Privacy report criticises police vetting
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.