Category: MIL-OSI

Source: New Zealand Government

New Zealand is raising its game on the global stage with a new Grass-Fed certification scheme to help our red meat and dairy producers go head-to-head with competitors in premium international markets, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Agriculture Minister Todd McClay announced today at Fieldays.
“International consumers are increasingly willing to pay more for high-quality grass-fed food—and New Zealand intends to lead that space, not follow it,” Mr McClay says.
“This new standard puts a clear, trusted stamp on what our farmers have always done best—producing high-quality, safe pasture-raised meat and dairy.”
The voluntary scheme, developed in partnership between the Primary Sector and the Ministry for Primary Industries, sets a clear definition for grass-fed products. Producers who meet the standard can be assessed and display the trusted Grass-Fed certification on their products and market them to the world.
“In key markets, we’re up against countries that claim grass-fed credentials but feed their animals grain part of the year or keep them indoors for long periods. New Zealand’s system is different—our livestock on grass, year-round, in the world’s best farming conditions.”
The standard for dairy defines grass-fed as meaning animals have a diet comprised of at least 90 percent of the qualifying grass-fed feed types and are on pasture or forage crops, 340 days per year. 
For red meat, the animals must be predominantly fed grass-fed feed types and be permitted to graze outdoors on pasture or forage crops year-round.
“This is about more than a label—it’s a commercial tool to push into premium segments and stay ahead of competitors. We’re relentlessly focused on improving the value of our exports and backing farmers,” Mr McClay says.
“This is another step in making New Zealand farming the global benchmark for high-quality, safe, sustainable production—and ensuring our exporters have every advantage in the fight for premium shelf space.”
More information and assessment details are available on the MPI website.

Source: New Zealand Police

Quick thinking and a priority transport of chocolate has aided the recovery of an Auckland motorist. 

Police in central Auckland received information about a man who appeared intoxicated, getting into a vehicle on Tuesday afternoon.

Auckland Central Area Commander, Inspector Grant Tetzlaff says frontline staff attended just after 3pm on Union Street.

“On arrival, staff found a middle-aged man slumped over the car’s steering wheel and losing consciousness,” he says.

“The officers acted quickly on their feet, taking the initiative and checked for a medical alert on the man’s phone.”

It revealed he was a Type One diabetic.

“Wasting no time and with time of the essence,  the staff called for an ambulance and for another patrol to bring some chocolate, pronto!”

“The chocolate arrived on scene quickly and the man began to regain some consciousness.”

Ambulance staff arrived on scene and he was transported to hospital.

“I commend the actions of the frontline staff in what was a medical emergency and ended up being a sweet result,” Inspector Tetzlaff says.

ENDS. 

Nicole Bremner/NZ Police 

Source: New Zealand Government

Health Minister Simeon Brown has welcomed the clearance of a significant radiology backlog at Taranaki Base Hospital, calling it a practical outcome that puts patients first.

“In March, more than 6,000 x-ray reports were sitting unprocessed at Taranaki Base Hospital. That was causing unacceptable delays for patients needing diagnosis and treatment,” Mr Brown says.

“People in Taranaki deserve access to timely, high-quality healthcare – and that includes getting diagnostic results back quickly. With the backlog now cleared and all results referred back to GPs, patients are now receiving their results.”

To address the backlog, Health New Zealand made full use of available public radiology resources and engaged private imaging providers to boost reporting capacity and return results directly to patients’ GPs.

“This was a practical, solutions-focused response. By combining public capacity with private sector support, the backlog was cleared efficiently, and care has been sped up for thousands of people.”

Outsourcing remains in place to manage ongoing demand and reduce the risk of future backlogs.

“Taranaki Base Hospital will continue to use private capacity where needed – an approach that is consistent with the Government’s broader strategy to reduce waitlists across the health system.

“Our focus on reducing waitlists has already resulted in more than 8,600 additional elective procedures being delivered through outsourcing. It’s a clear example of how we can apply the same approach to diagnostics – using targeted outsourcing to deliver faster care.

“We are committed to practical improvements that reduce delays, support frontline services, and deliver better outcomes for patients.

“This result in Taranaki shows what can be achieved when we stay focused on what matters – making sure New Zealanders get the care they need, when they need it,” Mr Brown says. 

Source: New Zealand Government

The Government is backing a $17 million partnership with farmers to boost productivity, profitability, and sustainability by identifying the most resilient, high-performing pastures for New Zealand conditions, Agriculture Minister Todd McClay announced today at Fieldays. 
Minister McClay confirmed the Government will invest $8.269 million in the Resilient Pastures project through Budget 2025’s new Primary Sector Growth Fund (PSGF), alongside sector leaders including DairyNZ, Beef + Lamb New Zealand, Fonterra, AgResearch, and others.
“This is a smart investment that will deliver real outcomes for farmers — increasing pasture performance, extending productive lifespan, cutting re-grassing costs, and improving profitability across the board,” McClay said.
“New Zealand farmers produce high-quality, safe, and sustainable food and fibre that is in demand around the world. Projects like this help us stay at the front of the pack —making it easier to farm productively and drive farm gate profitably.’
The project will focus on the upper North Island, where pasture productivity has been challenging. Research and trials will develop region-specific pasture mixes and on-farm practices that respond to changing conditions, with farmers involved every step of the way.
“This is about innovation that delivers at the farmgate. By partnering with farmers and agri-leaders, we’re backing practical solutions that drive growth and reduce red tape,” McClay says.
Today’s announcement builds on the Government’s wider support for the sector, including:

Over $400 million invested to accelerate emissions-reduction tools through AgriZeroNZ and NZAGRC;
New technologies for nutrients, genetics, and pasture resilience already underway through PSGF;
Ongoing work to remove outdated regulations and simplify compliance.

“Our message is clear: this Government backs farmers. We’re here to grow value, not bureaucracy.”

Source: New Zealand Government

City-shaping changes are coming to New Zealand’s largest city, ensuring that Auckland can fully harness the economic growth benefits of the new City Rail Link, RMA Reform Minister Chris Bishop and Auckland Minister Simeon Brown say.
The Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Bill (the Bill) has been reported back to Parliament today by the Environment Committee, containing significant changes to enable housing growth in our largest cities.
“After many months, Auckland Council and the Government have reached agreement to free up more land for housing, particularly around City Rail Link (CRL) stations. These are some of the most significant changes to the shape of Auckland since the Auckland Unitary Plan,” Mr Bishop says.
“It doesn’t make sense that we have single story houses on quarter acre sections a stone’s throw away from stations that, in a year or so, will see trains every few minutes. 
“The Government and the Council are investing billions in CRL and have a shared vision for stations that become hubs for public transport, mixed use development and new housing.
“Successive Governments and Councils have failed to grasp this opportunity for economic growth in New Zealand’s largest city. This is how modern, growing cities all around the world operate, and now it’s Auckland’s turn.”
“Today’s announcements are a result of Auckland Council and the Government working together to deliver a plan for more housing that works for Auckland.  The Bill now has the effect of abolishing the Medium Density Residential Standards (MDRS) in Auckland while requiring more housing density around key public transport corridors – a common sense solution for Auckland,” Auckland Minister Simeon Brown says.
“Auckland must grow to fully meet its potential as a world-leading city. The one sized-fits-all approach of the MDRS was not appropriate for Auckland. Today’s announcement will ensure our city grows where it makes the most sense and maximise on the significant investment made in the City Rail Link.”
“I want to thank Auckland Council, particularly Mayor Brown and Councillor Richard Hills, for their pragmatic approach to solving these complex challenges over many months,” Mr Bishop says.
“Mayor Brown has previously described this situation as “RMA gymnastics” and he is right, but I am confident that these arrangements align with our shared vison of density and development in places that work for Aucklanders.”   
Removing ability to opt-out of the MDRS
“The Bill as introduced provided councils with the flexibility to opt out of the MDRS, if they could show they had provided for 30 years of housing growth in their district and unitary plans,” Mr Bishop says.
“Councils have been going through plan changes for years in order to incorporate the MDRS. Most councils have already substantially completed their plan changes through this process, with just three (Auckland, Christchurch and Waimakariri) yet to finish.
“Th practical reality is that if councils did vote to “opt out” of the MDRS, they would have to pass a new plan change to do so, and due to the length of time this typically takes under the RMA, by the time this was complete, the Government’s new planning system is expected to be in place.
“Fundamentally, it would have achieved nothing, but cost ratepayers a lot. “The Government has therefore taken the pragmatic view that it would be sensible to remove the ability for councils to opt out of the MDRS and to work on bespoke legislative solutions for Auckland and Christchurch instead.”
New plan change for Auckland 
“Auckland’s intensification plan change, PC78, has been underway since 2022. Progress has been slow for many reasons, including the Auckland floods. The intensification plan change process does not allow Auckland to “downzone” certain areas due to natural hazard risk – only to “upzone” them – and the Council wrote to the government asking them to fix this problem,” Mr Bishop says.
“The Government has therefore agreed to change the Bill to allow Auckland to withdraw PC78. However, the government is determined to unlock housing capacity in Auckland and fix our housing crisis and has taken steps to ensure this is achieved.
“Earlier in the year I directed Auckland Council to bring forward decisions on the parts of PC78 that relate to the city centre, requiring final decisions to be made by the end of May. Auckland Council met this requirement, finalising this part of PC78 on 22 May 2025. 
“These decisions made by the council are a step forward in increasing development capacity in Auckland’s CBD, but there is more work to be done.
“The Bill as reported back from the committee now allows Auckland Council to remove the remaining parts of PC78, but requires them to process a new plan change urgently. This plan change must be notified by 10 October this year, and must enable housing capacity equal to or greater than that enabled by PC78.
“As I’ve indicated, the Government is keen to see greater density around public transport, particularly City Rail Link stations. The Bill therefore now also requires Auckland to allow for greater density around the key CRL stations of Maungawhau (Mount Eden), Kingsland, and Morningside.
“Auckland Council must enable within a walkable distance from these stations heights and densities reflective of the higher demand for housing and business in these areas. This requirement goes further than the existing requirements under the NPS-UD, and I expect heights and densities that ensure we make the most of the opportunities offered by this transformational transport project.
“The government is also considering whether further amendments to the Bill to fully maximise development opportunities around other CRL stations as necessary, and I will have more to say in due course.”
30 years of growth for Christchurch 
“Christchurch City Council also requires a bespoke solution, as they have made a number of decisions on their plan change to implement the MDRS and NPS-UD, known as PC14, but have yet to complete it,” Mr Bishop says. 
“Last week I released my decisions on the recommendations from the Council on parts of PC14. These decisions will enable a greater level of development in and around Christchurch City’s urban centres.
“Christchurch City Council is currently required to finalise the MDRS components of PC14 by December 2025. The Bill will allow Christchurch to withdraw the MDRS parts of PC14 provided they allow for 30 years of housing growth at the same time. Assessment of that target will be made by me based on advice from officials.”
Additional changes 
“In addition to these changes, the Environment Select Committee has recommended a suite of changes to improve the workability of the Bill and help unlock growth in infrastructure and energy, farming and the primary sector,” Mr Bishop says.
The Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Bill will have its second reading in the coming weeks and is expected to pass into law in mid-2025.”
Note to Editors: 
Waimakariri District Council were much further progressed in their plan change than Auckland and Christchurch, and are expected to make decisions on their plan change on 30 June, before the Bill’s expected third reading.

Source: New Zealand Police

New Plymouth Police are working to locate missing person Jan.

Jan was last seen walking north along State Highway 3 near the intersection of Thomason Road, between Egmont Village and New Plymouth at around 11am yesterday.

She was last seen wearing long pants and a green jacket.

Police have serious concerns for her welfare.

If you see Jan, or have any information that could help, please contact Police online at 105.police.govt.nz, clicking “Update Report” or by calling 105 and quoting file number 250611/5626.

ENDS

Source: New Zealand Government

Applications have opened for a $30 million fund for projects that will enhance the resilience of New Zealand’s coastal shipping connections and help boost economic growth, Associate Transport Minister James Meager has announced.

The Coastal Shipping Resilience Fund was established through the Government Policy Statement on land transport. Funding will be allocated through a contestable process, with the criteria’s scope confirmed today.

“The coastal shipping sector is vulnerable to natural hazard risks. Disruption to the sector could worsen New Zealand’s supply chain and economic performance,” Mr Meager says.

“This long-term investment is crucial to ensuring we as a nation can get our goods to market, which is vital to growing the economy. Economic growth means more jobs, higher incomes and better public services for all Kiwis.”

The fund will be used to invest in a small number of landmark projects, to support assets and facilities with a long lifespan well beyond the three-year funding period.

This could include strengthening wharves and jetties, improving access routes to and from ports, or upgrading freight handling equipment.

Preference will be given to applications which include co-investment.

Mr Meager says the fund will also consider requests from sectors that support the resilience of the wider coastal shipping sector through, for example, energy and fuel, navigation aids, or the training of seafarers. 

“Coastal shipping plays an important role in New Zealand’s freight network. It provides a safe and low emitting way of transporting large, heavy cargo such as shipping containers – along with cement and aggregate used in building new infrastructure.

“It is also a lifeline when natural disaster strikes, as demonstrated following Cyclone Gabrielle when coastal shipping provided critical services to Tairāwhiti. The fund will ensure those benefits can continue.

“The fund will enhance the coastal shipping sector’s ability to prepare for, respond to and recover from disruptive events that would otherwise undermine our coastal freight connections.”

Source: New Zealand Police

Attributable to Inspector Nicky Cooney, Eastern Bay of Plenty Area Commander:

Bay of Plenty Police are urging motorcyclists to ensure they’re wearing appropriate safety gear before going for a ride, after recent crashes in the region.

We are seeing more instances where riders are not wearing the correct protective equipment, including a helmet.

No Police officer wants to knock on somebody’s door to tell them their loved one has been seriously injured or killed, so we’re asking riders to take all the necessary steps to ensure their safety.

Ensure your safety gear, including your helmet, is properly fitted. This could be the difference between walking away from an accident or not.

If you’re riding with friends, ensure everyone is riding safely and has all the correct equipment on before you go. Dangerous behaviour on the road that can be seen as ‘fun’ can have serious consequences.

More safe riding tips can be found here – Safe riding tips | NZ Transport Agency Waka Kotahi.

ENDS

Issued by the Police Media Centre

Source: New Zealand Government

The Government is stepping up support for rural New Zealand with a $4 million Rural Wellbeing Fund to expand investment in community-based initiatives, Agriculture and Forestry Minister Todd McClay announced today at Fieldays.
“The establishment of this fund is a result of advocacy by Federated Farmers Chair, Wayne Langford, who has been a long-time champion of rural wellbeing and mental health,” Mr McClay says. 
The contestable fund to drive rural health and community resilience will prioritise initiatives that have strong local backing and secure co-funding from industry or regional partners. It will support new and existing initiatives like Surfing for Farmers, Farmstrong, NZ Young Farmers, FirstMate and many more.
A five-member panel with representation from the primary sector will be established to assess project applications. Projects must demonstrate strong local delivery, provide clear benefits to rural people, and ability to attract co-investment from industry and sector partners.
“We’re backing the people on the ground who are already doing great work—this fund is about scaling up, reaching further, and removing barriers for rural communities to lead their own wellbeing efforts,” Mr McClay says.
This fund brings the Government’s total investment in rural resilience and mental health to more than $11 million over the next four years.
“This package is about ensuring the farmers and growers who generate our export income, create jobs, and sustain our regions have the support they need to thrive,” Mr McClay says.
“When rural New Zealand is well, New Zealand does well,” Mr McClay says.
In addition to the Rural Wellbeing Fund, the Government has confirmed:

$6 million over four years for Rural Support Trusts across the country;
An extra $1 million in 2025 for frontline rural mental wellbeing services;
$400,000 in grants for A&P shows that foster rural connection and pride; and
$250,000 to support the expanded outreach work of Rural Women New Zealand in 2025/26.

Expressions of interests for project funding are now open. For more information, visit www.mpi.govt.nz.

Source: Privacy Commissioner

This guidance aims to help agencies respond appropriately to requests for personal information about children and young people.  The guidance covers:

• Information Privacy Principle 6 (IPP 6) of the Privacy Act 2020.
• Who can make an IPP 6 request for information about a child or young person.
• Requests made by parents, legal guardians or other caregivers, including:
  • when a parent, legal guardian or caregiver is acting as a representative of the child or young person.
  • whether the Privacy Act 2020 or the Official Information Act 1982 applies
  • what other laws may apply.
• Requests made by a Lawyer for the Child.
• Responsibilities of an agency before giving access to personal information.
• Requests made by other agencies.
• Applying the guidance in practice- some examples.

Information Privacy Principle (IPP) 6 

The Privacy Act applies to any individual regardless of age.  A child or young person has the same privacy rights as an adult but sometimes needs the assistance of another person to exercise those rights. 

One of those rights is a person’s right to ask for information about themselves, set out in IPP 6. 

An agency must respond to the requester within 20 working days and usually has to provide the information, unless one of the refusal grounds applies. 

Read more general information about responding to IPP 6 requests.

Information covered in this guidance

Download a copy of this guidance (opens to PDF, 333 KB).

Who can make an IPP 6 request about children and young people?

An IPP 6 request may be made by the child or young person themselves or their representative. A representative is a person who is lawfully acting on the child or young person’s behalf.

Information requests from parents, legal guardians or caregivers

The Privacy Act does not provide an automatic right of access by a parent, legal guardian, or caregiver to their child’s personal information. 
Assessing and processing a request from a parent, legal guardian or caregiver is a two-step process:

1. Determine whether the parent, legal guardian or caregiver is a representative.
2. If yes, then determine whether any of the refusal grounds apply. 

In most cases, a parent or legal guardian can be considered a representative, particularly where the child is too young or otherwise not able to act on their own behalf. Where a caregiver is making the request, determining whether they are a representative may not be so clear cut as they won’t have the same legal status as a parent or legal guardian. 

The circumstances will be different for each request, so it is important that an agency considers each request on a case-by-case basis before deciding whether the parent, legal guardian or caregiver is acting as a representative of the child or young person. 

Step 1: When is a parent, legal guardian or caregiver a representative?

For the purposes of IPP 6, a parent, legal guardian or caregiver may be considered representative of the child where:

• the child is too young or otherwise not able to act on their own behalf, or
• an older child or young person has authorised them to make the request on their behalf. 

Before determining that a parent, legal guardian or caregiver is a representative, agencies should consider:

• The age and maturity of the child and whether they are capable of understanding and exercising their rights under the Privacy Act.
• Any court orders relating to parental access or responsibility (e.g. protection orders, custody and guardianship orders).
• Whether, based on what is known to the agency, it is (or isn’t) likely to be in the best interests of the child or young person for the parent, legal guardian or caregiver requesting the information to be able to exercise their child’s Privacy Act rights on their behalf. 

Where there is a family breakdown of some sort such as family harm, a custody or guardianship dispute or where the child is or has experienced abuse, the best interests of the child or young person should be a primary consideration. When determining whether it is in the best interests of the child or young person agencies should consider:

• the interests of the parent, legal guardian, caregiver and the child or young person are no longer the same or are in conflict, and/or disclosing the information to the parent/legal guardian would go against the child’s interests.
• whether there are reasonable grounds for believing the child or young person does not or would not wish the information to be disclosed.

If any of the factors above exist, an agency may determine that a parent, guardian or caregiver is not acting as representative of the child or young person and the request does not fall under the Privacy Act. 

Where a parent, guardian or caregiver is not a representative you can consider the request under the Official Information Act (see table below).  

Non-custodial parents

A non-custodial parent is the parent who doesn’t live with their child most of the time. Non-custodial parents with guardianship rights still have legal rights and responsibilities, ensuring they can maintain a relationship with their child.  A non-custodial parent has guardianship rights if they meet the test in section 17 of the Care of Children Act 2004 (or are otherwise appointed by the Court). 

A non-custodial parent with guardianship rights can exercise their child’s privacy rights in the same way the custodial parent can, taking the wishes of the child into account if expressed or known (for older children or young people). 

Where an agency receives an information request from a non-custodial parent with guardianship rights, it should follow the same process for managing a request from a custodial parent or other legal guardian.

Step 2: Decision to release or refuse the request

A representative does not have automatic access to a child or young person’s personal information. An agency still needs to consider whether any of the refusal grounds apply in the circumstances. 

In situations where parents are separated, agencies do not need the consent of the other parent (either custodial or non-custodial) to disclose information about the child or young person. However, agencies should consider whether the child or young person’s personal information also reveals personal information about the other parent (e.g., the other parent’s home address or contact details where there is a protection order in place). 

Read more general information about refusal grounds: Office of the Privacy Commissioner | Principle 6 – Access to personal information. 

When a request for information should be managed as an Official Information Act request

The Official Information Act (OIA) enables an individual to make a request for ‘official information’ (certain information held by public sector agencies). Official information can include personal information about other people, including children and young people. 

Where the person requesting the information isn’t the child or young person or a representative, the request should be considered under the OIA. 

The following table can help you determine which Act may apply depending on the specific circumstances of the request:

Individual making request	Purpose of request	Applicable Act
Child/young person – capable of making their own request.	Their own personal information	Privacy Act
Parent/legal guardian/caregiver of child/young person who is too young or not capable of exercising their rights. (Parent/legal guardian/caregiver probably a representative)	Personal information about the child or young person	Privacy Act, unless there are circumstances which suggest the Parent/Legal Guardian/caregiver is not acting on their behalf or in their best interests, then the request should be processed under the OIA
Parent/legal guardian/caregiver of older child or young person capable of making their own request with the older child/young person’s authorisation to make the request on their behalf. (Parent/legal guardian/caregiver probably a representative)	Personal information about the older child or young person	Privacy Act, unless there are circumstances which suggest the Parent/Legal Guardian/caregiver is not acting on their behalf or in their best interests, then the request should be processed under the OIA
Parent/legal guardian/caregiver of older child capable of making their own request where the older child/young person has made it clear they do not authorise the requestor to make the request on their behalf.(Parent/legal guardian/caregiver is not a representative)	Personal information about the older child or young person	Part 2 OIA/LGOIMA.
All other cases where a parent/legal guardian/caregiver of child/young person is determined not to be a representative.	Personal information about the child or young person	Part 2 OIA/LGOIMA. Subject to eligibility requirements in the OIA (s 12(1)), but not the LGOIMA

Other laws that may apply

Agencies should also consider whether any other laws may apply to requests made by parents, legal guardians or caregivers and proactive disclosures of children and young person’s information. These laws include:

• The Health Act 1956 and the Health Information Privacy Code (HIPC) regulate access to “health information” held by a “health agency”. Under the HIPC, parents or guardians of children under 16 years are legally defined as their ‘representatives’, whose access requests are treated as though made by the child themselves. 
  As with any information privacy request, these requests may be refused in certain circumstances (Rule 11(4) HIPC). 
• Section 103 of the Education and Training Act 2020 says that principals should tell parents about matters affecting their child’s progress through school or relationships with others. 
• Under IPP 11 of the Privacy Act 2020, an agency may disclose personal information to a third party if it believes there are reasonable grounds that one of the exceptions in IPP 11 applies. 

For example, this could be when the child or young person authorises the disclosure (IPP11(1)(c)) or where disclosure to parents is one of (or is directly related to) the purposes for which an agency obtained the information (IPP11(1)(a)). 

However, unlike IPP 6 and the OIA, IPP 11 does not give a right to access or request information. IPP 11 gives an agency discretion to disclose personal information where that agency considers it is necessary to do so (rather than legally being required to respond to a request for the information). Whether an exception applies will depend on the circumstances.

Information requests from Lawyer for the Child

A Lawyer for the Child is a specialist lawyer appointed by the Family Court to represent the interests of the child or young person in Family Court proceedings involving custody or guardianship disputes, or situations of family harm.

To fulfil their responsibilities, the Lawyer for the Child often needs information about the child or young person held by agencies such as a school or healthcare provider. When making a request for information, the Lawyer for the Child will be acting as a representative for the child or young person.

The Lawyer for the Child should provide evidence of their appointment and brief from the Family Court. (A Lawyer for the Child is appointed by Court Minute and receives their brief by letter from the Court.) If it not clear whether the requestor is acting as the Lawyer for the Child, you should ask them to provide evidence of their appointment before you provide access to any personal information.

Responsibilities of an agency before giving access to personal information

Providing access to personal information to an unauthorised person can cause serious harm to an individual and be a form of notifiable privacy breach – where the personal information is about children and young people the harm can be long lasting and significant.

When providing access to personal information under IPP 6, the agency must (Section 57 of the Privacy Act 2020): 

• be satisfied of the identity of the requestor (e.g. the child or young person or the representative)
• not provide access to the information if the agency has reasonable grounds to believe that the request is being made under the threat of physical or mental harm (coercion)
• ensure that the information intended for the requestor (or their representative) is provided to the right person.

You may need to request additional information from the requestor to satisfy these requirements of the Privacy Act. 

Confirming a requestor’s identity

Where additional information is required to confirm a requestor’s identity the agency should inform the requestor what information is required and why. Agencies must also ensure that any identification documentation requested is securely destroyed once confirmation of the requestor’s identity has been made. 

Where a decision has been made to grant access to personal information, agencies should confirm with the requestor (or their representative) the method in which they would like to receive the information and double check email, or postal addresses are correct.

Read more about how you can confirm someone’s identity.

Information requests from other agencies

Where a request for information about a child or young person is made by another agency other laws may apply. These include:

• Section 66C of the Oranga Tamariki Act permits Child Welfare and Protection Agencies to request and share information about children and young people for specified purposes. 
• Section 20 of the Family Violence Act permits Family Violence Agencies to request and share information about individuals who have been subject to family harm for specified purposes.
• Any law that requires the information to be provided to the requestor e.g. section 66 Oranga Tamariki Act, section 11 Social Security Act, section 17 Tax Administration Act.

Where requests for information are made under one of these laws an agency cannot refuse the request under one of the IPP 11 refusal grounds (or a withholding ground under the OIA). An agency should assess the request and decide whether to share the requested information in line with the law under which the request was made. 

Examples

See examples of how this guidance is applied in practice.

Download a copy of this guidance (opens to PDF, 333 KB).