The Press

Privacy report criticises police vetting

- TOM PULLAR-STRECKER

Police vetting checks carried out for employers on half-a-million New Zealanders each year have been criticised in a report released by the country’s privacy commission­er.

The main purpose of police vetting is to provide informatio­n to agencies that employ staff or volunteers who work with vulnerable groups, such as children and people with special needs.

But the joint report by the Office of the Privacy Commission­er and the Independen­t Police Conduct Authority said there was no clear framework for such checks, which had instead evolved over time, largely driven by demand from employers.

Police only accept vetting requests from 7500 ‘‘approved agencies’’, including government agencies, schools and sports clubs.

But the report said it was not clear some of the agencies that had been approved should be on the list.

The Real Estate Agents Authority used to insist that real estate agents consent to police vetting checks. But the High Court in Auckland ruled in December that was not justified.

Police vetting is broader than just checking someone’s criminal history and can involve the release of any interactio­ns an individual might have had with the police – whether or not that involved court action.

Police rules mean job candidates should agree to be vetted and the results must be kept confidenti­al and later destroyed by employers.

But the report said informatio­n had sometimes been released without verified consent and coherent guidelines were needed about what informatio­n should be released.

The number of requests for vetting checks has jumped from 200,000 to more than 500,000 over the last 10 years.

They were likely to become more commonplac­e as a result of the Vulnerable Children Act that was passed in 2014, the report said.

About 2 per cent turned up informatio­n that meant police had to consider whether to disclose informatio­n.

The report said that could include informatio­n that had not been verified as correct by the courts or any other independen­t agency that could be ‘‘very prejudicia­l’’ to individual­s and that they might have little ability to contest.

It recommende­d police should clearly articulate the thresholds that needed to be passed before releasing informatio­n and document the reasons for those decisions.

 ??  ?? A report co-authored by privacy commission­er John Edwards says police vetting checks have soared.
A report co-authored by privacy commission­er John Edwards says police vetting checks have soared.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from New Zealand