Privacy+Lagislation+in+NZ

Privacy Law is a part of New Zealand lagislation which is not very old in New Zealand. The Privacy Act was passed in April 1993. The Act applies to almost every person, business or organisation in New Zealand. It sets out 12 information privacy principles, which guide how personal information can be collected, used, stored and disclosed.

 The principles are technology neutral, with the expectation that they will operate in a number of contexts and not be superseded by new technologies. Although not prescriptive the IPP set a number of standards. The Act allows the Privacy Commissioner to establish Codes of Practice that apply the Information Privacy Principles to specific activities and industries or allowing exemptions. Privacy law and employment law seem naturally to go hand in glove with each other. On one level, this is because both deal with the rights of the vulnerable, and both have a strong human rights aspect to them. Both are also subject to internationally recognized minimum standards. While there are a few areas where the Privacy Act is effective in protecting workers' interests, it has been largely a disappointment for workers, who are increasingly subjected to privacy-intrusive practices in the workplace as in other spheres of their daily lives. New Zealand’s Privacy Act has hardly affected the balance of power in relation to workplace privacy matters. Some of the information privacy principles in s 6 that might be expected to be important for privacy protection in the workplace make provision for derogations, so that, for example, individuals can expressly or impliedly waive their application. These are principles 2 and 3, which relate to the collection of information about individuals, and principles 10, and 11, which deal with the use and disclosure of personal information. The benefit of protection by the other principles, however, cannot by waived or contracted out of by individuals. Therefore, it is these non-derogable principles that should have the strongest effect in the workplace. **BUT** Unfortunately for workers, the principles are framed so loosely, and have so many exceptions, that flexibility has arguably been bought at the price of enforceability. There are several New Zealand employment law cases dealing with employees who have been dismissed for inappropriate use of internet facilities.The Privacy Act, however, has not played any significant role in these cases. In the earliest case(Graham v Christchurch Polytechnic, CEC 48/93, Palmer J (Employment Court).an employee was dismissed for allegedly harassing a female fellow staff member. The employer relied, in part, upon the employee’s e-mail correspondence with the woman as evidence. The dismissed employee sought an interim injunction to continue work pending the outcome of the case. He contended that the dismissal was improper and contravened the Privacy Act. The Court held that there was “an arguable case for procedural unfairness in this particular context. Under the Privacy Act, employers have an obligation to grant individuals access, upon request, to their own personal information (principle 6), unless one of the “good reasons for withholding”. the employee was successful in her grievance for unjustifiable disadvantage because her home telephone number was given out in error to creditors of her employer without her consent.(Dunlop v Waikato Students Union Incorporated, AA 72/03 (Employment Relations Authority). New Zealand Legislation. (2010). New Zealand legislation: acts. Retrieved 24, October 2010 from the World Wide Web: [|http://www.legislation.govt.nz] Privacy Commissioner. (2010). Retrieved 23, October 2010 from the World Wide Web: [|http://privacy.org.nz] Hubbard, J., Thomas, C. & Varnham, S. (2010). Principles of law for New Zealand business students. (4th Ed). Pearson NZ Ltd: Auckland. 12 Privacy Principles []
 * Privacy in the Workplace **
 * What is the impact of the law on the way that business is conducted in New Zealand? **
 * Cases regarding Privacy at workplace:**
 * inappropriate use of internet facilities**
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> case regarding personal information **
 * conclus<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">ion: **<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">The balance between managerial prerogative and workers’ privacy interests in New Zealand is largely determined against a backdrop of the usual dynamic of employer superiority. The employer’s requirements tend to function as the “default” position, so that it can normally rely on its right within the employment relationship to make its business run effectively and profitably. This right may allow it to do such things as open employee's mail, monitor e-mail communications, and carry out searches of desks, lockers, and bags. The employer will also have the right, based on the employee's duty of fidelity and obedience, to demand accountability for the employee's actions and activities, both on and off the job, where that affects a legitimate interest of the employer. Privacy legislation in New Zealand generally tends to reinforce this position. With a few notable exceptions, such privacy rights as do exist are more likely to stem from employment law itself than from the Privacy Act.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Refrences: **

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Created By Zaid Akram 1372 461