NZ Engine

Source:

Simon Humphries, Head of the Labour Inspectorate, emphasises the importance of understanding these regulations:

“On three and a half days each year, almost all shops must close under the Shop Trading Hours Act 1990. These are Christmas Day, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and until 1pm on ANZAC Day.”

“Easter Sunday, 20 April 2025, is a restricted trading day under the Shop Trading Hours Act 1990, meaning most shops must remain closed. However, certain shops may open if they meet specific conditions.”

Those businesses permitted to trade include places such as a dairy, petrol station, pharmacy, restaurant or cafe, hairdressers, and barbers. Farmers and crafts markets are also included in this category. These places have certain conditions they need to meet, but they can be open.”

“Employees have the right to refuse work on Easter Sunday without providing a reason. This right applies to all shop employees, including those in exempted shops like dairies and petrol stations, as well as staff performing non-trading work such as shelf-stacking or stocktaking.”

Employers must notify employees of this right in writing between 4 and 8 weeks before Easter Sunday. Failure to provide proper notice means employees cannot be compelled to work on that day.

“We want both employers and employees to understand that they have responsibilities and a process to follow when either an employer wants an employee to work on Easter Sunday, and where employees don’t want to work that day.”

Simon understands there has been confusion over the years on exactly which types of shops can open on restricted trading days. Some shops can also open on restricted trading days because they have an area exemption. These are generally given in tourist areas such as Taupō or Queenstown.

Councils can put in place local policies that allow shops within their area, or parts of it, to trade on Easter Sunday. Councils create local policies, and then notify MBIE.

“Generally, what we see is that people know the rules and are doing things right, what we’re keen to see is this extended across the board,” says Simon.

If you suspect a business is breaching the Easter trading laws, notify MBIE via our online reporting form.

Labour Inspectorate complaints(external link) — Employment New Zealand

Source:

The marketing boost is estimated to result in over 23,000 additional international visitors spending an extra $100 million across the country.

Tourism New Zealand will carry out the marketing activities, which will focus initially on encouraging visitors from Australia, USA, China, India, Germany and Korea. It will start rolling out immediately to increase international arrivals around the regions through winter, spring and into early next year.

International marketing works well, with around 14% of New Zealand’s international holiday visitors directly influenced by Tourism New Zealand’s marketing. 

The funding comes from the International Visitor Conservation and Tourism Levy (IVL). Other tourism initiatives in 2025 include: 

• $500,000 for marketing New Zealand as the ‘go now’ destination for Australians
• $9 million for New Zealand Cycle Trail Fund to enhance the Great Rides 
• $3 million for a Regional Tourism Boost
• $3 million to secure more business events for New Zealand
• $2.45 million for the second round of the Regional Events Promotion Fund
• additional $30 million to support conservation visitor related experiences.

Read the Minister’s announcement.

Tourism turbocharge takes New Zealand to the world(external link) — Beehive.govt.nz

Source:

The Fund aims to strengthen capability, capacity, skills and networks between Māori and the science and innovation system and increase understanding of how research can contribute to the aspirations of Māori organisations and deliver benefit for New Zealand. 
 
A total of $3.9 million (excl. GST) has been awarded across the 16 projects over the next two years. MBIE Contestable Investments Manager Alan Coulson says these projects focus on innovation, climate resilience and community organisation that will benefit communities and grow the Māori economy.
 
“Projects selected through this latest funding round aim to improve aquaculture, find innovative solutions to issues affecting our seas, and prepare for future extreme weather events. These are subjects that impact all of us and I look forward to seeing the outcomes and benefits of this work for our economy, environment and people nationwide,” he says. 
 
MBIE Director Māori Science, Innovation and Technology Dr Willy-John Martin says improving the connection between science and Māori aspirations enhances the impact of our research and builds greater potential for the future of New Zealand. 

“The enhanced capabilities of today lead to the transformative scientific achievements of tomorrow. The science connections and outcomes created from these projects will further realise Māori potential and help to grow New Zealand’s prosperity.”
 
Projects supported through the 2025 Te Pūnaha Hihiko: Vision Mātauranga Capability Fund include:

• Hatchery Technology Development for the Aquaculture of Freshwater Crayfish and Mussels – a project aiming to develop a freshwater aquaculture system to produce climate resilient food while researching how freshwater species important to Māori can be appropriately managed.
• Kaitiaki whai whakamāramatanga: assessing seaweed bloom events for improved ecosystem management – a project looking at surging seaweed blooms, fuelled by nutrient overload, reduced herbivory, and climate change. This project will develop tools and provide access to technology to make informed decisions, build resilience, and guide future research into drivers and potential uses of stranded seaweed.
• Enabling Māori communities to respond to and mitigate the impacts of frequent and severe extreme weather events. Ka Tuku Te Toro ki Uta, Ka Tuku Te Toro a Tai – This collaborative project aims to support the Makarika community and Mata to effectively respond to climate challenges. The goal is to build a model of climate resilience that can be adapted by other indigenous communities facing similar challenges.
• Community based emergency management: Mobilising disaster science for effective Māori response and recovery – As climate disasters increase, Māori face growing threats to their lands, homes, people, and culture. The project will establish a Māori Disaster Practitioners Network—informed by research and supported by domestic and international expertise—will address gaps in understanding and implementation to empower Māori leadership in times of crisis with evidence-based approaches to better respond to and recover from disasters.
• Increasing engineering and mātauranga capability to develop sustainable natural and built environment solutions for communities to prosper – This project will provide research, science and innovation to support engineering projects in a sector that seeks to embrace te ao Māori and support uptake and application of engineering by Māori communities.

A full list of the funded projects can be found on the Te Pūnaha Hihiko: Vision Mātauranga Capability Fund page.

Te Pūnaha Hihiko: Vision Mātauranga Capability Fund 2025 recipients

Source:

The Government consulted on the proposal late last year and has announced that from 1 July 2028, fuel importers that have more than a 10% market share must hold an additional 7 days’ supply onshore.

New Zealand uses around 11 million litres of diesel every day and while the chances of a severe and sustained fuel disruption are low, the consequences for Kiwis and the economy would be catastrophic.

Building resilience must carefully balance the risks with the cost of mitigation to the sector and ultimately consumers. A reserve of 28 days will enable New Zealand to better ride out smaller disruptions and, in the event of a major supply event, allow time for other solutions to be put in place.

Increased diesel reserves to improve resilience(external link) — Beehive.govt.nz

Source:

A recent decision by the Human Rights Review Tribunal (HRRT) illustrates how other legislation can interact with and override the Privacy Act.

When a man imported a 1982 Lancia Montecarlo car, he became unhappy about the repair work and certification necessary for it to be registered for use on New Zealand roads.

The man had requested advice and repair from an NZTA accredited repair certifier at a car repair company. After the car had been repaired and was certified as compliant by VTNZ, the man noticed a crack in the car’s chassis. He then complained to NZTA about the repairer. After an investigation, NZTA advised it would not be taking any further action on his complaint.

Disputes Tribunal

The man then filed a claim against NZTA and VTNZ with the Disputes Tribunal. The claim was also made against the car repairer and the repair company. In response, VTNZ used the Official Information Act (OIA) to request any information about previous complaints involving the man. NZTA responded to this request by providing a copy of a complaint the man had made in 2005 which also resulted in a Disputes Tribunal claim.

The circumstances of the 2005 claim had similarities to his recent claim. At that time, the Disputes Tribunal dismissed the man’s claim. This led NZTA to email the Disputes Tribunal, attaching the Tribunal’s 2005 decision and requesting that his second claim be dismissed for the same reasons. As required by the Dispute Tribunal’s procedures, NZTA’s correspondence to the Tribunal was copied to the man, VTNZ and other respondents.

The man then withdrew his claim against NZTA and was unsuccessful in his claim against VTNZ and the other parties. However, he requested under the OIA copies of emails between VTNZ and NZTA. He wanted to find out who had accessed his personal information and he subsequently complained to the Privacy Commissioner.

The Privacy Commissioner’s investigation found no breaches of principles 5, 8, 10 and 11 of the Privacy Act.

The man took his case to the HRRT claiming NZTA interfered with his privacy and seeking damages and compensation for expenses.

NZTA disputed there had been any interference with the man’s privacy under principles 5, 8, 10 and 11 of the Privacy Act and claimed immunity under the OIA and Disputes Tribunal Act.

Section 48 of the Official Information Act

NZTA said it was immune from HRRT proceedings in relation to its disclosure of the 2005 claim to VTNZ because of section 48 of the OIA.

Section 48 of the OIA says there can be no proceedings, civil or criminal, against a Crown agency which in good faith makes information available in accordance with the OIA.

The man claimed he was the victim of cronyism between NZTA and VTNZ and he had been racially discriminated against.

The HRRT found there was insufficient evidence to prove there was any cronyism, collusion, racism, or other form of bad faith in the NZTA’s OIA response. It decided the information was provided in good faith and the OIA immunity applied.

Section 58 of the Disputes Tribunal Act

Section 58(2) of the Disputes Tribunal Act confers the privileges and immunities available in judicial proceedings on all parties to Disputes Tribunal proceedings. This protects parties from civil actions relating to their conduct in Disputes Tribunal proceedings, including claims under the Privacy Act.

The HRRT agreed with NZTA’s argument that its Disputes Tribunal email to the parties with the 2005 decision attached was covered by the section 58 immunity provision.

NZTA also presented an alternative argument that, even if section 58 did not provide immunity, the disclosure was permitted by principal 11 of the Privacy Act because that disclosure was necessary for the conduct of proceedings before any court or tribunal.

The HRRT agreed that the disclosure was permitted by principle 11 as NZTA believed that it was necessary to send the information, the information was relevant to the Disputes Tribunal proceeding, and NZTA had considered whether it was necessary to send the decision to defend themselves against the claim.

Principle 5 of the Privacy Act

The man also claimed NZTA had breached principle 5. In response to his access request, he had been told that his 2005 complaint file had been accessed once but the access records showed it had been accessed more than once.

Principle 5 requires an organisation to maintain reasonable security safeguards over personal information.

NZTA clarified the man’s information was indeed accessed twice – once for the OIA request and once when the man himself requested a copy of it. The agency had told the man the information had been accessed once because it assumed his query did not include his own access to the information.

NZTA also provided significant detail to the Tribunal on the storage system it used, explaining how the audit system on its records database worked. The Tribunal was satisfied the system was robust and had clear audit trails.

Conclusion

The HRRT struck out the man’s claims against NZTA under principles 8,10 and 11 of the Privacy Act for providing his complaint file to VTNZ. It decided NZTA had acted on the VTNZ request in good faith. Section 48 of the OIA therefore prohibited this aspect of the man’s claim being pursued.

The HRRT struck out the man’s claims under principle 11 and 8 for the disclosure in the Disputes Tribunal because NZTA had immunity arising from its actions in such proceedings under section 58 of the Disputes Tribunal Act.

It said even without the immunity afforded by section 58 of the Disputes Tribunal Act, the email to the Disputes Tribunal and the other respondents did not breach principle 11 of the Privacy Act.

The HRRT found there was no breach of principle 5.

It noted that all the man’s claims against NZTA had been unsuccessful and made no orders in his favour.

Postscript

In addressing the issues raised by the case, the HRRT mentioned the transitional provisions of the Privacy Act 2020 which took effect on 1 December 2020.

It noted that the transitional provisions provide that HRRT proceedings must be continued and completed under the 2020 Act, but that does not alter the relevant legal rights and obligations in force at the time the actions subject to this claim were taken.

Accordingly, all references in this decision are to the 1993 Act. This aligns with our Office’s approach to the transitional provisions.

Image credit: Lancia Montecarlo via carfromuk.com

Human Rights Review Tribunal

Back

Source:

A woman worked as a receptionist for Manawatū Community Law Centre (the Centre) on a one-year contract. During her employment she alleged workplace bullying and harassment and filed personal grievance claims.

Against this backdrop, the Centre’s WINZ advocate (Ms A) made two requests to WINZ for the receptionist’s personal information:

• The first request was made in July 2016 immediately following an acrimonious performance review meeting with the manager of the Centre. The information request asked whether the receptionist was still receiving a benefit from WINZ or any WINZ assistance.
• The second request was made in March 2017, at which time the receptionist was on leave having filed two personal grievance claims against the Centre. This request asked for a wide range of personal information about the receptionist, including copies of WINZ file notes dating back to January 2012, and details of any outstanding debts.

On both occasions, Ms A attached a privacy waiver form that had been signed by the receptionist in May 2016.  That waiver had been given for the purpose of enabling WINZ assistance to be provided to the receptionist. The receptionist complained that the Centre’s actions in requesting information from WINZ and using that information in the context of an employment matter, breached her privacy.

The Centre denied breaching the receptionist’s privacy and argued it wasn’t unreasonable for it to re-use the privacy waiver.  It also argued that its employee, Ms A, had acted without its authority, had “gone rogue”, and that the Centre was therefore not responsible for her actions.

The Privacy Commissioner’s findings

The receptionist’s complaint was first investigated by our Office, which concluded that the Centre had breached privacy principles 1,2, and 4, but not principle 10.

We also concluded that the Centre’s actions caused harm to the receptionist, and that there was an interference with her privacy.

The Human Rights Review Tribunal decision [2021] NZHRRT 10

The Tribunal agreed with our assessment that it was unfair and unreasonably intrusive for Ms A to re-use the privacy waiver (and that this breached privacy principle 4).  The privacy waiver had been given for the narrow purpose of enabling WINZ assistance to be provided to her, and could not reasonably be relied on to authorise the collection of information within the

Further, the Tribunal found that the requests breached privacy principle 2 as there were no reasonable grounds to believe that the receptionist had authorised the disclosure or that any of the other exceptions applied, and that the second (but not the first) request breached privacy principle 1 due to the breadth of the information sought. 

The Tribunal also found that use of her social welfare number to obtain further information about her in the context of an employment dispute breached privacy principle 10. 

Harm

The receptionist gave evidence that she felt ‘disgusted and hurt’ that the Centre went behind her back twice to get information it was not entitled to, with the purpose of discrediting her in an ongoing investigation relating to her allegations of workplace bullying.

The receptionist said that when she found out about the privacy breach, she felt vulnerable and that her personal information had been exposed for the purpose of trying to belittle her.

The Tribunal was satisfied that the receptionist suffered significant humiliation and injury to her feelings as a result of the privacy breaches.

The Tribunal also found that the Centre was vicariously liable for the actions of Ms A in making the requests to WINZ, as she was acting in her capacity as an employee.

Damages awarded

While the receptionist had sought damages of between $98,000 – $200,000 (being the ‘category three’ band in Hammond v Credit Union Baywide), the Tribunal did not accept that the case was analogous.

The Tribunal made a declaration that the Centre had interfered with the receptionist’s privacy by breaching privacy principles 1, 2, 4 and 10, and awarded damages of $6,000. Costs have been reserved.

 

 

 

 

Back

Source:

The Human Rights Review Tribunal heard a case concerning a surgeon’s disclosure to ACC and other doctors that her patient’s mother had made a complaint to the Health and Disability Commissioner (HDC) about her.

The mother complained about this disclosure under the Privacy Act as she was anxious that the disclosure would prejudice her son’s care under his new physician. While the Tribunal found there was a breach of privacy principles 10 and 11, ultimately the Tribunal found this was not an interference with the mother’s privacy.

Corrective surgery had unexpected outcome

The mother’s son experienced pain and discomfort following surgery and his overall condition worsened.

During a follow up appointment, the mother asked for her son’s care to be transferred and made a complaint to the Health and Disability Commissioner (HDC).

When reviewing her file to respond to the HDC complaint, the surgeon wrote to his GP and the surgeon who was now treating him and completed the ACC form, referring to the fact that the mother had made an HDC complaint. The mother was unaware that ACC, the GP and the new surgeon had been informed about her HDC complaint and so made a complaint to OPC that this was an interference with her privacy and her son’s privacy.

Privacy Commissioner’s investigation

The Privacy Commissioner’s Office investigated the complaint but concluded this was not an interference with the mother’s privacy.

Tribunal finds privacy breach but no interference

The HRRT upheld the Privacy Commissioner’s finding, however notably the HRRT did find there had been a breach of principles 10 and 11. These principles require an agency not to use or disclose personal information unless it has reasonable grounds to believe that at least one of the exceptions applies. The Tribunal did not consider that the disclosure complied with the IPP 10 or 11 as the exceptions that the ADHB relied on, namely the authorisation exception (IPP 11) or the related purpose exception (IPP 10 and 11) did not apply.

The fact that the mother had made an HDC complaint was considered to be her personal information and her son’s health information (mixed information), and the privacy interests of both individuals needed to be considered before it could be used or disclosed. The surgeon subjectively believed that the mother had authorised the disclosure when signing patient registration forms, and that sharing the information was for one of the purposes it was collected for. However, the Tribunal did not have evidence that the disclosure was directly related to the purpose for which the information had been obtained, nor did the patient authorisation extend to the sharing of the mother’s personal information. The personal information relating to the HDC complaint was received by the surgeon for the purpose of responding to that complaint, it did not relate to ACC or another doctor, and there was no objective reason for sharing the existence of the HDC claim.

However, the Tribunal found this was not an interference with the mother’s privacy, despite the mother explaining the personal impact of the disclosure on her, which included stress, anxiety, despair and deep upset, and the Tribunal acknowledging that the realisation that the surgeon had told others about her HDC complaint had caused the mother stress.

While the Tribunal acknowledged that the consequences of the surgery had a profound impact on the mother and her son, the Tribunal had to be satisfied that the disclosure and use of the HDC complaint was a contributing or material cause, not just part of the overall background. The Tribunal did not have evidence that the son’s medical treatment was adversely affected by the ADHB disclosure and use of the mother’s personal information. While the Tribunal acknowledged that disclosure or use of the HDC complaint could amount to an interference with privacy under s 66(1)(b)(iii) (injury to feelings), evidence was required that this was significant and causally linked to the breaches of the privacy principles.

R v ADHB [2021] NZHRRT 5  

Note: This case was heard in December 2019 and decided under the Privacy Act 1993. The Privacy Act 2020 came into force on 1 December 2020.

Back

Source:

When caught out by her employer shopping online during working hours, a woman’s attempt to claim reparations for humiliation and distress was thrown out by the Human Right’s Review Tribunal when a series of light-hearted, emoji-filled messages between the woman and her employer revealed that there was no evidence of harm.

The online shopping incident

A woman bought shoes online from Betty’s Empire Limited during work time, using her workplace address for delivery.

On receipt of the woman’s order, a Betty’s Empire employee realised he knew someone at her place of work and thought the delivery address did not match the one he was personally familiar with. He sent a copy of the invoice to his contact and asked whether the delivery address was correct.

When the woman found out her employer knew about her shopping, she contacted the online customer service team at Betty’s Empire to cancel the order and complain about the sharing of her order with her employer. Betty’s Empire ordered a courier to uplift the shoes from her. She was provided with an apology, a full refund, and offered a $200 credit. Betty’s Empire issued a warning to the employee involved.

The woman contacted the Office of the Privacy Commissioner to complain. She said she felt violated and stressed following the incident and that it had caused animosity in her workplace.

The Privacy Commissioner’s findings – no significant humiliation

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner (OPC) found that the woman’s complaint raised issues under principle 11 of the Privacy Act 1993. Principle 11 says that agencies that hold personal information about an individual must not disclose that information, unless one of the exceptions listed in principle 11 applies.

In order to find an interference with the woman’s privacy OPC had to be satisfied that Betty’s Empire breached principle 11, and that the woman had been harmed, as defined in section 66(1)(b) of the Privacy Act 1993, by that breach.

OPC found that while the woman appeared to be annoyed and embarrassed by the actions of Betty’s Empire, she was not significantly humiliated. As Betty’s Empire acknowledged the breach, took steps to ensure the mistake did not happen again, apologised, and offered the woman a $200 credit, OPC closed the file.

Following this investigation, the woman took her case to the Human Rights Review Tribunal.

The Human Rights Review Tribunal decision [HRRT 009/2019] – no interference with privacy

The Human Rights Review Tribunal did not accept the woman’s evidence of harm, which included being paranoid to shop online and that retail therapy was no longer a “thing”.

The Tribunal noted that when her employer received the receipt from Betty’s Empire, they sent her a message with a photo of her online shopping order stating, “I see your (sic) being productive at work”. This was accompanied by three emojis, two of them showing laughing faces.

Rather than embarrassment, the woman’s response to her employer was to acknowledge that while she was “snapped”, she referred to her employer as also shopping online during work hours. She also added emojis showing laughing faces to her reply.

The Tribunal was not satisfied that the breach of privacy principle 11 by Betty’s Empire caused the woman harm and ruled that there had been no interference with her privacy. The case was dismissed, and no damages were awarded.

No Costs award against the unsuccessful plaintiff

Betty’s Empire sought costs of $6,000 against the woman, on the grounds that her case had brought discredit to their business.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for costs stating that the purpose of a costs order is not to punish an unsuccessful party, and that the prospect of an adverse costs award may discourage others from bringing proceedings to ‘the inexpensive and accessible form of justice which is the hallmark and strength of a tribunal’.

As stated in an earlier case, apart from the Tribunal, there is no other forum for a plaintiff to test an agency’s compliance with the Privacy Act. In this case, the Tribunal was the only forum for her to seek a remedy for the admitted breach of privacy principle 11. While the Tribunal can make costs awards against unsuccessful plaintiffs where a claim is found to be without merit or justification, the plaintiff’s failure to properly articulate appropriate remedies did not justify a costs award.

Human Rights Review Tribunal, IPP11 – disclosure

Back