Govt Backs Facial Recognition Tech After Privacy-Compliant Retail Trial

The Government has expressed strong support for the use of facial recognition technology (FRT) to combat retail crime, following the release of a significant report from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. The report confirmed that the live facial recognition model trialled by Foodstuffs North Island complies with New Zealand’s Privacy Act and has been effective in reducing serious and violent incidents in retail settings.

Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith welcomed the findings, calling it a major step forward in balancing technological innovation with public safety and privacy protections.

A Tool Against Rising Retail Crime

Retailers across New Zealand have been grappling with a sharp rise in theft, vandalism, and physical aggression toward staff. Supermarkets, convenience stores, and other retail outlets have reported alarming rates of repeat offending, often involving violent behavior that puts workers and customers at risk.

In response, Foodstuffs North Island – which operates New World, Pak’nSave, and Four Square – began trialling facial recognition technology as a preventative tool. The system scans the faces of people entering a store and checks them against a database of previously identified offenders who have committed serious incidents such as assault or threatening behavior. If a match is made, store security can be alerted immediately.

The Privacy Commission’s investigation confirmed that the model deployed was “reasonable and proportionate” under the law, and importantly, effective.

“This is great news for businesses that are considering using the technology as a means to protect their livelihoods,” said Goldsmith. “Retailers need modern tools to respond to increasingly sophisticated and dangerous forms of crime.”

Striking a Balance Between Safety and Privacy

Despite the encouraging findings, the Privacy Commissioner emphasized that facial recognition must be used with caution and accountability. Transparency, clear signage, data minimization, and restricted access to facial data are all critical requirements for legal compliance.

The report stressed that the technology should be used only for serious threats—not for petty theft or general surveillance—and only where other less-invasive measures have failed or are inadequate.

Goldsmith acknowledged these points. “The report notes that privacy concerns must be carefully safeguarded. We agree. The right to be safe in public spaces must be weighed against the right to personal privacy,” he said.

Looking Ahead: Wider Adoption and Sector Engagement

The Minister signaled that the Government’s Ministerial Advisory Group (MAG) will now closely examine the findings to determine how FRT might be adopted more broadly across the retail sector. He said the report provides a credible foundation for further consideration of this technology in crime prevention strategies.

“I expect our Ministerial Advisory Group will continue to look at this technology as an option to be used more widely and engage with the sector on it,” Goldsmith said. “I’ll be encouraging the MAG to take this report into serious consideration.”

This approach is expected to include further discussions with retailers, privacy advocates, law enforcement, and the general public to ensure any broader rollout of the technology is handled responsibly.

Support from the Business Community

Retail groups and business advocates welcomed the news, arguing that the technology offers a much-needed solution to what many describe as a crime crisis in the retail industry.

Greg Harford, Chief Executive of Retail NZ, said: “Retail crime is costing hundreds of millions of dollars each year and putting lives at risk. Facial recognition, when used appropriately, gives retailers a powerful tool to prevent repeat violence and keep staff and customers safe.”

Foodstuffs North Island also responded positively, stating that the results confirmed what they had already seen in-store—fewer incidents, improved safety, and a greater sense of security among employees.

Public Concerns and Ethical Considerations

Despite the positive outcomes, concerns remain among civil liberties groups and members of the public. Critics worry about the potential for mission creep—where facial recognition could be gradually expanded beyond its initial scope—or the misuse of personal data by private companies.

Dr. Andrew Chen, a digital privacy researcher at the University of Auckland, noted that while the trial appears legally sound, “we need long-term oversight, ethical frameworks, and public input before we normalize surveillance tools that carry real risks.”

The Government has pledged that any move toward wider adoption will be accompanied by strong oversight, safeguards, and ongoing public consultation.

Conclusion: Technology Meets Accountability

The report marks a pivotal moment in the debate over facial recognition in New Zealand. For now, it offers a cautiously optimistic path forward—one where technology can help address real-world safety issues while respecting individual rights and freedoms.

Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith concluded: “Our goal is safer communities and fair treatment. If we can use technology to protect people in ways that also uphold their privacy, then we have a responsibility to explore that path.”