Source: Privacy Commissioner
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.
Source: Privacy Commissioner
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. |
Read more general guidance on the Privacy Act 2020 and the Information Privacy Principles.
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.
IPP 11 contains a number of exceptions. The exceptions that commonly apply within the children’s sector include:
When deciding whether an IPP 11 exception applies, the following considerations are important:
To rely on an IPP 11 exception, you must:
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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:
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. |
It is good practice to keep good records of your information sharing activities.
At a minimum you should record:
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.
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:
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:
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.
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. |
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
There are three factors that need to be considered when deciding whether a threat is serious:
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.
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:
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Read more detailed guidance on the law enforcement exception in our guidance: Releasing personal information to Police and law enforcement agencies.
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.
Our guidance on sharing information to protect the wellbeing and safety of children and young people is part of an integrated government response relating to the Dame Karen Poutasi review in 2022.
Source: Privacy Commissioner
If you believe a child or young person is in immediate danger, call the Police on 111. |
This page provides guidance on how to share information under the Family Violence Act 2018. Download a copy of this guidance (opens to PDF, 369 KB).
Information you will find on this page:
Section 24 of the Family Violence Act requires that you actively consider sharing information about a victim or perpetrator of family violence to another FVA or SSP if you:
Section 20 of the Family Violence Act 2018 permits the sharing of personal information when the child or young person is or has been subject to family harm.
Under section 20 you can proactively share information, or you can share information in response to a request.
Section 20 of the Family Violence Act 2018 permits the sharing of personal information between Family Violence Agencies (FVAs) and Social Sector Practitioners (SSPs).
Family Violence Agencies (FVAs) are a group of organisations, and therefore their employees, or volunteers including:
Social Sector Practitioners (SSPs) are professionals or people providing education, health or other social services including:
If you want to share information with an agency or person that is not a FVA or SSP, you may be able to share information with them under the Privacy Act . |
Section 20 enables sharing information about a child who has been a victim of family violence where you reasonably believe that sharing the information will help the other FVA or SPP achieve one or more the following purposes:
Section 20 enables sharing between any FVA and/or Social Services Practitioner e.g. between a school and a non-government organisation (NGO) that provides support to families experiencing family violence, between a healthcare provider and a social worker, between a social housing provider and Oranga Tamariki. |
Section 20 permits sharing with a broader range of people than the serious threat exception under the Privacy Act. Under section 20 you can share with any FVA or SSP who may be able to assist with identifying risk or providing support, whereas the serious threat exception under the Privacy Act will generally require disclosure to individuals with the power to intervene more directly. |
Helping to ensure a victim is protected from family violence is the guiding principle when sharing information under section 20. That principle should take precedence over any applicable duty to keep information confidential. |
If you receive a section 20 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 20 applies, or what information may be relevant to share with the requestor.
You can share information that you believe is relevant to help achieve one or more of the purposes set out in section 20. Deciding what information is relevant will often be a judgment call and depend on the circumstances of each situation.
Things to consider when deciding whether information is relevant include:
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.
You do not need to obtain the consent of, or consult with, the child (or their parents, legal guardians or caregivers where appropriate) to share their information under section 20.
You should, however, consider the best interests of the child – in some cases it may be in their best interests to let them know you are sharing their information, in other cases it could expose them to additional risk and harm.
Talking with the child or young person (or the parents, legal guardians or caregivers where appropriate) can also help inform your decision about whether it is in their best interests to share their information in the circumstances.
Sharing information under section 20 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 Family Violence Act provides protection from civil, criminal and disciplinary proceedings when you share information under section 20 unless you have shared in bad faith. Bad faith includes when you don’t attempt to comply with the provision, or when you act carelessly or recklessly with information.
Acting in good faith means you have:
You are protected from civil, criminal and disciplinary proceedings if you have shared information under section 20 unless you have shared in bad faith. |
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.
The Family Violence Act provides an exception to an obligation of confidence. The Act requires you to consider the principle that helping to ensure a victim is protected from family harm should usually take precedence over any applicable obligation to keep the information confidential.
However, you will need to ensure that:
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. |
If you determine that the requirements of section 20 have not been met, you can consider whether one of the following applies in the circumstances:
It is good practice to keep good records of your information sharing activities.
At a minimum you should record:
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.
Section 20 authorises the sharing of personal information for specific purposes related to family violence. 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 FVA or SSP.
However, you still need to comply with the other Information Privacy Principles (IPPs) in the Privacy Act.
In practice, this means when you are sharing information under section 20 of the Family Violence Act, you must ensure you:
When you are receiving information requested or provided under section 20 of the Family Violence Act, you must ensure you:
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 Family Violence Act, you must, so far as is reasonably practicable, inform that FVA or SSP of the correction.
The following examples work through the application of section 20 of the Family Violence Act.
Under the School Alerts programme schools can receive alerts about their learners who have been involved in a family harm episode in the last 24 hours. Names of the learners are provided to a participating school so they are aware of the incident, enabling them to identify and provide any additional supports learners may need while at school.
The legal authority for sharing the information with the participating school is section 20 of the Family Violence Act 2018. The information is proactively shared to a school for the purpose of helping to ensure that a victim is protected from or supported when they are experiencing family violence. Section 20 also provides the legal authority for the school principal to share the information with a learner’s teacher so that the teacher is aware and can contribute to the development of a support plan if one is required.
If a school requires further information about the learner and the circumstances of the family harm incident, it can use section 20 to request additional information from a relevant FVA or an SSP. The school must, however, be requesting the additional information for one of the purposes in section 20.
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 have been subject to family harm. The purpose of the meeting is to identify and deliver appropriate interventions and supports for the children and young people and their family and whānau.
To use section 20 all meeting participants must be a Family Violence Agency or a Social Services Practitioner. The organiser of the multi-agency meeting should check that the intended meeting participants are from a Family Violence Agency or a Social Services Practitioner before they are invited to the meeting.
Information can be shared for one of the purposes set out in section 20C. 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 interventions and supports and who is best placed to provide those to the child and their family and whānau.
Sharing for the purposes of undertaking a risk or need assessment, and making, or contributing to the making or carrying out of, a decision or plan relating or responding to family violence are two of the purposes of section 20.
While section 20 provides the legal authority to share the information, the meeting participants must still comply with IPP 5 (security and storage) and IPP 8 (accuracy) requirements when considering what and how to share the information between agencies. They will also need to consider how to manage any personal 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).
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.
Read more information about information sharing to support multi-agency meetings.
A mental health counsellor has been working with a young child. Over the last few sessions, the counsellor has observed bruising on the child’s legs and arms and has noticed some behaviour changes indicating the child may be experiencing physical harm. The counsellor wants to share this information with Police.
As the counsellor is a Social Services Practitioner, and the Police is a Family Violence Agency the counsellor is able to use section 20 of the Family Violence Act to share relevant information with the Police. In this case, the purpose for sharing the information is to ensure the young person is protected from family violence.
Not all the information the counsellor holds about the young person will be relevant to the purpose of protecting them from family violence. The relevant information will be that which relates to the bruising and behaviours that have led to the counsellor suspecting family violence is occurring.
The counsellor is likely to have a professional duty to ensure the confidentiality of any information the young person has shared with them during the counselling sessions. However, the guiding principle for sharing information under section 20 is that helping to ensure a victim is protected from family violence should usually take precedence of any duty to keep information confidential. This means that the counsellor can share relevant information with the Police, even if where a duty of confidence may exist.
Read additional guidance on sharing information under the Family Violence Act 2018 (opens to PDF, 3.4MB).
Our guidance on sharing information to protect the wellbeing and safety of children and young people is part of an integrated government response relating to the Dame Karen Poutasi review in 2022.
Source: Privacy Commissioner
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.
Source: Radio New Zealand
More people are using AI to search for information, but what does it mean for companies trying to get their attention? File photo. 123rf
As AI changes how we find information, New Zealand businesses are feeling the impact.
Over the past 20 years, search engines like Google replaced the Yellow Pages and changed the way information and services are found.
But AI overviews and chatbots are now ready to answer anything from “best time to travel to Japan” to “good local plumber”.
To Kiwi businesses, the change has not always been positive.
This audio is not downloadable due to copyright restrictions.
Greg Whitham – general manager for market engagement at Datacom – has decades of experience in digital communication.
He has watched the online presence of companies growing from a minor part of its strategy to something critical in capturing customers, and he is also familiar with how tech evolutions can affect businesses.
“We’ve definitely seen a dip in traffic coming onto our site, and I would imagine that there would be very few businesses or brands out there that haven’t sort of seen a significant drop off in traffic coming all the way through to their website.”
Greg Whitham is the general manager for market engagement at Datacom. Supplied
Whitham said the company’s website traffic changed dramatically this year, and they quickly adjusted to get AI’s attention.
“We’d certainly also seen an uplift in what we call zero-click impressions, so people were still seeing our content, but they were seeing it as it was being presented back to them by their AI agents. The new focus is almost less around servicing the customer and servicing the customer’s agents because it’s the customer’s agents that are effectively going to be presenting your brand, presenting your content back to what will hopefully become your end customer.”
Grant Johnson, chief executive of website company Rocketspark, said traffic from ChatGPT more than tripled this year.
It was growth that corresponded to the shift in how people seek information.
Grant Johnson is the CEO at Rocketspark. Supplied
Johnson said in the age of AI-driven searches, online reputation was more important than just having the right keywords to get into Google’s top search results.
“What the LLMs are doing is they’re aggregating from so many different sources to build up a picture about you. It’s almost like, what’s your online reputation? Are you inviting your customers to leave reviews? Do you just provide a great service and a great product?”
He said reviews and recommendations in online discussions were playing an important role in AI-generated answers.
“It seems platforms like Reddit get referenced quite a bit in the AI summaries. So in some ways I feel like it’s leveling the playing field. If you’re a good business, it’s like the cream rises to the top.”
MoneyHub head of research Chris Walsh said his site was benefiting from artificial intelligence, as click rates grew.
“I don’t think this is taking anything away from us. I see the percentage month on month grow. But also, I’d say they’re quality visitors. I mean, they’ve gone to the AI, they’re engaged, and now they want to learn more and they’re probably going to spend about 10 minutes on our website.”
Chris Walsh is the head of research at MoneyHub. Supplied
In September, links from AI tools sent more than 3000 visitors to the MoneyHub site – about one percent of their total traffic.
Walsh said while the percentage was low, the growth was promising.
Bret Gower – director of law firm Smith and Partners – said it was working to be quoted in the AI overview when people ask Google a legal question.
“We’ve done our own research into how Google’s AI overview references legal questions, and I’ve seen evidence of it citing our articles as a source of the basis of their answer. So I think that’s what we’re expecting. We’re going to continue to be doing it, hoping to be the cited source so that those clients that need a fact-specific answer or some certainty or even representation, they will be coming through to us as the provider of their answers in the first instance.”
Bret Gower is the director at Smith and Partners. Supplied
Some other uses of AI were also causing other problems for businesses such as travel agents.
Travel Agents Association New Zealand chief executive Julie White said AI-generated travel plans or recommendations could ruin holidays.
Julie White. Hospitality NZ
“Just make sure you are well-informed and double-check and re-check the information that you’re getting (from AI) is correct. The White Lotus is a great example of people getting caught out booking through an AI. So they travel all the way to Thailand, they turn up for this magical experience to live the White Lotus experience, only to find out that the accommodation doesn’t even exist.”
And as Gower said, the trend towards AI DIY solutions was also causing headaches for lawyers.
“Anecdotally, we’re seeing a lot of clients coming to us with their own AI generated answers, I suppose in the same way that doctors were facing the Dr Google situation where the clients are turning up with a prior assessment of what their situation is.
“It’s making the work of advising clients more complicated because rather than them coming to us with an outline of what they think their issue is, they’re quite often coming to us now with an outline of what they think the solution is going to be as well. It’s interesting times.”
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
Source: New Zealand Police
Please attribute to Inspector Simon Walker, Waitematā West Area Commander:
Police enquiries are underway after a man was located with serious injuries in Henderson this afternoon.
Police were called to Edsel Street at 2.40pm.
The victim has been taken to Auckland City Hospital and is in a serious but stable condition.
Police are currently in the Henderson area making enquiries to locate the offender involved.
I’d like to reassure the Henderson community that it’s believed the offender and victim are both known to each other.
There is no cause for any ongoing concern.
Police will continue to be visible in the Henderson CBD over the coming days, including regular patrolling by the Henderson Beat Team.
Anyone with information on today’s incident can contact Police on 105 using the reference number P064587277.
ENDS.
Jarred Williamson/NZ Police
Source: Radio New Zealand
Tina Ngata. Supplied/Sarah Sparks
Māori leaders have told the UN Committee on Eliminating Racial Discrimination (CERD) that racism against Māori has escalated under the current government.
New Zealand is signed up to the UN’s International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD). This requires the government to take action to eliminate racism and racial discrimination and promote understanding between all races in Aotearoa.
Under CERD, the government is required to regularly report on its progress at eliminating racial discrimination and supporting indigenous peoples, ethnic and religious minority groups to enjoy their rights and freedoms.
The government is presenting its report to CERD this week in Geneva, the committee will then publish draft findings and recommendations before the end of its 116th session, which concludes on 5 December 2025.
The session was opened by Minister of Justice Paul Goldsmith who told the committee that improving the lives of all New Zealanders, regardless of background, is the government’s priority.
He said he is confident the coalition government’s focus will build a strong economy which will benefit all New Zealanders including Māori.
“It’s the priority of the government to improve the lives of all New Zealanders including Māori and a key focus for this is the government using data, evidence and best practice to deliver social investment on the basis of need.”
Presenting on behalf of the National Iwi Chairs Forum Pou Tikanga and the Peoples Action Plan Against Racism, Tina Ngata told the committee that racism against Māori has escalated under the coalition government.
The Iwi Chairs Forum is one of around twelve organisations who have submitted shadow reports to the committee.
“For our report we’ve really highlighted what we have called the treaty assault, or hostility towards the treaty and that includes the Treaty Principles Bill, the Regulatory Standards Bill, the Treaty Clause Review where they have looked to remove a number of treaty clauses from legislation,” Ngata told RNZ.
The forum also raised concerns that affect other minorities, including the ban on puberty blockers, she said.
“One of the other key issues that we’ve raised is the way in which this government has inverted the language of racism. So an example of that is how David Seymour in a number of his submissions and in public communications has called treaty policies or treaty clauses forms of racism.”
Ngata said there is no one fix to these issues, but it is important to address it on as many fronts as possible, from your own whenua, to the UN, the courts and at select committee.
“The combination of our wānanga, the combination or our occupation, the combination of our hīkoi and our international work that together creates this pressure for government’s to either change how they are or to step to the side.”
Darlene Marks is part of the Kāhui Rangatahi of the Peoples Action Plan Against Racism, there to understand more about the processes at the UN and CERD and to give a young person’s perspective on the issues raised.
Marks told RNZ the removal of the requirement for school boards to give affect to Te Tiriti is one issue they are focused on.
“The first line for our rangatahi is our education system… so making sure that our first experience of Te Tiriti in action is actually upheld by not only our kura, our school boards but also by the government.”
Marks said young people are feeling the onslaught as every day brings a new issue.
“If these institutions can’t hold our government to account it’s hard to think of what else they can do, but it’s also important… making sure that if we don’t have these spaces to talk about these issues this this government is just going to continuously change the rhetoric of what is good and what is wrong in our country at the moment.”
A complaint presented to CERD this week by Māori Health leader Lady Tureiti Moxon is not part of the ordinary reviewing cycle.
Moxon is seeking for CERD to use its Early Warning and Urgent Action procedure, something it has only used once before for New Zealand.
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
Source: Radio New Zealand
123rf.com
Three police staff investigated in relation to “misuse and inappropriate content” have been cleared of any wrongdoing.
Last week, police confirmed 20 police staff were being investigated, three of whom were facing criminal investigations. In total, six staff had been stood down.
On Wednesday, Acting Deputy Commissioner Jill Rogers told RNZ police continued to make inquiries in relation to 17 staff identified in a rapid review of police’s information security controls.
“Of the 20 initially identified, three cases were found to involve work-related searches and have been excluded from the inquiry.”
No charges have been laid in relation to the three criminal investigations.
RNZ understands one of the staffers being investigated is an award-winning detective based in the Auckland region.
The detective, and police, have been approached for comment.
It’s understood he has been stood down.
Do you know more? Email sam.sherwood@rnz.co.nz
It follows an audit of staff internet usage sparked by the resignation of former deputy police commissioner Jevon McSkimming who recently pleaded guilty to possessing objectionable publications, including child sexual exploitation and bestiality over a four-year period.
Rogers told RNZ last week the staff that had been stood down were investigated for “serious matters” that ranged from potentially accessing objectionable material, or accessing inappropriate material while also subject to separate misconduct matters.
Some of the staff being investigated may have had legitimate purposes for accessing material, which police would verify through their inquiries.
“Criminal investigations are being conducted into three of the cases.”
Police were not able to disclose the ranks of those under investigation.
Rogers earlier confirmed to RNZ a police officer had been stood down from duty for “inappropriate content on a police device”.
“The officer is under employment investigation for serious misconduct, relating to inappropriate, but not objectionable, material on a police-issued device. The alleged misconduct was uncovered through following recent audits of staff internet usage.”
Police Commissioner Richard Chambers earlier told RNZ the misconduct being investigated was uncovered as a result of the new monitoring measures introduced following the rapid review of the settings for police devices, launched after McSkimming’s resignation.
“I sought that review because of my concern that such conduct was not being detected. This offers some reassurance that we now have the necessary tools to detect potentially inappropriate behaviour.”
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
Source: New Zealand Police
Police can now confirm one person has sadly died following a two-truck collision on State Highway 2, near Maramarua earlier today.
Emergency services were called to the scene around 11.42am.
One other person was treated for minor injuries.
State Highway 2 remains closed between Monument Road and Heaven Road with diversions in place.
The Serious Crash Unit are examining the scene and enquiries into the circumstances are underway.
ENDS
Issued by Police Media Centre
Source: New Zealand Police
Police are continuing to search for a man wanted in relation to a Pahiatua woman’s death last month.
On the afternoon of 15 October, Karen Gilbert-Palmer, 74, was found deceased at her Arthur Street home by a friend who had been unable to contact her. A homicide investigation was launched, and 52-year-old Jeremy Robertson was identified as a suspect.
The victim’s vehicle was located in at the Blue and Green lakes lookout in Rotorua the following morning, and Detective Senior Sergeant Dave Thompson, Area Investigations Manager, says Police believe Robertson is likely still in that area.
“We have been making a lot of enquiries to locate Jeremy, and we are planning further Police activity in that area in the coming weeks.
“I want to thank the members of the public who came forward with information in the early days of the investigation, including the call that led us to the car within hours of it being parked up.”
Detective Senior Sergeant Thompson said work to find Robertson had not stopped.
“Our focus remains on seeing justice served for Mrs Gilbert-Palmer, and finding Jeremy is key to that.”
Anyone who sees Robertson should not approach him. Call 111 immediately and advise Police.
Non-urgent information can be passed to Police via 105. Please quote file number 251015/6286.
Information can also be provided anonymously via Crime Stoppers on 0800 555 111.
ENDS
Issued by Police Media Centre.