KEY POINTS:
New Zealand workplaces have been fingered as allegedly among the world's worst for prying on staff, but employers deny being nosier than most.
A British-based organisation, Privacy International, has given New Zealand the lowest score for workplace monitoring - on a scale of one to five - a dishonour shared by just two other countries among 21 assessed.
Co-defendants similarly accused of "extensive surveillance" or being leaders in bad practice at work are Singapore and the United States.
This country has achieved a less damning, but nevertheless mediocre, overall grade of 2.5 across 13 privacy markers in a table of 37 nations.
That puts it ahead of Britain and the United States, where privacy defenders are particularly concerned about communications interceptions and other counter-terrorism measures impinging on human rights.
But a high score for democratic safeguards in New Zealand is mixed with relatively low ratings for communications interceptions, constitutional protection, law-enforcement access to personal information, and leadership.
Privacy International has published its survey to coincide with an international conference in London being attended by New Zealand Privacy Commissioner Marie Shroff. Her office was reluctant to comment in her absence.
The ultra-low rating has perplexed the employers' organisation Business NZ and even an Otago University employment and privacy law expert, Professor Paul Roth, who wrote a report on NZ for Privacy International.
Dr Roth last night stood by his report, but acknowledged unease at Privacy International's use of US law students to supplement its information by simply searching for news items through the internet.
"The whole thing is pretty seat-of-the pants stuff - it is not scientific."
Business NZ chief executive Phil O'Reilly said he was a little angry at what he called "shoddy" methodology.
