Dear Accident Compensation Corporation,

Please can you provide the fullest possible answers and explanations to the following questions:

1) Which government department or official is the Privacy Commissioner answerable to and does this department or official receive and investigate complaints about the Privacy Commissioner's office not complying with the Privacy Act and other relevant legislation, and not exercising the authority provided under the former enactment?

2) Where an employee of the Privacy Commissioner's office refuses to exercise the authority provided under the Privacy Act in terms of finding a breach of this enactment, and where there is irrefutable evidence proving same, what recourse does the complainant have other than complaining to the Ombudsman?

3) If the abovementioned recourse is to apply for Judicial Review, given that the approximate minimum $10,000 legal costs associated with such applications and hearings are affordable to a very small minority of New Zealanders, why is there no free Public Protector's Office s in New Zealand (such as in "third world" South Africa where the Public Protector may investigate, on the basis of a complaint or on his or her own initiative, any level of government; including national, provincial and local government, any public office bearer, any parastatal and any statutory council or body)?

4) ACC complaints submitted to the Privacy Commissioner's office in Auckland are routinely transferred to the Privacy Commissioner's (head) office in Wellington. Why is this the case?

5) There are a number of employees working at the Privacy Commissioner's office in Wellington who routinely deal with ACC complaints. Why is this the case?

6) How many complaints has the Privacy Commissioner's office in Auckland and Wellington received over the past 10 years that are related to the ACC?

7) How many complaints has the Privacy Commissioner's office in Auckland and Wellington received and investigated over the past 10 years that are related to the ACC?

7) Of the complaints received and investigated by the Privacy Commissioner's office in Auckland and Wellington over the past 10 years that are related to the ACC, how many have found breaches of the Privacy Act?

9) Of the complaints received and investigated by the Privacy Commissioner's office in Auckland and Wellington over the past 10 years that are related to the ACC, and where breaches of the Privacy Act have been found, how many have had HRRT certificates issued to the complainants? And, did all of the issued certificates confirm that a breach had been found?

10) Of the complaints received and investigated by the Privacy Commissioner's office in Auckland and Wellington over the past 10 years that are related to the ACC, and where breaches of the Privacy Act have been found, how many did have not had HRRT certificates issued to the complainants?

11) Of the complaints received and investigated by the Privacy Commissioner's office in Auckland and Wellington over the past 10 years that are related to the ACC, where breaches of the Privacy Act have been found and HRRT certificates have been issued to the complainants, how many complaints proceeded to hearings that were funded by the HRRT?

12) Of the complaints received and investigated by the Privacy Commissioner's office in Auckland and Wellington over the past 10 years that are related to the ACC, and where breaches of the Privacy Act have been found and HRRT certificates have been issued to the complainants, how many complaints proceeded to hearings that were not funded by HRRT (but were funded by the complainants)?

13) If an ACC complainant is dissatisfied with the action or inaction of the Privacy Commissioner and consequently complains to the Ombudsman, it is highly probable that the Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint or the related complaint about the Privacy Commissioner's action or inaction, and that the file will be closed even before the complainant has had an opportunity to comment on this decision. Is this an acceptable standard of practice given that the Principles of Natural Justice require that an affected person must be given a fair opportunity to comment on a decision that is likely to affect them before that decision is made?

14) Why are the Privacy Commissioner and Ombudsman routinely writing to complainants - and have being doing so for over a year now - saying that their offices are overloaded with complaints, that they cannot cope, and that it will take some months before a response is forthcoming, and, what is the Government doing to address the worsening backlog which is seeing complainants waiting many months, even years, for a simple letter which more often than not advises complainants that there are no grounds for an investigation and that the file has been closed?

15) Is there any sort of agreement, policy, procedure or guideline applicable to the Government, the Privacy Commissioner and/or the Ombudsman that provides for any sort of limit on the number of ACC complaint investigations undertaken and conducted by the aforementioned offices? If not, why is there an increasing appearance of political interference in the actions and inactions of the aforementioned offices, and why is there a growing number of disgruntled ACC complainants saying the same thing viz-a-viz there is no justice to be had by complaining to the Privacy Commissioner and/or the Ombudsman no matter how serious the complaint, the strength of the evidence supporting complaints about clear and irrefutable breaches of the Privacy and Official Information Acts, the Privacy and Official Information Acts providing the necessary authority to conduct investigations and establish findings of breaches, etc.

16) ACC complainant sentiment generally is that the Privacy Commissioner and/or Ombudsman are refusing to exercise their authority under the Privacy and Official Information Acts in response to the growing number of ACC complaints because this would result in record numbers of investigations being conducted with equal numbers of breaches being found, and, which would obviously attract attention to the failings of the ACC in terms of how it is not complying with the Privacy and Official Information Acts in response to requests made under both of these enactments. What is the Government's view of this situation?

Yours faithfully,

Lee M.

Dear Jane Foster,

Thank you for replying, however, pages 1 and 2 of the document you have posted at FYI are illegible. Please delete this information and replace it with a legible document.

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

Lee M.

Dear Jane Foster,

Can you please correct the illegible information as previously requested. It is peculiar that page 3 is legible but pages 1 and 2 are not. A primary purpose of asking for information at FYI is so that it is publicly available to all. The way the information has been provided is not acceptable and does not fit with the purpose and intention of the FYI website.

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

Lee M.