|
Liam Butler – 20/01/06
Social service agencies find that New Zealand’s Privacy Act creates as many problems as benefits for their clients. In 1961 Joseph Heller’s famous book titled ‘Catch-22’ was published. In it Heller wrote of a Catch-22 rule that was misused to further oppress individuals that it was designed to protect. In 2002 New Zealand’s Privacy Commissioner described the Privacy Act as ‘not a technical rule-book offering an immediate steer in a specific fact situation. Rather, it sets down clear concepts and encourages good handling practice. The principles in the Act are in fact quite general’. It is this generality which continues to be a source of consternation for social service agencies. On the one hand agencies want to protect their client’s personal information, but on the other hand they want to use it in a manner that maximizes its potential to assist that client.
On occasions such as service provider forums, working groups and conferences the Privacy Act constantly adds an awkward aspect to proceedings. To what extent, if any, should an individual’s personal information be shared in a forum? What about at the governance level of such social service providers? Should executive members of a social service agency be privy to personal information regarding the clients of the agency they govern? Under the Privacy Act confusion exists as to what extent stakeholders are entitled to view client’s personal information. This inhibits the synergy that can be created from a collaborative approach to social service issues.
To counter the generality of the Privacy Act the Privacy Commissioner has suggested that more direct guidance applicable to industries can be legislated for in industry codes.While not wanting to endorse yet more legislation for the social service sector, clients of social service agencies will continue to lose out when agencies, under the guise of protecting clients’ rights under the Privacy Act, do not share with their own governance team or other agencies information that could enhance the effectiveness of the service they offer. A Catch 22 indeed.
|
