Auckland District Law Society
SEMINAR


ACCESS TO INFORMATION FOR IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE
LAW PRACTITIONERS


Presenter: Jeanne Donald, Solicitor, Ryken and Associates

Auckland - 25 November 2002


INDEX

INTRODUCTION

1. SPECIFIC PROBLEMS IN THE IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE CONTEXT
1.1 Failure to itemize and failure to give reasons for withholding information
1.2 Failure to put policy in writing
1.3 Non-English language documents and false passports
1.4 Travel details
1.5 Country information
1.6 Information provided by person requesting the information
1.7 Documents taken at airport going missing
1.8 Adequacy of reasons for detention decisions

2. THE STATUTORY FRAMEWORK
2.1 The Official Information Act 1982
2.1.1 What kind of information can I obtain?
2.1.2 Who has to provide information?
2.1.3 Assistance, time frames and fees
2.1.4 Reasons for non-disclosure
2.1.5 Challenging non-disclosure
2.2 The Privacy Act 1993
2.2.1 What kind of information can I obtain?
2.2.2 Who has to provide information?
2.2.3 Assistance, time frames and fees
2.2.4 Reasons for non-disclosure
2.2.5 Challenging non-disclosure
2.3 The NZIS manual & prejudicial information

3. OBTAINING INFORMATION HELD BY FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS

4. PRACTICAL TIPS
4.1 Early and often
4.2 Advising your client as to the (in)completeness of disclosure
4.3 Family members
4.4 Trading deletions for documents
4.5 Country information
4.6 Matters before the RSAA

CONCLUSION
 


ACCESS TO INFORMATION FOR IMMIGRATION
AND REFUGEE LAW PRACTITIONERS
 

INTRODUCTION

This paper does not purport to be a comprehensive overview of the Privacy Act 1993 and Official Information Act 1982.  It is an introduction to access to information in the field of immigration and refugee law, the specific problems faced by practitioners in this area of the law and how the law can help resolve those problems.  The aim is to encourage practitioners to make more, and better, use of the Privacy Act and the Official Information Act and to provide some practical pointers to practitioners who request information from the New Zealand Immigration Service (“NZIS”) and Refugee Status Branch (“RSB”) on behalf of their clients.

The first part of the paper seeks to demonstrate the relevance of access to information in the immigration and refugee context by reference to some of the current problems faced by practitioners.  Next, the paper outlines some aspects of the statutory framework providing for access to information in New Zealand.  Part three deals with requesting information held by foreign governments.  Finally, part four makes some practical suggestions concerning access to information.

1. SPECIFIC PROBLEMS IN THE IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE CONTEXT

1.1 Failure to itemize and failure to give reasons for withholding information

The RSB does not specify what material is being withheld when it responds to Privacy Act requests.  This may be contrasted with the practice, for example, of the Auckland Border and Investigations branch of the NZIS (“B&I”) which lists each document, provides the date of the document (where it is dated) and specifies whether it is a letter, email, fax etc.  This is of great assistance to practitioners because the more details provided, the easier it is to make an informed decision whether to challenge non-disclosure.

1.2 Failure to put policy in writing

Policy that is not recorded in writing is very difficult to access.  An example of this is the Refugee Status Branch’s asserted policy that all Afghan nationals are subject to a linguistic assessment (or more accurately are required to provide a record of their speech which then may or may not be assessed).  However, as this “policy” does not exist in writing.  It is not possible to obtain a copy of the “policy”.

1.3 Non-English language documents and false passports

The RSB has been known to withhold documents because they are not in English.  At the same time, they have professed their reluctance to obtain a translation of the documents for reasons of cost.  To add insult to injury the documents in question were provided to NZIS by the refugee claimant on arrival in New Zealand.

There is a similar issue with the false passports used by claimants to travel to New Zealand not being disclosed.  Generally, section 29(1)(a) of the Privacy Act (disclosure of the affairs of another person) is relied on.

1.4 Travel details

The Refugee Status Branch appears to have a policy of not releasing refugee claimants’ travel details, (ie flight number, airline, last port, false identity used for travel), prior to interview.  The details in question are deleted from documents on the file and the RSB relies on s 27(1)(c) of the Privacy Act, (discussed below).  Unfortunately, refugee claimants are not always aware of their complete travel details and they sometimes lie about their travel for a variety of reasons.  In the circumstances, travel details can be a very important aspect of a claimant’s case.

1.5 Country information

At present, the RSB refuses to provide practitioners with a copy of country information relied on and cited in their interview reports.  Frequently, the information in question is easily accessible, for example US Department of State reports available on the internet.  However, citations often refer to an internet site that no longer exists, or to material provided to the RSB by the Nicholson library.  Material held by the Nicholson Library does not always present a problem, but it can do so when a practitioner is acting for detained claimants and must respond to interview reports within very short time frames.  The RSB takes the approach that it has no obligation to provide a copy of cited country information because the information is “publicly available” (refer section 18 of the Official Information Act).

1.6 Information provided by person requesting the information

There have been several instances where documents provided to the NZIS by claimants at the airport have subsequently been withheld by the RSB.

1.7 Documents taken at airport going missing

There have also been instances of documents surrendered at the airport going missing.  This includes important identity documents.  It is not unusual for a document to be held by the airport police and no copy provided to B&I or the RSB.

1.8 Adequacy of reasons for detention decisions

Sometimes, the “reasons” B&I gives when it decides not to release a detained claimant are grossly inadequate and amount to nothing more than a recitation of basic biographical details such as name, age, marital status, occupation, nationality and travel to New Zealand.

2. THE STATUTORY FRAMEWORK

Below, the paper provides a brief introduction to the Official Information Act and Privacy Act and refers to the access to information provisions of the NZIS Operational Manual (“the Manual”)

2.1 The Official Information Act 1982

2.1.1 What kind of information can I obtain?

Section 2(1) of the Official Information Act defines “document” very broadly to include any writing, any information stored on audiotape, computer or other device, any label, any book, map, plan, graph, or drawing, any photograph, film, negative or videotape.

In practice, one of the most important provisions of the Official Information Act is the right to reasons set out in section 23 of the Act.  It is worth noting that section 23(1) of the Act obligates the department, minister or organization to provide a written statement of:

(a) the findings on material issues of fact;
(b) reference to the information on which the findings were based; and
(c) the reasons for the decision or recommendation.
Reference to section 23 is very useful when challenging the adequacy of the reasons the NZIS and RSB gives for its decisions, for example, the adequacy of B&I’s reasons for continuing to detain a refugee claimant.

2.1.2 Who has to provide information?

Section 2(1) of the Official Information Act defines “official information” and sets out which bodies are subject to the Act.  The NZIS and RSB are subject to the Act.  The Official Information Act does not apply to the RSAA in relation to its judicial functions (refer section 2(6)(c) of the Act).

2.1.3 Assistance, time frames and fees

Section 13 places an obligation on departments, ministers and government organizations to give reasonable assistance to persons wishing to request official information.  This specifically includes transferring misdirected requests to the appropriate department, minister or organization (section 14).  Such transfers should take place within 10 working days.  Where the NZIS or RSB suggests to a practitioner that a request for information should be directed to another body, they should be reminded of their duty to promptly transfer the request.

Official information should be provided as soon as reasonably practicable, and in any case not later than 20 working days (section 15).  Practitioners may request urgency but must give reasons for doing so (section 12(3)).  Time frames may be extended (section 15A).

Your client may be charged a reasonable fee for the cost of making information available, this includes labour and materials and the cost of dealing with a request urgently (section 15(2)).  The department, minister or organization may request that the fee be paid in advance (section 15(3)) and indeed it is common for offshore branches of the NZIS to do so.

2.1.4 Reasons for non-disclosure

The Official Information Act specifies a number of conclusive reasons for withholding information (section 6).  They relate to:

(a) prejudice to security, defence, or international relations;
(b) prejudice entrusting of information to the NZ government by the government of another country or an international organization;
(c) prejudice to the maintenance of the law;
(d) danger to the safety of any person; and
(e) damage to the economy of NZ by premature disclosure of government economic or financial policies.
The Official Information Act also specifies a number of other reasons for withholding official information which involve a balancing of interests (section 9).  They relate to:
(a) the privacy of natural persons;
(b) trade secrets and commercial information;
(ba) information subject to an obligation of confidence;
(c) health and safety;
(d) economic interests;
(e) material loss to members of the public;
(f) constitutional conventions;
(g) conduct of public affairs;
(h) legal professional privilege;
(i) commercial activities;
(j) negotiations; and
(k) improper gain or advantage.
The Official Information Act also provides that a request may be refused because inter alia the information is or will soon be “publicly available” (section 18).

2.1.5 Challenging non-disclosure

Decisions under the Official Information Act may be referred to the Ombudsmen for investigation and review (section 28(1)).  This process is initiated by way of written complaint (section 28(3).  If an Ombudsman is of the opinion that a request for information should not have been refused he shall make a report to the department, minister or organization and make such recommendations as he sees fit (section 30(1)).  The complainant shall be given a copy of the recommendations and such other information as the Ombudsman thinks proper.  The Ombudsman’s recommendations have teeth.  Section 32 of the Act imposes a public duty to observe an Ombudsman’s recommendation.  That duty comes into force 21 working days after the day on which the Ombudsman’s recommendation is made.

I turn now to consider the Privacy Act.

2.2 The Privacy Act 1993

2.2.1 What kind of information can I obtain?

Section 2(1) of the Privacy Act defines “personal information” as “information about an identifiable individual; […]”.  The definition of “document” is identical to that found in the Official Information Act (see para 2.2.1 above)

2.2.2 Who has to provide information?

The Privacy Act applies to a much broader range of bodies than the Official Information Act, including as it does both public sector and private sector agencies (refer section 2(1).  Once again, however, the RSAA is not subject to the Privacy Act in relation to its judicial functions (section 2(1)(viii)).

2.2.3 Assistance, time frames and fees

Section 38 of the Privacy Act obligates agencies to give reasonable assistance to any individual who wishes to make an information privacy request and this includes an obligation to transfer requests where appropriate (section 39).

An agency should respond to a Privacy Act request as soon as reasonably practicable, and in any case, not later than 20 working days after receiving the request (section 40).  Urgency may be requested, but reasons must be given (section 37).  The time limits may be extended on specified grounds (section 41).

The Act provides that public sector agencies shall not charge for processing information requests (section 35(1)) unless authorized to do so by the Privacy Commissioner (refer section 36).  Private sector agencies may charge for making information available and for correcting information (section 35(3)).

2.2.4 Reasons for non-disclosure

The Privacy Act specifies a number of “good reasons for refusing access to personal information” in Part IV of the Act.  This paper deals only with sections 27(1)(a), (b) and (c) and section 29(1)(a) simply because they are the most relevant for our purposes.

Section 27(1) states:

27. Security, defence, international relations, etc -
(1) An agency may refuse to disclose any information requested pursuant to principle 6 if the disclosure of the information would be likely -
(a) To prejudice the security or defence of New Zealand or the international relations of the Government of New Zealand; or

(b) To prejudice the entrusting of information to the Government of New Zealand on a basis of confidence by-

(i) The government of any other country or any agency of such government; or

(ii) Any international organization; or

(c) To prejudice the maintenance of the law, including the prevention, investigation, and detection of offences and the right to a fair trial.
Section 27(2) of the Act states that information may not be withheld under subsection (1) of section 27 if the withholding of the information is outweighed by other considerations which render it desirable, in the public interest, to make the information available.

Consider, as an example, the withholding of refugee claimant’s travel details in reliance on section 27(1)(c) (discussed in paragraph 1.4 above).  To date, the RSB has not indicated:

(a) how the disclosure of travel details may prejudice the maintenance of the law;
(b) what offence or offences are at issue; or
(c) how disclosure of travel details may prejudice the prevention, investigation or detection of the relevant offence(s).
Nor has the RSB indicated how the situation changes subsequent to a claimant’s interview so that information that was previously withheld may be released.

Section 29(1)(a) of the Privacy Act states:

29. Other reasons for refusal of requests -
(1) An agency may refuse to disclose any information requested pursuant to principle 6 if -
(a) The disclosure of the information would involve the unwarranted disclosure of the affairs of another individual or of a deceased individual.
Consider, as an example, the RSB’s refusal to disclose a copy of a refugee claimant’s false, photo-substituted passport in reliance on section 29(1)(a).  It is difficult to see how the providing a copy of information previously in the possession of the applicant (usually a false identity committed to memory) can constitute the unwarranted disclosure of the affairs of another person.  As suggested below at paragraph 4.5, it may be appropriate, however, to delete unique identifying details such as the passport number or any personal address found in the passport.

2.4.5 Challenging non-disclosure

The Privacy Act contains a number of “information privacy principles” (section 6).  The most relevant, for our purposes, is principle 6(1) which states that an individual shall be entitled access to personal information held about him or herself.  Moreover, section 11 of the Act explicitly states that the entitlements conferred by principle 6 are, as they relate to information held by a public sector agency, legal rights enforceable in a court of law.

As such, non-disclosure may be challenged, for example, by way of judicial review or by seeking a declaratory judgment that a public sector agency must disclose specific personal information.

However, the Privacy Act also provides for complaints to the Privacy Commissioner (section 67). Attached to this paper are a simple draft letter of complaint in response to non-disclosure by the RSB and a standard letter from the Privacy Commissioner responding to the complaint.

The Privacy Commissioner may investigate complaints (section 69), form an opinion, and if unable to secure a settlement between the parties, refer the complaint to the Director of Human Rights Proceedings (“DHRP”) (section 77).  The DHRP may choose to take proceedings before the Human Rights Tribunal (section 82) or the complainant may bring proceedings himself or herself (Section 83).  The remedies available are specified in section 85(1) of the Act and include:

(a) a declaration;
(b) a restraining order;
(c) damages;
(d) an order that the defendant perform acts remedying the interference; and
(e) such other relief as the Tribunal sees fit.
The damages which may be sought include damages for pecuniary loss, loss of a benefit, humiliation, loss of dignity, and injury to feelings (section 88(1)).

2.3 The NZIS manual & prejudicial information

The NZIS Manual, in the Administration section dealing with fairness and natural justice, specifically states applicants must be informed of prejudicial information and given a reasonable opportunity to respond to it.  In relation to refugee claimants, the Manual states that a refugee status officer must disclose to a claimant any prejudicial information if it was not obtained from the claimant and is not publicly available information.

3. OBTAINING INFORMATION HELD BY FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS

It is often advisable for a practitioner to take steps to obtain a copy of a foreign file on behalf of a claimant rather than simply relying on the RSB to do it.  If possible, where a claimant gives consent to the RSB to obtain a foreign file, such consent should be contingent on a full copy of the file being released to the claimant.

Keep in mind that a refugee status officer has the power under section 129H(1)(b), (c) and (d) of the Immigration Act to:

(b) Require the claimant to produce such documents in the claimant’s possession or within the claimant’s ability to obtain as the officer requires:

(c) Require the claimant to consent to the release by any other person of any relevant document or information relating to the claimant:

(d) If the officer has good cause to suspect that a person other than the claimant has in his or her possession or controls any document of the claimant (including any passport or travel document), in the prescribed manner request the person to produce any such document.

Therefore, if a claimant obtains his or her foreign file, the RSB has the power under section 129H(1) to require that the file be produced to it.

4. PRACTICAL TIPS

4.1 Early and Often

Requesting information held by the NZIS about a client is something all practitioners should do early and often (a bit like billing).  When a practitioner takes instructions, making a Privacy Act/Official Information Act request is one of the first things he or she should do.  This applies almost without exception in both immigration and refugee matters.

Immigration clients often instruct a lawyer long after their dealings with the NZIS began.  It is very important that practitioners know exactly what has happened to date, prior to making any representations to the NZIS on their client’s behalf.  Clients will often urge practitioners to simply rely on the client’s version of events; it is very important, for the client’s sake, that practitioners resist this temptation.

Similarly, for refugee clients, both the practitioner and his or her client should, of course, know what the NZIS knows before interview, but also, before the client’s statement in support of his or her claim is provided to the RSB.

There will also be situations where further Privacy Act/Official Information Act requests are necessary.  Essentially, if a practitioner has any reason to suspect that the NZIS/RSB has further information about his or her client, a further request should be made.  It is also important to make such a request when there has been any decision by an NZIS officer.

4.2 Advising your client as to the (in)completeness of disclosure

When a practitioner provides a client with a copy of his or her file, or reviews the file with the client, it is extremely important that the client is advised whether material has been withheld, the reasons for non-disclosure and what that material may be.

4.3 Family members

In immigration matters, a practitioner should always considers whether to request, not just his or her client’s file, but also the files of family members.  It is not uncommon in a marriage case, for example, that material relating to one spouse is withheld from the other’s file on the basis that its disclosure would constitute an unwarranted disclosure of the affairs of another.  This can be dealt with by obtaining a Privacy Act waiver from both spouses.

4.4 Trading deletions for documents

It is often helpful to challenge non-disclosure of a document on the basis that the reasons for non-disclosure can be dealt with by deletions to the document rather than withholding the entire document.  For example, where the document is a photo-substituted passport, and the reason for withholding it is the protection of the true passport holder’s privacy, that individual’s privacy may be protected by the deletion of any unique identifying details such as the passport number.

4.5 Country information

Reviewing the country information cited by the RSB is extremely important.  Practitioners, need to look at the context of any material cited, the methodology of the document it was sourced from and any footnoted material.  At present, the RSB does not provide practitioners with copies of the country information it cites in interview reports.  While the information in question may well be publicly available from the Nicholson library, in detainee cases where time is of the essence, practitioners may try appealing to refugee status officers’ better nature, spirit of cooperation, collegiality or any other notion which gets results.

4.6 Matters before the RSAA

Generally, the information before the RSAA is information held on the RSB and NZIS files, and on occasion, information held on the RSB and NZIS files of other persons.  Because the RSAA is not subject to the Privacy Act or Official Information Act, it is important that all necessary information is obtained from the RSB and NZIS prior to your client’s RSAA hearing.

CONCLUSION

Access to information is important, especially in the immigration and refugee law field.  To use the law relating to access to information effectively, immigration and refugee law practitioners need:

1. To establish effective systems within their practice to ensure that:
i. Requests are made early and often;
ii. Clients are aware of what information (if any) is withheld;
iii. Unwarranted non-disclosure is challenged as a matter of course;
2. A basic understanding to the statutory framework; and

3. Perseverance and stamina when dealing with bureaucracy.

Challenging unwarranted non-disclosure of information is an important step practitioners can take on behalf of individual clients.  However, it is also a means of ensuring that obligations under the Official Information Act and Privacy Act are taken seriously by government.  When we ignore government’s failure to meet its obligations under the Privacy Act and Official Information Act, we are sending a signal that we don’t care about transparency and fairness, because access to information is above all about fairness.  So, I encourage you all to use the Privacy Act and the Official Information Act effectively, and where you think information should be disclosed, make a complaint to the Privacy Commissioner or Ombudsmen.
 



 

[Date] 2002
 

The Privacy Commissioner
PO Box 466
AUCKLAND
 

Re: Complaint pursuant to s 66 of the Privacy Act
       Breach of Information Privacy Principle 6
       [Client’s name]

We act on behalf of [client’s name].  [Client’s name] is a refugee claimant [currently detained at the Mangere Refugee Detention Centre – where applicable].  On behalf of [client’s name] we wish to make a complaint against the New Zealand Immigration Service (NZIS) concerning their refusal to disclose information related to [client’s name].

We requested a copy of all information concerning [client’s name] by letter dated [date] (copy enclosed).  The NZIS has withheld information pursuant to s 27 (1)(c) of the Privacy Act and has refused to disclose any information whatsoever regarding the basis for their decision to withhold the information in question.  We attach a copy of a letter from the Refugee Status Branch of the NZIS dated [date].  As a result, we are unable to assess whether the decision to withhold information is lawful and we are seeking the Privacy Commissioner’s intervention.

In addition, the Refugee Status Branch deleted our client’s flight details and the name of the carrier that he used in his travel to New Zealand.  We are of the view that the Refugee Status Branch and New Zealand Immigration Service has a policy/practice of not releasing information regarding travel to New Zealand until after an individual’s Refugee Status Branch interview.  We believe this policy/practice is unlawful and we seek your intervention.

We submit that this complaint falls within sections 66(1)(a)(i), 66(1)(b)(ii), 66(2)(a)(i) and 66(2)(b) of the Privacy Act 1993.

We look forward to hearing from you.  Please do not hesitate to advise us if there is further information we can provide which will assist your investigation of our client’s complaint.

[signature block]

Copy to RSB
Copy to client
 



 

[LETTERHEAD OF PRIVACY COMMISSIONER]
 

31 October 2002
 

Ryken and Associates
Barristers & Solicitors
PO Box 501
AUCKLAND

Attention:  Jeanne Donald, Solicitor
 

Dear Ms Donald

PRIVACY ACT COMPLAINT: YOUR CLIENT, [NAME DELETED] - NEW ZEALAND IMMIGRATION SERVICE (OUR REF: [DELETED])

The Privacy Commissioner has asked me to acknowledge your letter of 23 October 2002 in which you make a complaint on behalf of your client, [name deleted] about the actions of New Zealand Immigration Service.

My understanding of your client's complaint is that he requested, through you, access to information held about him.  He received some information but some was withheld under s 27(1)(c) of the Privacy Act.  Mr [name deleted] alleges that NZIS has not specified the basis for its decision to withhold the information.  He considers this amounts to an interference with his privacy.

Your client's complaint raises issues under Principle 6 of the Privacy Act.  I enclose a copy of this Principle for your information.

The Commissioner will now conduct an investigation into the complaint.  NZIS has been informed of your client's complaint and has been asked to provide comments to the Commissioner within 20 working days.  Once we have received a response, we will be in a better position to assess the complaint in light of the relevant principles of the Privacy Act.  We will then be in further contact with you to discuss how the investigation of the complaint should be proceeded with.

Initially, your client's complaint will be allocated to a Complaints Management Officer.  The role of the Complaints Management Officer is to commence the investigation of the complaint by gathering facts relevant to the complaint from both parties and assisting in making an assessment of the complaint to decide what further action would be appropriate.  Where possible, the Complaints Management Officer will attempt to conciliate a settlement of the complaint.  With the cooperation of the parties, many complaints are able to be resolved in this way.

Where it is not possible to settle the complaint, the Commissioner may decide not to take the matter any further.  In those circumstances, you will be advised of that possibility and asked for your comments.  If the complaint is not settled or closed, the Commissioner will consider whether one of his Investigating Officers should make further investigations into the matter.  Due to a backlog, it may be some months before an Investigating Officer could be assigned to your case.  You would be notified when this occurs and would receive a letter confirming this from the Investigating Officer assigned to the complaint.

The investigation is carried out impartially.  The Commissioner does not represent the complainant or the respondent.  If it is not possible to bring about a settlement between the parties, the Commissioner may form an opinion as to whether or not an interference with your client's privacy has occurred.  During the investigation, the Commissioner gives both parties an opportunity to comment on allegations made.  In some cases, further investigation reveals circumstances which indicate that further action is either not appropriate or necessary.  If that appears to be the case, you would be notified and asked to comment.

Once an  investigation has been conducted, the Commissioner may form a provisional opinion as to whether an interference with your privacy has occurred.  The party who receives the provisional opinion is given an opportunity to respond to it and may submit further relevant information.  Following a provisional opinion, the Commissioner will review the matter and may either make further inquiries, or decide to discontinue the investigation, or provide his final opinion.

The Commissioner's opinions are not decisions, rulings or judgments.  They are not binding on either party.  Should the Commissioner form an opinion that the actions of the party complained about have amounted to an interference with the privacy of an individual, he is unable to award any remedy to a complainant.  However our experience is that most agencies take the final opinion seriously and in many cases the opinion is accepted and the complaint resolved.

There are no statutory timeframes involved in an investigation.  You should be aware that, due to the number of complaints received and the staff available to the Commissioner, there are sometimes considerable delays in the process.

If the Commissioner considers the complaint has substance and no settlement can be reached, he may refer the matter ot the Director of Human Rights Proceedings.  Before the Director decides to take civil proceedings before the Human Rights Review Tribunal, he will give notice to the agency to give it an opportunity to make submissions to him.  If he then decides to take proceedings, they will be at no charge to you.  If the Commissioner decides not to refer the matter to the Director of Human Rights Proceedings, you may take proceedings yourself once the Commissioner has discontinued his work and completed his final opinion or decided that the matter ought not to be proceeded with.  We would provide you with information to assist with this process.  Likewise, if the Director decides not to take proceedings, you may do so.

The Human Rights Review Tribunal, if it decides in your favour, may order the agency to stop the action complained about, award damages, or order that the agency put the situation right, if possible.  Costs may be awarded for or against either party.

If you wish to discuss this complaint, or any aspect of the procedure, please contact me on direct dial (04) 494 7089.
 

Yours sincerely
 
 

Phillipa Ballard
Manager, Investigations

Encl: Principle 6
 


PRIVACY ACT 1993

PRINCIPLE 6

Access to personal information

(1) Where an agency holds personal information in such a way that it can readily be retrieved, the individual concerned shall be entitled -

(a) To obtain from the agency confirmation of whether or not the agency holds such personal information; and

(b) To have access to that information.

(2) Where, in accordance with subclause (1)(b) of this principle, an individual is given access to personal information, the individual shall be advised that, under principle 7, the individual may request the correction of that information.

(3) The application of this principle is subject to the provisions of Parts IV and V of this Act.