Latest news with #PrivacyAct2020
1News
16-05-2025
- 1News
Deputy principal on leave amid police investigation into staff member
A deputy principal from Onslow College in Wellington is on leave, while the police have confirmed they have received a complaint about a school staff member and are making inquiries. The school told parents it was "undertaking a process" concerning Connor Baird, one of five deputy principals at the college, who was currently on leave. The note to parents, sent on Wednesday morning and signed off by the principal and two board chairs, addressed a recent media query about "rumours circulating in our community relating to Deputy Principal Mr Baird, who is currently on leave". "Onslow College is undertaking a process that ensures the matter is managed respectfully and fairly," it said. But as the process was confidential, it needed to respect the privacy of everyone involved and were not able to provide further information, the school statement said. "We kindly ask our community to avoid speculation, which can have unintended consequences," it said. "The wellbeing of our students, staff and whānau is our highest priority." Wellington Police confirmed to RNZ it was making inquiries after receiving a complaint relating to an Onslow College staff member. "We are working to determine if any criminal offending has taken place." The teaching council registration database showed Baird has "voluntarily agreed not to teach". It told RNZ: "When there are serious allegations made regarding a teacher's conduct, the Teaching Council's Triage Committee may seek a voluntary agreement with the teacher to step away from teaching while the matter is investigated to ensure a fair and transparent process." It should be seen as a precautionary measure without any implication or assumption of guilt, it said. "In general, the Teaching Council does not comment on complaints or Mandatory Reports that have been made to the Council (including confirming whether one has recently or previously been received in relation to a specific teacher, ECE centre, school or Kura). This is to ensure we act in accordance with the Privacy Act 2020 and the principles of natural justice."
NZ Herald
15-05-2025
- NZ Herald
Onslow College deputy principal Connor Baird on leave, under investigation as ‘rumours' circulate
'When there are serious allegations made regarding a teacher's conduct, the Teaching Council's triage committee may seek a voluntary agreement with the teacher to step away from teaching while the matter is investigated to ensure a fair and transparent process,' a council spokeswoman said. 'This agreement is known as a Voluntary Undertaking Not to Teach (VUNTT) and should be seen as a precautionary measure without any implication or assumption of guilt.' According to the Teaching Council's website, such agreements can be sought when there are immediate concerns about the safety of children and young people, and the reputation of the teaching profession. There are multiple options available to the committee, including dismissing the complaint or referring it back to the teacher's employer. If the committee seeks and secures an agreement not to teach, this appears beside the teacher's name as an annotation on the teacher's registry online. If the teacher refuses, the committee may request the Complaints Assessment Committee apply to the Disciplinary Tribunal for an interim suspension of the teacher's practising certificate. The voluntary agreement remains in place until the matter has been fully investigated and resolved. An email sent out to the school community on Wednesday said they had received a media query 'about rumours circulating in our community relating to deputy principal Mr Baird, who is currently on leave'. 'Onslow College is currently undertaking a process that ensures the matter is managed respectfully and fairly,' the email said. 'As this is confidential, we need to respect the privacy of everyone involved and we are not able to provide more information to you.' The principal, Sheena Millar, has not responded to a request for comment. The Herald also contacted the Board of Trustees, asking for confirmation a deputy principal had been stood down and seeking further information about the reason, and whether any criminal complaint had been laid. 'We will not be making media statements at this time,' the board secretary responded. A Teaching Council spokeswoman said they did not comment on complaints or mandatory reports that had been made to the council, including confirming whether one had recently or previously been received in relation to a specific teacher, centre, school or kura. 'This is to ensure we act in accordance with the Privacy Act 2020 and the principles of natural justice,' she said. 'For clarity, the Complaints Assessment Committee (CAC) is an independent decision-making body. The CAC is run by teachers, for teachers. When the Teaching Council receives a complaint, mandatory report, or referral it will first be considered by the triage committee. The triage committee is made up of Teaching Council kaimahi, including experienced, registered teachers. 'As part of the process, the teacher is invited to respond to any allegations to help inform the committee's assessment of appropriate next steps.' She said the council encouraged anyone with concerns about a teacher to submit a mandatory report or complaint with the council. 'Our priority is to keep Aotearoa's learners safe, and ensure they have access to inclusive, and high-quality education.' Ministry of Education acting hautū (leader) Te Tai Runga (South) Andrea Williams said staff matters were the responsibility of the school board, as the employer. 'Boards must follow all required workplace policies and procedures, including compliance with the Privacy Act 2020 and its associated Privacy Principles. These principles include how employee-related information can be shared.' Police have been approached for comment.
NZ Herald
05-05-2025
- Politics
- NZ Herald
‘Absolutely no justification': Senior Minister Erica Stanford sent official briefings to personal email account
'Advisable' changes had been made 'to make sure she is managing it better going forward,' he said. 'I am very relaxed about it. The reality is ... she has received unsolicited emails, she has had printing issues, she's had tech issues. She has made changes subsequently. ' But Labour leader Chris Hipkins – the author of that particular part of the 2023 Cabinet Manual that covers personal email and phone use – said technology at Parliament had improved dramatically in recent years and there was 'absolutely no justification' for Stanford's actions. 'As Prime Minister, I changed the Cabinet Manual guidance around the use of personal email accounts to make it clear that ministers shouldn't be doing that. 'The technology in Parliament has improved dramatically in the last few years. There is no longer a need to use personal email accounts, for example, to print documents. The technology is now all fully mobile.' In 2023, a new section was added to the Cabinet Manual to clarify whether ministers can use their personal email and phone numbers. In Labour's first term, former minister Clare Curran admitted to conducting some ministerial business using a Gmail account. It currently sets out rules for using a personal email account while a minister. The new section reads: 'Ministers should not use their personal email account or phone number to conduct ministerial business. 'Where the use of a personal account or phone number for ministerial business is unavoidable (for example, when ministers are travelling and/or have issues accessing their ministerial account) it is important that: (a) information is protected from unauthorised access, use, and disclosure and that classified and personal information is handled appropriately; (b) the minister's office and officials have ready access to relevant information; (c) timely responses can be made to requests for access to that information, for example, under the Official Information Act 1982 and the Privacy Act 2020; and (d) accurate records can be preserved of ministerial decision-making in line with the Public Records Act 2005 (see also paragraph 8.104).'
Scoop
25-04-2025
- Business
- Scoop
Privacy Amendment Bill — Third Reading
Press Release – Hansard Privacy Amendment Bill Third Reading – 3 April 2025 Sitting date: 3 Apr 2025 PRIVACY AMENDMENT BILL Third Reading Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I present a legislative statement on the Privacy Amendment Bill. DEPUTY SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website. Hon NICOLE McKEE: I move, That the Privacy Amendment Bill be now read a third time. The purpose of the Privacy Act is to provide a framework for the protection of an individual's right to privacy and to give effect to internationally recognised privacy obligations and standards with regard to personal information. This bill will uphold that purpose. Its main objective is to improve transparency for individuals about the collection of their personal information and better enable people to exercise their privacy rights. It achieves this by introducing a new obligation on agencies who collect personal information indirectly by third party. This change is reflected in Part 1 of the bill, which amends the Privacy Act 2020 to introduce a new information privacy principle: 3A. Agencies must now take reasonable steps to ensure that an individual is aware of the indirect collection of their personal information, as well as the purpose for which that information has been collected, the intended recipients of that information, and their rights under the Privacy Act information privacy principles. In making these changes, the bill updates New Zealand's privacy laws to be in line with international best practice. Many countries, including Australia and the United Kingdom, already require notification where information is collected indirectly. I want to draw the House's attention to the origin story of this bill. Since 2012, New Zealand has held European Union 'adequacy' status—one of only 15 jurisdictions to do so. This is an assessment from the European Union that New Zealand's privacy framework affords comparable protections to its own, and is a vote of confidence in our law. Holding EU adequacy means Kiwi businesses looking to work with their counterparts in the European Union are able to share information without more onerous contractual requirements. It provides what one submitter on this bill called 'a mini free-trade agreement' for the cross-border flow of personal information. In its first review of our adequacy status, the European Union highlighted a transparency gap in our Privacy Act where personal information is collected indirectly. This bill represents the missing piece of the puzzle that is needed for us to maintain our prized 'adequacy' status. As I've already mentioned, the bill will improve transparency about who is collecting our personal information, and that is important. Knowing which agencies hold information can empower people to exercise their privacy rights. The bill also makes a number of technical amendments to address some minor issues that have arisen since the principal Act came into force. These small fixes will improve the operation of the Act and make it more workable for agencies. Some time has passed since the bill was originally introduced in 2023 and I want to acknowledge the many people who have been involved in the process, including legal and privacy professionals, former and current members of this House, and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. I'd like to thank again the members of the Justice Committee for its work in considering this bill. The committee received 55 submissions on the bill, including a significant contribution from galleries, libraries, archives, and the museum sector. The major change to the bill at select committee was the addition of an exception for archiving in public interest, and I know Minister Goldsmith was pleased to see how the committee incorporated the submissions from this sector into its report. As acknowledged at second reading, the new requirement in the bill will mean that some agencies may need to make additional effort to comply with the Act. There are several design features of the new information privacy principle which aim to reduce unnecessary compliance burden while upholding the privacy of individuals. At second reading, Government shared with the House its intention to submit an Amendment Paper to maintain a six-month implementation period for the new information privacy principle to help agencies prepare to comply. It has since been decided to extend this period to a full year. A 12-month implementation period will allow agencies more time to get up to speed on what compliance with the new principle looks like for them. I'd like to thank the House for agreeing to this Amendment Paper during the committee of the whole House last week. Finally, I want to acknowledge the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, which is developing guidance for agencies on applying the new privacy principle. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner is carrying out targeted engagement to understand what issues matter most to agencies when thinking about compliance with the new principle. More information about this can be found on its website. In conclusion, it is important that New Zealand maintains our commitment to strong privacy protections, both for individuals and for the businesses that benefit from our privacy framework being aligned with international data protection standards. This bill supports us to achieve that, and I commend this bill to the House. DEPUTY SPEAKER: This debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 8 April 2025.
Scoop
25-04-2025
- Business
- Scoop
Privacy Amendment Bill — Third Reading
Sitting date: 3 Apr 2025 PRIVACY AMENDMENT BILL Third Reading Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I present a legislative statement on the Privacy Amendment Bill. DEPUTY SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website. Hon NICOLE McKEE: I move, That the Privacy Amendment Bill be now read a third time. The purpose of the Privacy Act is to provide a framework for the protection of an individual's right to privacy and to give effect to internationally recognised privacy obligations and standards with regard to personal information. This bill will uphold that purpose. Its main objective is to improve transparency for individuals about the collection of their personal information and better enable people to exercise their privacy rights. It achieves this by introducing a new obligation on agencies who collect personal information indirectly by third party. This change is reflected in Part 1 of the bill, which amends the Privacy Act 2020 to introduce a new information privacy principle: 3A. Agencies must now take reasonable steps to ensure that an individual is aware of the indirect collection of their personal information, as well as the purpose for which that information has been collected, the intended recipients of that information, and their rights under the Privacy Act information privacy principles. In making these changes, the bill updates New Zealand's privacy laws to be in line with international best practice. Many countries, including Australia and the United Kingdom, already require notification where information is collected indirectly. I want to draw the House's attention to the origin story of this bill. Since 2012, New Zealand has held European Union "adequacy" status—one of only 15 jurisdictions to do so. This is an assessment from the European Union that New Zealand's privacy framework affords comparable protections to its own, and is a vote of confidence in our law. Holding EU adequacy means Kiwi businesses looking to work with their counterparts in the European Union are able to share information without more onerous contractual requirements. It provides what one submitter on this bill called "a mini free-trade agreement" for the cross-border flow of personal information. In its first review of our adequacy status, the European Union highlighted a transparency gap in our Privacy Act where personal information is collected indirectly. This bill represents the missing piece of the puzzle that is needed for us to maintain our prized "adequacy" status. As I've already mentioned, the bill will improve transparency about who is collecting our personal information, and that is important. Knowing which agencies hold information can empower people to exercise their privacy rights. The bill also makes a number of technical amendments to address some minor issues that have arisen since the principal Act came into force. These small fixes will improve the operation of the Act and make it more workable for agencies. Some time has passed since the bill was originally introduced in 2023 and I want to acknowledge the many people who have been involved in the process, including legal and privacy professionals, former and current members of this House, and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. I'd like to thank again the members of the Justice Committee for its work in considering this bill. The committee received 55 submissions on the bill, including a significant contribution from galleries, libraries, archives, and the museum sector. The major change to the bill at select committee was the addition of an exception for archiving in public interest, and I know Minister Goldsmith was pleased to see how the committee incorporated the submissions from this sector into its report. As acknowledged at second reading, the new requirement in the bill will mean that some agencies may need to make additional effort to comply with the Act. There are several design features of the new information privacy principle which aim to reduce unnecessary compliance burden while upholding the privacy of individuals. At second reading, Government shared with the House its intention to submit an Amendment Paper to maintain a six-month implementation period for the new information privacy principle to help agencies prepare to comply. It has since been decided to extend this period to a full year. A 12-month implementation period will allow agencies more time to get up to speed on what compliance with the new principle looks like for them. I'd like to thank the House for agreeing to this Amendment Paper during the committee of the whole House last week. Finally, I want to acknowledge the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, which is developing guidance for agencies on applying the new privacy principle. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner is carrying out targeted engagement to understand what issues matter most to agencies when thinking about compliance with the new principle. More information about this can be found on its website. In conclusion, it is important that New Zealand maintains our commitment to strong privacy protections, both for individuals and for the businesses that benefit from our privacy framework being aligned with international data protection standards. This bill supports us to achieve that, and I commend this bill to the House. DEPUTY SPEAKER: This debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 8 April 2025. Debate interrupted.
