In many organisations, the responsibility for privacy rests with just one person. That single privacy person is expected to be the responder to breaches, the handler of privacy requests, the privacy by design specialist, the reviewer of vendor arrangements and the trainer of staff, all at once. It’s a role that sits at the heart of trust and compliance, but it is also one that can feel incredibly lonely.

Australia has introduced new transparency rules for organisations that rely on these Automated Decision Making (ADM) technologies. From 10 December 2026, the Privacy Act will require organisations to explain their use of ADM when those decisions significantly affect the rights and interests of an individual.

It’s a scenario that makes many organisations pause: the police call, email or turn up asking for personal information. There’s a strong instinct to help, however, there’s the requirement to protect the privacy of the people whose information you hold.

Last week Parliament passed the Privacy Amendment Bill through its third reading, confirming the introduction of a new Information Privacy Principle IPP 3A focused on indirect collection. This isn’t a change that can be left until the week before commencement. The work must start now.

When most people think about the Privacy Act 2020, they picture government agencies, and big corporates. But here’s the truth: it applies just as much to your local sports club, a neighbourhood charity, or a professional society as it does to corporates. Being a not-for-profit doesn’t mean you’re exempt.

In the rush to show progress on privacy, many organisations begin by building data catalogues of personal information. They invest in tools, run workshops, and inventory every system, every database, every field. On the surface, this feels like progress: “we’ve mapped our personal information.” But the truth is, without context, cataloguing is a dead end.

In conversations with New Zealand organisations about their privacy programme, one theme comes up again and again: “We’re using a processor in Europe, so the GDPR must apply to us.” Simply using an EU-based processor does not mean that GDPR applies unless other conditions are met.

Scroll through many organisations’ websites in New Zealand and you’ll find a link to something called a “Privacy Policy.” Nine times out of ten, though the content isn’t a policy at all it’s a privacy statement. And while the difference might seem like splitting hairs, in practice it reveals a lot about how seriously an organisation takes privacy and the level of privacy maturity.

When a customer signs up for a service, the focus is often on speed and convenience. Seamless onboarding is seen as the gold standard. Yet, in that very moment, one of the most important privacy decisions is made: do you actually know who this person is?

When organisations in New Zealand talk about personal information, two words often surface: anonymisation and pseudonymisation. They are often used interchangeably but the difference between them is more than semantics. It defines whether the Privacy Act 2020 applies and how much risk individuals are exposed to.

Walk into a New Zealand supermarket today and it’s no longer unusual to see CCTV cameras silently watching over the aisles. Increasingly though, those cameras aren’t just recording, they may also be recognising individuals. Facial recognition technology (FRT) is shifting from futuristic possibility to everyday reality in retail.

Biometric time and attendance systems that rely on fingerprints, facial scans, or voice prints promise fewer “buddy punches” and more accurate payroll. But the very systems that make this possible handle some of the most sensitive information an organisation can collect about its staff.

When people talk about privacy, they often fall back on the term PII (Personally Identifiable Information) instead of “personal information.” At first glance it might seem harmless, even interchangeable. But in reality, it’s a tell-tale sign of low privacy knowledge and maturity within an organisation. It says: we haven’t really stopped to think about the privacy laws in New Zealand.

The Biometric Processing Privacy Code has now been issued. It will come into force in two tranches:

• 3 November 2025 – for biometric processing that starts after 3 November 2025

• 3 August 2026 – for biometric processing already in use on or before 3 November 2025

Think outsourcing means you’ve handed over the responsibility for personal information? Think again.

Under the Privacy Act, even if you outsource operations to a third party, your organisation remains accountable for the personal information they access and manage on your behalf.

Understanding the relationship between the parties is especially important when it comes to indirect collection — that is, receiving personal information from a third party rather than directly from the individual.

The UK Data (Use and Access) Act — DUAA for short — has passed into law, and it’s set to shake up how websites serving UK residents (including NZ businesses targeting UK audiences) deal with cookies.

In reality, it’s often both, and recognising the overlap is critical for organisations seeking to comply with the Privacy Act and maintain trust. There’s a strong and sometimes overlooked intersection between fraud and privacy breaches.

Did you know that every organisation in New Zealand is required by law to have a Privacy Officer? That includes businesses of all sizes, public agencies, and not-for-profits — no one is exempt.

It’s common practice for employers to take photos of staff during the course of their employment. These photos may be used for training materials, internal communications, team events, or external promotion such as recruitment campaigns and marketing content.