Taking agency's word without overwhelming evidence otherwise
T. Barn made this Official Information request to Privacy Commissioner
This request has an unknown status. We're waiting for T. Barn to read a recent response and update the status.
From: T. Barn
Dear Privacy Commissioner,
In correspondence between myself and your office, your staff have used phrases such as "We generally take the agency’s word in these situations unless there is clear evidence suggesting otherwise" and "I acknowledge you disagree with this, however our Office usually takes the agency’s word unless there is evidence suggesting otherwise.".
Please show me where in your policy does it say you should take this stance. Show me where in the legislation are you expected to automatically believe everything an agency being complained about says.
I note that you have previously provided your policy on handling complaints to fyi.org.nz at: https://fyi.org.nz/request/20878/respons...
This policy makes no mention of your "automatically agree with the agency" stance. So show me the policy and/or legislation it actually comes from.
Yours faithfully,
T. Barn
From: OIA
Privacy Commissioner
Tēnā koe
Please find attached a response to your official information request.
Ngā mihi
Joanna Hayward
General Counsel | Rōia Matua
Office of the Privacy Commissioner Te Mana Mātāpono Matatapu
PO Box 10094, The Terrace, Wellington 6143
Level 11, 215 Lambton Quay, Wellington, New Zealand
privacy.org.nz
show quoted sections
Things to do with this request
- Add an annotation (to help the requester or others)
- Download a zip file of all correspondence
Offensive? Unsuitable?
Requests for personal information and vexatious requests are not considered valid requests for Official Information (read more).
If you believe this request is not suitable, you can report it for attention by the site administrators
Report this requestAct on what you've learnt
Similar requests
Information for the purpose of participating in the Royal Commission inquiry into the attack on Christchurch Mosques.
To Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment by Mahrukh Sarwar
Information for the purpose of participating in the Royal Commission inquiry into the attack on Christchurch Mosques.
To Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet by Mahrukh Sarwar
T. Barn left an annotation ()
For others reading this: this stance by the Commission means that any agency dealing with a privacy complaint against them only has to say "no it didn't happen" or "no we don't store that" and their word is automatically believed. The Act does not allow us to appeal the Commission's decision, nor take it to the tribunal, if the Commission does not start a formal investigation. Which they will not do if they just automatically believe the agency.
The agency is the one with all the power in this situation. They hold the information. During any other form of litigation, we could get a court order during Discovery to force them to hand over evidence of their breaches. But because the Commission "gatekeeps" what can get to the tribunal, we are completely powerless to get a way to see for ourselves that our privacy is not being breached.
Link to this