountain early on Tuesday morning, while the bodies of Vialletet and his client were recovered at midday.
Vialletet, a married father-of-two, co-owned mountain and ski guide company Summit Explorers.
A family friend set up a Givealittle page for Vialletet’s family with $26,230 donated by 5.30pm Wednesday.
“Thomas was the core provider for his family and their financial security was dependent on the income generated by their small guiding business. His sudden loss means Danielle and the children face the immediate challenge of losing their main source of income, compounding their immense grief,” the page said.
“Through his guidance, kindness, and professionalism, Thomas profoundly touched the lives of countless clients, mentees, and friends. His expertise and passion for the mountains earned him deep respect across the entire guiding and climbing community. His absence will be hugely missed by all who knew him.”
Vialletet grew up in the French Alps where he had been climbing, skiing and exploring mountains for over two decades, according to the Summit Explorers website.
“His quest for mountain adventures brought him to New Zealand and he immediately fell in love with the wilderness of this country,” Vialletet’s biography said.
Vialletet was a climbing instructor before becoming a fully-certified International Federation of Mountain Guides Associations mountain and ski guide.
From 2009 and 2012, he was part of the French National Young Alpinism Team.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand
If you believe a child or young person is in immediate danger, call the Police on 111.
This section provides guidance on how to share information under the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989. Download a copy of this guidance (opens to PDF, 283KB).
Information you will find on this page:
Raising or reporting concerns
If you believe that a child or young person has been or is likely to be harmed, ill-treated, abused, neglected, or deprived or you have concerns about the wellbeing of a child or young person, section 15 permits you to share information about your concerns directly with Oranga Tamariki or the Police.
You can discuss and share your concerns with Oranga Tamariki by calling 0508 326 459 or by emailingcontact@ot.govt.nz.
When you make a Report of Concern in good faith you are protected from civil, criminal or disciplinary proceedings.
When you are required to share (section 66)
Section 66 enables Oranga Tamariki or Police to require any agency or individual to provide relevant information if that information is required:
to determine whether the child or young person needs care or protection or assistance, or
for any proceedings under Part 2 of the Oranga Tamariki Act (including a Family Group Conference).
When you receive a section 66 request from Oranga Tamariki or Police you must provide the information specified in the request (unless the information is covered by legal professional privilege). You do not need to consent or consult with the child or young person (or their parents, legal guardian or caregiver) before you provide the information requested.
If you are unsure whether the request is a section 66 request, or what the purpose of the request is, you should ask the requestor for this information before you share the information with them.
Under the Privacy Act, you can share personal information when you are required to do so by law e.g. responding to a section 66 request for information.
When you want or are asked to share (section 66C)
Section 66C of the Oranga Tamariki Act permits the sharing of information about a child or young person for specified wellbeing and safety purposes.
Under section 66C you can proactively share information, or you can share information in response to a request.
Sharing information under section 66C is broader than sharing safety concerns about a child or young person through a report of concern with Oranga Tamariki or Police. Section 66C provides for the sharing of information to support the wellbeing of children, young people and their family as early as possible.
Who you can share with
Section 66C of the Oranga Tamariki Act permits Child Welfare and Protection Agencies (CWPAs) or Independent Persons to share information about a child or young person with other CWPAs or Independent Persons for specified wellbeing and safety purposes.
Child Welfare and Protection Agencies (CWPAs) are a group of organisations, and therefore their employees, or volunteers including:
Any social, family and community service that provides services under section 396 of the Oranga Tamariki Act.
Any person, body or organisation that provides regulated services under schedule 1 of the Children’s Act 2014.
Housing New Zealand Corporation.
Ministry of Education, schools and early childhood education services.
Ministry of Health, Health NZ and health providers.
Ministry of Justice.
Department of Corrections.
Ministry of Social Development.
Oranga Tamariki – Ministry for Children.
New Zealand Police.
Independent Persons are professionals or people including:
A practitioner under the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003 who provides health or disability support services.
A Children’s Worker (under section 23(1) of the Children’s Act).
A person or class of persons designated as an independent person by regulations made under section 447(1)(ga)(ii) of the Oranga Tamariki Act.
If you want to share information with an agency or person that is not a CWPA or Independent Person, you may be able to share information with them under the Privacy Act.
The purposes for which you can share
Section 66C enables information about a child or young person to be shared for specified purposes, including:
preventing harm or neglect to a child or young person
for Family Group Conferences and other Care and Protection work
making, carrying out, or reviewing a risk assessment, needs assessment, prevention plan or support plan for a child or young person
external services facilitated by Oranga Tamariki for a child or young person and their family or whānau.
If you receive a section 66C request for information and the purpose of the request is unclear, you should clarify the request with the requestor. If you are unsure why the information is being requested, you won’t be able to determine whether one of the purposes set out in section 66C applies, or what information may be relevant to share with the requestor.
Section 66C enables sharing between any CWPA and/or Independent Persons e.g. between a ECE service and a non-government organisation (NGO) that provides services to children and young people, between a healthcare provider and a social worker, between a counsellor and a school.
What does wellbeing and safety mean in practice?
Wellbeing of a child or young person includes:
strong positive whānau relationships
spiritual and cultural connections
having their developmental needs met and supported – education, behaviour, life skills and self-care skills
emotional resilience and support
social and peer groups that are supportive, caring and positive
physical and mental wellness
security – being safe from harm, living in a safe community, having a warm dry home, having enough food.
Safety concerns include:
physical, emotional, sexual abuse, deprivation, neglect, and ill-treatment
situations where parents or caregivers aren’t willing or able to care for the child, where a child is subject to family harm (including where they are exposed to it)
and where the development of a child or their physical, mental or emotional wellbeing is likely to be impaired or neglected in a way that is avoidable.
Not all wellbeing issues will be safety issues, but if there is a safety concern, a child or young person’s wellbeing will be affected.
Where you have concerns about a child or young person’s safety you should make a report of concern to Oranga Tamariki or the Police.
What information is relevant?
You can share information that you believe is relevant to help achieve one or more of the purposes set out in section 66C. Deciding what information is relevant will often be a judgement call and depend on the circumstances of each situation.
Things to consider when deciding whether information is relevant include:
your knowledge of the child or young person and their circumstances including information about:
the child or young person themselves
their home environment
their needs, aspirations, strengths
challenges they are experiencing (financial pressures, housing, family harm, health, access to education and learning difficulties)
support they have or are receiving – what worked well, what didn’t work well and why
information about other people they have a relationship with such as their parents, wider family and whānau, teachers, doctors, sports coaches.
the person making the request, the purpose for which they are requesting the information and what they will be able to do with the information to support the child or young person
the age of the information – older information may be out of date and therefore less relevant to the current circumstances or needs of the child or young person.
the context of the information – could the information be misinterpreted by the recipient without additional context?
There aren’t any limits on who the information can be about. You can share information about a child or young person, their family or other people they have a relationship with if you believe it is relevant to protecting their wellbeing or keeping them safe.
If you are unsure whether information you hold may be relevant, talk to the requestor or the person you want to share the information with. Together you may be able to identify what information is relevant in the circumstances.
Consent to share is not required
You do not need to obtain the consent of the child or young person (or their parents or legal guardian where appropriate) to share their information under section 66C.
Requirement to consult with the child or young person
Section 66K of the Oranga Tamariki Act requires you to consult with the child or young person either before, or as soon as possible after, you share their information where it is practicable or appropriate to do so. Where a child or young person is very young or may not be able to understand why you want to share their information, you should consult with their parents or legal guardian if it is appropriate and safe to do so.
This ensures that the child or young person is aware that their information is being shared, with whom, and what that person is going to do with their information. It also gives them the ability to share any concerns they may have about their information being shared.
You are required to consider their views before you share their information. While you can still share information if they strongly disagree, if their concerns relate to their wellbeing or safety, you should consider whether sharing the information with the requestor is in the child or young person’s best interests at that time. You may need to advise the requestor of the wellbeing or safety concerns the child or young person has raised to ensure the sharing of the information doesn’t place the child or young person at risk of further harm.
Examples of when it may not be practicable or appropriate to consult with a child or young person include:
they are not developmentally able to understand (remember even young children can understand sharing information if you talk to them in an age-appropriate way)
it might put them or someone else at risk of harm
it might distress or upset them, or have a negative impact on their wellbeing
it could get in the way of a Police investigation or prosecution
you need to share information quickly because tamariki might be harmed otherwise
after making reasonable efforts you, or another professional, can’t get in touch with them, and you still think sharing is important to protect tamariki from harm.
You should always record the reasons why you decided not to consult with the child or young person.
Sharing information about multiple children or young people
When sharing information about multiple children or young people (e.g. sharing datasets or sharing information at multi-agency meetings), you are still required to consult with each individual child or young person prior to sharing their information where it is practicable or appropriate to do so.
Just like when sharing information about a single child or young person, whether it is impracticable or inappropriate to consult should be considered when you are developing the dataset or setting up your multi-agency meeting. For multi-agency meetings, each meeting participant will need to determine whether it is impracticable or inappropriate to consult with the child or young person.
You should always record the reasons why you decided not to consult with the child or young person when sharing datasets or sharing their information at multi-agency meetings.
Sharing information in good faith
Sharing information under section 66C requires you to make a judgement call. Every circumstance will be different – in some cases you might decide to share, in others you might not. When you are under pressure, and a child or young person may be at risk, making these judgement calls can feel overwhelming.
The Oranga Tamariki Act provides protection from civil, criminal and disciplinary proceedings when you share information under section 66C unless you have shared in bad faith. Bad faith includes sharing information when you know you shouldn’t.
Acting in good faith means you have:
made your best effort to share in line with the relevant statutory provisions
checked that the information you intend to share is relevant, accurate, up to date complete and not misleading
undertaken measures to ensure the information is shared safely with the right person in the right role
consulted with the child or young person (or their parents/legal guardian/caregiver) if it is safe and appropriate to do so.
You are protected from civil, criminal and disciplinary proceedings if you have shared information under section 66C unless you have shared in bad faith.
Confidentiality obligations
Obligations of confidence protect information deemed to be confidential from unauthorised access and disclosure. However, obligations of confidence are subject to exceptions which include situations where a child or young person’s wellbeing or safety is at risk.
You can consider sharing confidential information when sharing information under section 66C. However, you will need to ensure that:
you are sharing for a purpose set out in section 66C
the confidential information is relevant to that purpose
you have consulted with the child or young person before you share their information.
Your professional code of ethics, industry code of conduct or employment agreement will set out what information is considered confidential, under what circumstances that information may be shared and what you need to advise the child or young person when you are collecting their information.
When advising a child or young person (or their parents where appropriate) that specific information, or categories of information, will be kept confidential you should always clearly inform them of the exceptions to that confidentiality i.e. the circumstances in which you may share that information.
When the requirements of section 66C aren’t met
If you determine that the requirements of section 66C have not been met, you can consider whether one of the following applies in the circumstances:
Keep good records
It is good practice to keep good records of your information sharing activities.
At a minimum you should record:
the request you received and from whom (including receipt and response date)
any additional information you requested from the requestor
your decision whether, or not, to share the information requested
the specified purpose for which you shared the information
whether you consulted with the child or young person, any views they shared with you, or the reasons why you didn’t consult them
the information that you shared.
An easy way to do this is to create an Information Sharing Register. This can be as simple as an excel spreadsheet. Registers will contain personal information, and in some cases sensitive information. It is important to keep your Register secure and limit access to only those that need to have access.
How does the Privacy Act 2020 apply to sharing under the Oranga Tamariki Act?
Section 66 and 66C authorise the sharing of personal information for specific purposes related to the wellbeing and safety of children and young people. This means that you don’t need to rely on one of the exceptions to Information Privacy Principle (IPP) 11 to share the information with another CWPA or Independent Person.
In practice, this means when you are sharing information under section 66C of the Oranga Tamariki Act, you must also ensure you:
share information in a safe and secure way and protect it from unauthorised access, use and disclosure (IPP 5)
have taken reasonable steps to ensure the information is accurate, up to date, relevant, complete and not misleading information (IPP 8)
are mindful about sharing unique identifiers.
When you are receiving information requested or provided under section 66C of the Oranga Tamariki Act, you must also ensure you:
are requesting the information necessary for a lawful purpose of your agency (IPP 1)
receive the information:
Children and their representatives have the right to request access to and correction of their personal information under IPP 6 and 7. If you correct personal information or attach a statement of correction to personal information that is also information that you have shared under the Oranga Tamariki Act, you must, so far as is reasonably practicable, inform that CWPA or Independent Person of the correction.
Practical examples
The following examples work through the application of section 66C of the Oranga Tamariki Act.
Example – ECE Service and Oranga Tamariki social worker
An ECE service manager receives an email request from a social worker working for a Non-Government Organisation (NGO) that provides support services to families in need. The social worker states that the request is being made under section 66C of the Oranga Tamariki Act.
The social worker is requesting information about a 3-year-old who is enrolled at the ECE service. The information requested includes parent contact details, attendance records, and any behaviour related incident reports over the last 12 months. The social worker advises that the information is required to complete a needs assessment and identify appropriate supports for the child.
Can the ECE service manager share the information with the social worker?
To use section 66C both parties must be a Child Welfare and Protection Agency (CWPA) or an Independent Person. The ECE service is a CWPA but should confirm with the social worker that either the NGO they work for is a CWPA or they are an Independent Person.
Information can be shared if the information will be used for one of the purposes set out in section 66C. In this case, the social worker has stated the information will be used to complete a needs assessment for the child, which is a purpose under section 66C.
The ECE service manager should ensure that the information they share with the social worker is relevant to purpose of completing a needs assessment and is accurate and up to date.
The social worker has requested information covering the last 12 months. If there is older information that the manager believes is relevant to the needs assessment, they can share that information also.
If the manager is unsure whether the older information is relevant, they could contact the social worker and talk to them.
The ECE service manager doesn’t need the consent of the child’s parents to share the information, but they must consult with the child (unless it is not practical or appropriate to do so). At 3 years old, the child is too young to understand the request and share their views. As such, the ECE service manager should consider consulting with the child’s parents if it is practical and appropriate to do so.
While section 66C provides the legal authority to share the information, the ECE service manager must still comply with IPP 5 (security and storage) and IPP 8 (accuracy) when considering what and how to share the information requested.
The ECE service manager should record the request, the date of the request, the information they shared with the social worker, and the views of the child’s parents if it was practical and appropriate to consult with them.
Example – multi-agency meeting to support wellbeing and safety of children and young people
A group of government agencies and local non-government organisations want to meet on a regular basis to discuss children and young people in their local area that are not attending school regularly. The purpose of the meeting is to identify appropriate supports for learners with complex needs and their family and whānau to reengage them with education.
Can the meeting participants share information?
To use section 66C all meeting participants must be a Child Welfare and Protection Agency (CWPA) or an Independent Person (IP). The organiser of the multi-agency meeting should check that the intended meeting participants are from a Child Welfare and Protection Agency or an Independent Person before they are invited to the meeting.
Information can be shared for one of the purposes set out in section 66C. In this case, the purpose of the meeting is to share information to enable the meeting participants to undertake an in-depth needs assessment to identify appropriate support and who is best placed to provide that support to the child and their family and whānau. Sharing for the purposes of undertaking a needs or risk assessment is one of the purposes of section 66C.
Meeting participants do not need to obtain the consent of the child, young person or their parents but they must consult with the child or young person before they share their information with other CWPAs or IPs attending the meeting (unless it is not practical or appropriate to do so).
In this case, the meeting participants could decide it is not practical to consult as they would need to dedicate significant resource to consulting with each child and young person (or their parent) which would be direct resources away from their primary function of providing services. Meeting participants consulting with each child prior to sharing relevant information they hold about the child would also likely result in children and young people being contacted by multiple different agencies. Instead, each agency should make sure their privacy policies are up to date and include an explanation that individuals’ personal information may be shared with relevant agencies for risk or needs assessments. Where multi-agency meetings are ongoing, a decision not to consult should also be regularly reviewed.
While section 66C provides the legal authority to share the information, the meeting participants must still comply with other relevant IPPs when considering what and how to share the information between agencies. For example, they must consider how to manage the information they have received, which will be subject to IPP 1 and 4 (lawful purpose for collection, necessity, method of collection), IPP 5 (security and storage), IPP 6 and 7 (access and correction rights), IPP 8 (accuracy), IPP 9 (how long they will retain the information) and IPP 13 (unique identifiers).
For regular multi-agency meetings, we recommend creating an Information Sharing Protocol that sets out the purpose of the meetings, what information can be shared at the meeting, and how that information will be used by the meeting participants. The agreement can also set out the methods by which the information will be shared and how it will be kept safe and secure. This ensures personal information about children and young people is shared in a way that is privacy protective.
Example – Healthcare practitioner and social housing provider
A General Practitioner (GP) is treating a six-year-old child with on-going respiratory concerns. The child and their family currently live in emergency housing. The GP is concerned that the child’s living conditions may be contributing to their health issues.
Can the GP request housing information from a social housing provider?
The GP is an Independent Person. The social housing services being provided to the young person is a regulated service (Schedule 1 of the Children’s Act) which means the social housing provider is child welfare and protection agency. Therefore, the GP and the social housing provider can share information under section 66C of the Oranga Tamariki Act.
Information can be shared between the GP and the social housing provider for one of the purposes set out in section 66C. In this case, the GP can request, and the social housing provider can consider sharing, relevant information to enable the GP to complete a risk or needs assessment – an assessment of what factors, including environmental factors, are contributing to the child’s on-going health issues.
Before disclosing the information, the social housing provider contacts the child’s parent to seek their views on disclosure, as the child is too young to understand the request. The parent wants to get to the bottom of their child’s health issues and is happy for the information to be shared with the GP.
Example – Police and youth mentoring service
A young person has been receiving support from a youth mentoring service. The young person was referred to the mentoring service after some low-level offending in the community. The young person meets with their mentor on a regular basis. Together they focus on developing positive relationships and setting education and career goals.
A local constable has been involved with the young person and is aware they are receiving mentoring support. One day the constable sees the young person hanging around with a group of youth known to associate with a gang. The constable is concerned that this association may indicate the young person is returning to prior anti-social behaviours and may require additional supports.
Can the constable share information with the young person’s mentor?
Police is a child welfare and protection agency, and the mentoring service being provided to the young person is a regulated service (Schedule 1 of the Children’s Act). Therefore, both the constable and the mentor are child welfare and protection agencies and can share information under section 66C of the Oranga Tamariki Act.
Information can be shared between the constable and the mentor for one of the purposes set out in section 66C. In this case, if the constable reasonably believes that sharing the information with the young person’s mentor will assist the mentor to prevent or reduce the risk of harm to the young person or assist the mentor in undertaking or updating a needs or risk assessment, then they can share the information under section 66C.
The constable consults with the young person about sharing their information with the young person’s mentor, and the young person tells the constable that they do not want their information shared. The constable considers their views but ultimately decides it is in the young person’s best interests to inform the mentor to ensure they are being supported. They record this decision and disclose the information.
While section 66C provides the legal authority to share the information, the constable must still comply with IPP 5 (security and storage) and IPP 8 (accuracy) when considering what and how to share the information with the young person’s mentor. That mentor will also need to consider how to manage the information they have received, which will be subject to IPP 1 and 4 (lawful purpose for collection, necessity, method of collection), IPP 5 (security and storage), IPP 6 and 7 (access and correction rights), IPP 8 (accuracy), IPP 9 (retention) and IPP 13 (unique identifiers).
Our website uses cookies so we can analyse our site usage and give you the best experience. Click “Accept” if you’re happy with this, or click “More” for information about cookies on our site, how to opt out, and how to disable cookies altogether.
More than half of adults have a low fear of crime, according to new data.
The annual Crime and Victims survey last year introduced a new set of questions about the public’s perceptions of crime and the justice system.
The 2024 results out on Wednesday showed 56 percent of adults had a low fear of crime, 23 percent have a moderate fear, and 22 percent high fear.
Those aged 30 to 64, Asian and Pacific, and those living in lower socioeconomic areas or in financial stress were more likely to have higher fear of crime.
The survey also found just under half of New Zealanders have “full trust” (14.4 percent) or “quite a lot” (34.8 percent) of trust in the justice system, while about a third (33.4 percent) had “some trust”; 12.6 percent “not much trust” and 4.8 percent “no trust”.
Māori were least likely to trust the legal system (36.1 percent) compared to the New Zealand average (49.2 percent), while Asians (62.5 percent) were most likely to report trust in the legal system.
A smaller proportion of adult Māori (33 percent) were likely to trust the fairness of the justice system even when they felt safe than non-Māori (52 percent).
The survey found feeling safe significantly improved confidence in fairness by 20 percentage points for non-Māori, whereas it improved confidence in fairness by a non-statistically significant 13 percentage points for Māori.
Māori adults were also less confident that the criminal justice system was fair regardless of whether they faced financial stress.
People who had been a victim of a crime were significantly less likely (44 percent) to have high trust in the legal system than the average, and highly victimised adults even more so (36 percent).
Services for victims (75.9 percent) and Police (72.8 percent) were the most highly trusted within the Crime and Justice System, the prison service (44.8 percent) and parole boards (42.3 percent) were the least trusted.
Māori (31 percent), Europeans (43 percent), bisexual (34 percent) and LGBTQ+ adults (34 percent) had significantly lower confidence in the fairness of the criminal justice system than the New Zealand average (47 percent), while Asian adults (64 percent) and those aged 65 and over (54 percent) had significantly higher confidence.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand
Crowds will pack in to watch the Sam Strahan Memorial sheep dog trials at the New Zealand Rural Games.www.ruralgames.co.nz
Harking back to the days of A Dog’s Show, sheep dog trials are returning to the screen in a new broadcasting deal for next year’s New Zealand Rural Games.
After starting from scratch a decade ago, the event – which comprises the big rural sports in one tournament – is gearing up to reach an even wider audience.
Games founder Steve Hollander said the agreement with TVNZ and TVNZ+ marks a new phase for the games held annually in Palmerston North.
He said a significant factor in securing the new deal was the huge attraction of one particular sport.
“Those of us who are a little bit long in the tooth will remember the days when sheep dog trials were carried on television on A Dog’s Show and Country Calendar,” he said.
“Everyone loves it.
“I’d say the biggest crowd that watches any of our sports events watches the sheep dog trials.”
Dog trailing tests the skill and teamwork between a dog and his handler.Sheep Dog Trial Championships in Greenvale, Southland
The upcoming event in March will see national titles awarded for speed shearing, timbersports and fencing.
Some of the rural sports under the radar getting their moment in the limelight include tree climbing and the Southern Hemisphere Highlander Championship.
Hollander said rural sports have been the backbone of generations and he was proud to broaden their reach.
Gisborne fencer Tim Garrick is the defending national speed fencing champion.supplied
The New Zealand Rural Games Trust has been up and running for 13 years as the main organiser of the event.
“This will be our 11th games with a couple of years off with Covid,” he said.
“It’s [The New Zealand Rural Games] one of the biggest investments in rural sports in more than a generation.”
Last year’s crowd over the three-day event in The Square in Palmerston North was 42,500.
Organisers are expecting an even bigger crowd next March with entry free for all the sports.
Also featuring on the television coverage will be the New Zealand Rural Sports Awards night, honouring legends of the rural sporting landscape.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand
A paper road running adjacent to a farm near Hurunui. (File photo)Herenga a Nuku
Across New Zealand there are 55,000 kilometres of paper roads, a term which may not be familar to many.
While these roads won’t appear on Google Maps and aren’t maintained in the same way as the rest of the roading network, they still carry the same right of public passage for anyone to use.
Dot Dalziell, a regional field adviser with Herenga a Nuku Aotearoa (the Outdoor Access Commission), told Afternoons, while these roads may look a little different they’re still there for the public to enjoy.
Dalziell wasn’t a fan of the name paper roads and said she preferred the term unformed legal road when referencing the tracks.
“It’s a bit more accurate than paper road. The reason we don’t like paper road as a term so much is it sounds like something you could write down on a piece of paper, screw up and throw in the bin.”
What is an unformed legal road?
Dalziell said when talking about an unformed legal road or paper road, what was meant was that while these roads counted legally as part of the roading network, these were not maintained by the roading authority in an area, usually the district council.
But, these roads did carry the same right of public passage as any other legal road.
Many of these roads were formed before colonisation, Dalziell said, as tracks and trails to connect up between people and places.
“For instance, there’s an ancient waka portage that goes from Waiuku all the way to the Waikato River and I’ve heard kaumātua talk about that as the original State Highway One. So these are connecting lines that have been around for a long time.”
In the 1800’s, future towns and roads were drawn, and while some of these towns were never built, some tracks were formed.
“Some of them have fallen into less use once cars became more prevalent,” Dalziell said, “other roads were created for combustion engines…”
Unformed legal roads were not on private property, Dalziell said, and were strips of public land which belonged to everyone.
How do I find them?
The best place to find paper roads was by using Herenga a Nuku Aotearoa’s mapping system, Dalziell said, which could be found on its website.
Dalziell said Herenga a Nuku Aotearoa also had an app called Pocket Maps which would allow people to download maps and take them into the wilderness to help navigate the unformed legal roads.
She said the roads could be found by looking for purple lines on the maps.
A lot of erasure of the roads had gone on over the years, Dalziell said.
“Partly what’s happened is because no one is actively looking after them the public may have forgotten that they exist.
“It only takes a generation or so for local knowledge to be forgotten.”
People needed to get around, Dalziell said, and these roads had existed for a very long time.
“They may not even look like a road you may drive on, but they’re still there for all of is. They’re a fantastic resource.”
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand
Office of the Privacy Commissioner | Sharing information to protect the wellbeing and safety of children and young people
Information sharing is a critically important activity within the children’s sector
Our guidance includes:
People working in the children’s sector will often need to work together to ensure children and young people are getting the services and supports they need to be safe, protected from harm and to thrive and succeed.
This means making sure relevant information about the child or young person is shared with the right people at the right time in the right way.
Good information sharing practices:
support people working in the children’s sector to make good judgment-based decisions when sharing a child or young person’s information
build awareness across the children’s sector of what information can be shared, with whom, and for what purpose
enable the delivery of effective services and supports that improve outcomes for children and young people
create transparency and build trust and confidence in how children sector agencies and practitioners are sharing personal information.
You can share personal information to keep children and young people safe
There is no legislative barrier to information sharing when there is a wellbeing or safety concern for a child or young person.
Not sharing information when you can and should, can cause harm.
There are a number of legislative frameworks that permit sharing of information about children and young people for wellbeing and safety purposes. These frameworks include:
the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989, which enables sharing of information about children and young people for wellbeing and safety purposes
the Family Violence Act 2018, which enables sharing of information for specific purposes related to family violence
the Privacy Act 2020 which enables sharing of personal information to prevent or lessen a serious threat, or for law enforcement purposes.
Knowing what you can share, when, and with whom can feel challenging, especially if there is urgency or the needs of the child or young person are complex.
This guidance provides the information you need to confidently make good and timely decisions when you need to share information to protect children and young people’s wellbeing and keep them safe.
Our website uses cookies so we can analyse our site usage and give you the best experience. Click “Accept” if you’re happy with this, or click “More” for information about cookies on our site, how to opt out, and how to disable cookies altogether.
Information Privacy Principle (IPP) 11 permits the sharing of personal information that is held by agencies in certain circumstances. Download a copy of this guidance (opens to PDF, 394KB).
Information you will find on this page:
When you want to share information about a victim or perpetrator of family violence you should consider section 20 of the Family Violence Act before considering whether an IPP 11 exception applies.
When using an IPP 11 exception to share personal information you are not limited to sharing with Child Welfare and Protection Agencies, Independent Persons, Family Violence Agencies or Social Services Practitioners. This can be useful for multi-agency meetings where a wider group of agencies and organisations need to be present.
Information Privacy Principle (IPP) 11 enables you to share personal information (either proactively or on request) with another agency or person in certain circumstances (exceptions).
IPP 11 requires that an agency believes on reasonable grounds that one of the listed exceptions applies.
Information Privacy Principle 11 Exceptions
IPP 11 contains a number of exceptions. The exceptions that commonly apply within the children’s sector include:
the purpose for sharing is one of the purposes, or directly related to one of the purposes, for which the information was obtained
the child or young person (or their parent where appropriate) has authorised the sharing of their information
the information being shared is being used in a way that does not identify the child or young person
the information is required by law (e.g. section 66 of the Oranga Tamariki Act)
sharing the information is necessary to prevent or lessen a serious threat to the child or young person’s life or health, or public health and safety more broadly
sharing the information about the child or young person is necessary to uphold or enforce the law.
What you need to consider when applying an IPP 11 exception
When deciding whether an IPP 11 exception applies, the following considerations are important:
are there reasonable grounds to believe that the exception applies in the circumstances?
is sharing of the information necessary to achieve the purpose of the exception?
could harm result from sharing, or not sharing, the information?
is the recipient the appropriate agency or person to share the information with?
is the information being shared particularly sensitive in nature?
is the information you are intending to share current and up to date?
is sharing the information is in the best interests of the child or young person at this time?
You must believe on reasonable grounds that an exception applies
To rely on an IPP 11 exception, you must:
believe that the exception applies at the time you are sharing the information and
your belief must be reasonably held.
The means you need to consider whether the exception applies before you share the information, and you must have properly considered all the relevant information in the circumstances.
Whether there is a reasonable basis will depend on:
what you know about the circumstances of the child or young person
what you have been told by the requestor about why the information is required
what the requestor can do with the information
what information is being requested about the child or young person.
When you are sharing a child or young person’s information in response to a request, the requestor advising you that an exception applies is not sufficient for believing on reasonable grounds that an exception applies – you need to come to reasonable belief yourself.
If you do not have enough information to decide whether the IPP 11 exception applies you should ask the requestor for additional information. If there is some urgency to the request, it might be quicker to call the requestor and seek the additional information over the phone.
Some exceptions require you to consider necessity
The IPP 11 exceptions for upholding or enforcing the law and preventing or lessening a serious threat also require you to consider whether sharing of the information is necessary in those specific circumstances.
Whether the sharing of the information is necessary is a relatively low threshold – is it needed or required in the circumstances, or required for a given situation?
To help determine whether the sharing of information is necessary you should consider whether not sharing the information could, in the circumstances:
increase the likelihood of the serious threat occurring (serious threat exception) or
compromise an agency’s ability to uphold or enforce the law (maintenance of the law exception).
Can I share sensitive personal information under an IPP 11 exception?
Care should be taken when sharing intimate or particularly sensitive personal information about a child or young person. Sensitive information is information that has some real significance to the child or young person, is revealing, or generally relates to matters they might wish to keep private.
However, there may be situations where the sharing of sensitive information is necessary – for example, when there is a serious threat to a child or young person’s life or health. The relative sensitivity of the information, and whether it is in the best interests of the child or young person, will be an important consideration when thinking about sharing sensitive information under an IPP 11 exception.
In some cases, some of information being requested may include information of such a sensitive nature that it would be appropriate for that information to be requested using a production order or a search warrant. A production order or search warrant provides assurance that the sensitive information is relevant and necessary for the purposes for which it is being requested and shared.
Is the information accurate, up-to-date, complete, relevant and not misleading?
IPP 8 requires that you take reasonable steps to ensure information is accurate, up to date, complete, relevant, and not misleading before you share it with another agency or person.
Sharing inaccurate, out of date, incomplete, irrelevant or misleading information can result in prejudicial information about the child or young person being used to make decisions about them. This can have significant short- and long-term impacts for them and potentially their family or whānau.
Make sure you take the time to review the information and actively assess whether it is accurate, up to date, complete, relevant and not misleading before you share it.
Do I need consent to share under an IPP 11 exception?
One of the IPP 11 exceptions is the authorisation (consent) of the individual. This means that you can obtain the authorisation (consent) of the learner (or their parents where appropriate) to share their personal information for a secondary purpose.
When relying on another IPP 11 exception, you do not need the consent of the learner (or their parent where appropriate) to share their information.
Can I decline a request to share information?
If, after considering the circumstances of the request, you are not satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to share the information under one of the IPP 11 exceptions, you should decline the request.
However, there may be another legal authority that permits you to share the information (e.g. section 66C of the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989 or section 20 of the Family Violence Act 2018). You should always consider whether these provisions apply in the circumstances, especially when the purpose for sharing the information is to keep a child or young person safe.
While an IPP 11 exception may permit you to share a child or young person’s personal information that doesn’t always mean you should. You can also decline the request to share information for other reasons, such as:
sharing at this time may not be in the best interests of the child or young person (sharing the information may put them at risk of harm)
you may have assured the child or young person (and/or their parents where appropriate) that you will keep their information confidential
you may be subject to other legal, ethical or professional standards that require you to maintain confidentiality.
When you decide to decline a request, you should record your reasons. It is also helpful to explain to the requestor why you are declining the request.
Confidentiality obligations
Obligations of confidence protect information deemed to be confidential from unauthorised access and disclosure.
Obligations of confidentiality may restrict access to, and disclosure of, confidential information further than the exceptions set out in the Privacy Act 2020 (IPP 11).
Common exceptions to confidentiality include:
where there is a risk to a child or young person’s health or life
where the information is required by law
where the child or young person has authorised (consented) to the sharing.
Your professional code of ethics, industry code of conduct or employment agreement will set out what information is considered confidential, under what circumstances that information may be shared and what you need to advise the child or young person when you are collecting their information.
When advising a child or young person (or their parents where appropriate) that specific information, or categories of information, will be kept confidential you should always clearly inform them of the exceptions to that confidentiality i.e. the circumstances in which you may share that information.
Keep good records
It is good practice to keep good records of your information sharing activities.
At a minimum you should record:
the request you received and from whom (including receipt and response date)
any additional information you requested from the requestor
your decision whether, or not, to share the information requested
the IPP 11 exception you relied on to share the information, including the information you considered to form the reasonable belief that the exception applied in the circumstances
the information that you shared.
An easy way to do this is to create an Information Sharing Register. This can be as simple as an excel spreadsheet. Registers will contain personal information, and in some cases sensitive information. It is important to keep your Register secure and limit access to only those that need to have access.
Practical examples
This section provides some examples of sharing a child or young person’s personal information for wellbeing and safety purposes using the following Privacy Act IPP 11 exceptions:
Authorisation (consent).
Serious threat.
Maintenance of the law.
Authorisation (consent) exception
IPP 11 provides an exception where personal information held about a child or young person can be shared if the child or young person (or their parent where appropriate) provides authorisation.
For a child or young person (or their parent or legal guardian where appropriate) to provide authorisation to share their personal information you will need to ensure that they have sufficient information to make an informed decision.
Obtaining authorisation can be done through:
a consent form (where a child or young person or their parent where appropriate can explicitly authorise (consent to) the intended sharing) or
an opt out form (where information about a child or young person will be shared for a specified purpose unless the child or young person (or their parents where appropriate) opts out).
You should attach the collection privacy statement to the consent or opt out form. The privacy statement will provide the child or young person (or their parents where appropriate) with the information they need to make an informed decision to authorise the sharing of their information. You should also provide a link to your privacy policy in your consent or opt out form so that child or young person (or their parents where appropriate) can have confidence in how you collect, use, share and protect personal information more generally.
Authorisation is not a ‘one and done’ thing. If it has been some time since the they have provided authorisation for their information to be shared you should check whether they are still comfortable with the information being shared for that purpose. Where authorisation has been provided, a child or young person (or their parent where appropriate) can withdraw that authorisation at any time.
When a child or young person withdraws authorisation (consent)
A child or young person (or their parent or legal guardian where appropriate) can withdraw authorisation they have previously provided for their information to be shared for specified purposes.
When a previously provided authorisation is withdrawn, you must stop sharing their information for the purpose to which the authorisation applied. For example, due to a change in family circumstances, a child or young person (or their parent or legal guardian where appropriate) may withdraw authorisation for their information to be shared with a healthcare provider for the purpose of providing counselling services.
When you are relying on one of the other IPP 11 exceptions, section 66C of the Oranga Tamariki Act or section 20 of the Family Violence Act, to share a child or young person’s personal information, the child or young person will not be able to withdraw their authorisation (consent). This is because their authorisation (consent) was not the basis for sharing their information.
Serious threat exception
If you believe a child or young person is in immediate danger, call the Police on 111.
To rely on the serious threat exception, you must be satisfied that a serious threat exists and believe on reasonable grounds that the information requested is necessary to prevent or lessen that threat.
The exception provides for two types of threats: • to public health or safety or • the life or health of a child or young person or another person
When is a threat serious?
There are three factors that need to be considered when deciding whether a threat is serious:
the likelihood of the threat occurring
the severity of the consequences if the threat occurs
the time at which the threat might occur
All three factors don’t need to be present to reach the threshold of serious threat. For example, if there is a high likelihood of the threat occurring and the severity of the consequences are significant (factors 1 and 2), but it is unclear when the threat may eventuate (factor 3), the serious threat threshold will likely be met. The test is what a reasonable person would consider to be serious in the circumstances.
A serious threat assessment will be situation specific and should consider all relevant circumstances, including those of the child or young person concerned. A serious threat can arise for one child or young person based on the relevant risk factors to them but may not meet the threshold in relation to a different child or young person.
For example, a threat of harm to a child or young person may more readily meet the threshold of serious harm due to their age or ability to act independently and make their own decisions.
Is sharing necessary to lessen the threat?
Once you have decided that a serious threat exists, you need to determine whether sharing the child or young person’s personal information is necessary to prevent or lessen that threat. You should ask yourself whether not sharing the information requested would increase the likelihood of the serious threat occurring – for example:
is the information requested relevant or needed to address and lessen the serious threat?
how will sharing the information do this?
is the person receiving the information in a position to use the information to respond to and lessen the serious threat?
When there is a serious threat, you may need to make your decision to share a child or young person’s information under urgency. In these cases, share the information and then record your reasons for believing it was the right thing to do in the circumstances.
For more information about using the Privacy Act to share information with Police or other law enforcement agencies see:
Serious threat example – infectious disease outbreak
An outbreak of measles has been declared by Health NZ in a region of New Zealand. There are several children and young people who have contracted measles within the regions, all of whom were attending school or an early learning centre.
The National Public Health Service (NPHS) is contacting all schools and ECE services within the region requesting the names, dates of birth and immunisation information of all learners currently enrolled. The NPHS has advised the schools and ECE services that the enrolment information will be used for the purposes of identifying the number of vaccinated and unvaccinated children and young people. This information will assist the NPHS determine the level of risk in the community and ensure prevention and containment resources are allocated effectively and in a timely manner.
Can the schools or ECE services share the information with the NPHS?
Measles is a highly contagious disease that can cause harm to the health of children and young people. When an outbreak is declared by Health NZ it confirms that measles has been circulating in the community creating a serious threat to the health of individuals, particularly children and young people. Therefore, the threat is already occurring (factors 1 and 3), and the severity of the consequences are high (factor 2). In this case, a serious threat exists.
When there is a declared outbreak, local health authorities need to take actions to prevent or lessen the spread of the disease. To do that, they need information about children in the affected area, including immunisation information. Obtaining names and dates of birth of children attending the schools and ECE services in the affected area will enable NPHS to match the information against the immunisation register. This information will help them determine the level of risk across the community and ensure appropriate containment and prevention measures are implemented.
In this situation, the serious threat threshold has been met. There are reasonable grounds to believe that sharing the names and dates of birth of children in the affected area is necessary to help prevent or lessen the serious threat, and the NPHS (the requestor) is able to use the information to prevent or lessen that threat.
Serious threat example – missing child
The Police are trying to locate a year 10 child who has been reported missing by their family after failing to return home from school. The child has a history of mental health challenges and has been missing over 48 hours. They do not have their phone with them, so Police have been unable to obtain location data from the telecommunications provider.
The child’s school has an online learning platform which enables learners to message each other and their teachers. The missing child also has a school email address which they use as their main email account. Police make a request to the missing child’s school principal for the learner’s messaging and email history over the last month. The Police advise the principal that the email and messaging history will help them to determine where the missing child might be. The Police have made the request to the school relying on IPP 11(1)(f)(ii) – serious threat to an individual.
Can the school principal release this information to the Police?
While the Police have advised the request is being made under the IPP 11(1)(f)(ii) of the Privacy Act, it is for the school principal to determine whether the information requested is necessary for that purpose – preventing or lessening a serious threat to the life or health of the missing child.
To rely on the serious threat exception, the school principal needs to have a reasonable belief that there is a serious threat to the missing child’s life or health and that the sharing of the information is necessary to prevent or lessen that threat. To do that the principal first needs to determine whether there is a serious threat by considering the likelihood of the threat occurring, the severity of the consequences if the threat occurs, and the time at which the threat might occur.
Given the missing child’s age, the mental health concerns and the length of time they have been missing, there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is a serious threat to their life or health if they cannot be located.
Next, the school needs to determine whether sharing this missing child’s email and messaging information is necessary to prevent or lessen that threat. The emails and messages may provide information about why the child has not returned home, and where they may be. This information could help Police locate them. The request is also limited to emails and messages in the previous month – recent emails and messages are likely to be more relevant to locating the child. Not sharing the information could delay the Police locating the missing child which could lead to serious harm to their health and safety.
In this case, it would be reasonable for the school principal to rely on the serious threat exception to share the missing child’s emails and messaging from the past month with Police.
Maintenance of the law exception
To rely on the maintenance of the law exception, you must believe on reasonable grounds that sharing information is necessary to avoid prejudice to the maintenance of the law including prevention, detection, investigation, prosecution and punishment of offences.
This exception supports the maintenance of criminal and regulatory enforcement processes. It does not give Police or other law enforcement agencies the right to access just any information. The exception applies to situations where not providing specific and relevant information would prejudice or be detrimental to maintaining the law.
In the early stages of an investigation into an offence, Police or a law enforcement agency may not have sufficient information to apply for a production order or a search warrant. This can make it difficult to progress a criminal or regulatory investigation. A request for information using the maintenance of the law exception may be the only practical means of obtaining the information necessary to effectively investigate the offending, particularly during the initial stages of an investigation.
Police or a law enforcement agency requesting information must show a link between the offence(s) being investigated and the relevance of the information being requested – simply asserting that the information is needed for an investigation is not sufficient. Without this information, you will not be able determine that the maintenance of the law exception applies.
To help decide whether sharing the information is necessary, you should ask yourself what the effect would be if the information requested by the Police or law enforcement agency was not provided – for example, would not sharing the information compromise the ability of the Police or law enforcement agency to do their job?
A mental health counsellor receives an email from Constable A from the local police station requesting the home address and parent contact details for a child they are providing services to. The email has come from Constable A’s police email address. Constable A advises that the information is being requested under IPP 11(1)(e)(i) of the Privacy Act (the law enforcement exception).
Can the counsellor share the information requested with the Constable?
While Constable A has advised the request is being made under the IPP 11(1)(e)(i) of the Privacy Act, it is for the counsellor to determine whether the information requested is necessary for the purpose under IPP 11(1)(e)(i) – upholding or enforcing the law.
In this case, Constable A has not provided sufficient information about the offence being investigated and the relevance of the information being requested to investigating that offence. Without this information, the counsellor cannot be satisfied that the information is necessary for upholding or enforcing the law.
The counsellor should ask the Constable for more information to help them determine whether the law enforcement exception applies in the circumstances. For example, they could ask what offending is being investigated, and why the home address and contact details of the child’s parents are relevant and necessary for purposes of investigating that offence.
Once the counsellor has received this information, they will then be able to determine whether not sharing the information requested would prevent the investigation into the offence(s) commencing or continuing. Police do have an information request form that includes all relevant information to support the request – if they haven’t provided the form, the counsellor could ask them to do so.
If the Constable advises that Police are investigating on-going thefts of vehicles in the area by a group of youth, and up to date address and contact information for the child’s parents is necessary to enable Police to contact the parents as part of the investigation, it would be reasonable for the counsellor to rely on the law enforcement exception to share that information with the Constable. Not providing the information would impact Police being able to continue its investigation into the offending.