Garth George: Naming drink drivers a 'public good'

Back in 1993 when the Privacy Act was passed I observed to my colleagues at the time that there would be those who would turn it into a secrecy act.

I had in mind at the time the politicians and bureaucrats, both national and local, the medical profession, big business and industry who would use the act not to make information available but to keep to themselves things they didn't want the rest of us to know.

And, of course, that has happened - probably more often than not. The privacy commissioner, whose position was created by the Privacy Act, is always kept rather busy.

In her last annual report, privacy commissioner Marie Shroff noted the commission had received an overall 1142 complaints (more than three a day), an increase on the 968 received in the 2010/11 year.

But that's by the by. One of the latest misuses of the Privacy Act is down to NZ Police which has used it - once again - to deprive this newspaper of one of its valuable public services, the monthly publication of the names and details of all the drink-drivers convicted in that time.

Police headquarters last pulled this stunt back in 2009 but was quickly overruled by the then no-nonsense police minister Judith Collins. So far this time, however, there hasn't been a peep out of police minister Anne Tolley.

But is privacy the issue? I think not. Court verdicts are a matter of public record so as far as I'm concerned the privacy argument just doesn't wash.

A police spokeswoman told this newspaper that apart from privacy issues there was a significant amount of work required on the part of police to collate and validate the drink-driving lists, which originated from the courts, and for which there was "currently limited demand".

I suspect, then, that there has been an argument going on between police and the Ministry of Justice as to who should be providing the information and that this row has again reached a stalemate.

It seems to me neither wants to do the job. I have some sympathy with that view since police and justice have no doubt been the subject of cuts in funding, along with just about every other government department, so Bill English can announce a Budget surplus sometime in the future.

While the police concede that printing of the newspaper lists has been a valuable tool in the battle against drink-driving, they obviously resent having to spend time and money on preparing them. I have a certain sympathy with that stance, too.

After all, if newspapers want to publish the names and details of drink-drivers, they can do so day by day by having reporters attend the district courts and take down the details.

(which reminds me that way back when, provincial newspapers daily reported every single traffic offence that came before the old magistrate's courts, right down to fines for overparking.)

However, newspapers are under serious financial constraints, too, in these days of intense competition for media advertising dollars and in striving to maintain paid circulation figures.

Just like any government department, they have to set priorities in how their resources are spent and having newsgatherers sitting in courts for hours at a time for a sentence or three just can't be one of them.

There is no doubt that the publication of the drink-driving names and details is a public good. Naming and shaming is a powerful weapon, particularly against the young to whom image is everything.

The police should, therefore, be instructed to make provision for this service to newspapers from their road safety and crime prevention funds and continue to supply them monthly as they have for many years.

"Privacy" and "limited demand" and are simply red herrings.