The footage showed identifiable individuals on streets, inside and outside private premises, church grounds and parks. It also showed cars parked well away from council-controlled spaces such as homes and businesses. <\/p>\n
Ryan said he was concerned that all licence plates could be automatically recognised, timestamped and geo-located.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhat I received was video footage of pretty much everything going on in Parnell on those streets at that time of day,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
Paul Ryan wants Aucklanders to know what Auckland Transport’s parking camera cars capture as they drive the city’s streets. Photo \/ Mike Scott <\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s a lot more than was needed to, in my view, detect a parking infringement.\u201d<\/p>\n
The camera car also filmed people entering a Botox clinic, as well as the entrance of the Green Doctor \u2013 \u201cnow, I don\u2019t think people want to be surveilled going in and out of a legal cannabis dispensary\u201d, Ryan said.<\/p>\n
A privacy watchdog told the Herald any system that recorded people going about their daily lives was inherently \u201cintrusive\u201d and organisations needed clear justification for setting up camera technology.<\/p>\n
In a letter to Ryan on July 30, AT\u2019s customer care engagement manager Phil Wratt confirmed the mobile camera units took images other than rule-breaking cars.<\/p>\n
AT operated 25 parking camera cars across Auckland, covering all resident parking zones and about 75% of the region\u2019s town and city centres, it told the Herald.<\/p>\n
Each vehicle had a suite of cameras and used two-dimensional infrared technology to read registration plates.<\/p>\n
Ryan believes the number of cars, hours of filming and geographical spread amounted to extended surveillance.<\/p>\n
He questioned whether the collection breached the Privacy Act, Evidence Act or the Bill of Rights Act, and thought the issue should be tested in court.<\/p>\n
However, AT said it was confident the footage complied with relevant legislation. <\/p>\n
\u201cThe footage gathered from camera cars has been presented as evidence in a range of prosecutions Auckland Transport has taken without objection from the courts,\u201d an AT spokesperson said.<\/p>\n
An Auckland Transport license plate recognition vehicle in operation. Photo \/ Michael Craig<\/p>\n
Challenging the tickets<\/p>\n
Ryan received four parking tickets in Parnell and the central city in late 2025 from AT\u2019s camera units. <\/p>\n
Believing he\u2019d paid for parking and the notices were wrong, he sought a defended hearing, hoping the evidence would also legally test AT\u2019s camera fleet\u2019s ticket-issuing methods.<\/p>\n
It\u2019s the second time Ryan has questioned AT\u2019s parking notices. A 2022 court challenge was withdrawn by consent after a confidential agreement between both parties.<\/p>\n
In the latest case, Ryan asked for raw footage of his alleged parking infringement, the mobile camera cars\u2019 operating manual, data collection and storage policy and any privacy impact assessment.<\/p>\n
AT declined the request for a privacy impact assessment, saying it didn\u2019t exist.<\/p>\n
Some of the documentation Paul Ryan received from Auckland Transport. Photo \/ Mike Scott <\/p>\n
Eventually, Ryan received a couriered box of documents and a stack of DVDs holding hours of video footage – not just the period in which his car was allegedly parked illegally.<\/p>\n
\u201cI\u2019m not into parking chaos. I\u2019m not challenging Auckland Transport\u2019s responsibility to enforce parking bylaws and regulations. <\/p>\n
\u201cWhat I am saying is that the public should know that these cars are driving around Auckland streets videoing everything they see, in both public streets and in private property.<\/p>\n
\u201cI think if we\u2019re going to be surveilled we need to agree.\u201d <\/p>\n
Tickets withdrawn<\/p>\n
On the day of the June defended hearing, AT withdrew all four infringement notices.<\/p>\n
Ryan said this denied him the opportunity to legally test the mobile camera cars ticket issuing process. <\/p>\n
He is now pursuing costs of $71 incurred preparing his case. <\/p>\n
The money was never the focus \u2013 \u201cI just think sunlight\u2019s a very good disinfectant\u201d, Ryan told the Herald. <\/p>\n
\u201cI think people should know and I think councillors should know since Auckland Transport\u2019s being reabsorbed into council soon.\u201d<\/p>\n
Auckland Transport responds<\/p>\n
AT said it couldn\u2019t comment on specifics as Ryan\u2019s case remained before the court. <\/p>\n
However, AT head of transport and parking compliance, Rick Bidgood, said the cars made multiple passes of parking spaces to obtain photographic evidence of offending vehicles.<\/p>\n
Rick Bidgood explained the license plate recognition vehicle’s “digitally chalk” car tyres. Photo \/ Michael Craig<\/p>\n
\u201cWe \u2018digitally chalk\u2019 the wheels of vehicles and use scene images to confirm that illegal parking has taken place.<\/p>\n
\u201cAny footage that is not required for enforcement purposes is deleted.\u201d<\/p>\n
Bidgood also confirmed AT may share images with NZ Police in line with legislative requirements. <\/p>\n
Privacy concerns remain<\/p>\n
A spokesperson for the Office of the Privacy Commissioner (OPC) said footage and geolocated plate reading constituted personal information under the Privacy Act.<\/p>\n
Agencies with an enforcing role could collect personal information necessary for their functions or activities such as issuing parking tickets.<\/p>\n
\u201cHowever, agencies should not collect more personal information than is required, even if the collection is automated.\u201d<\/p>\n
While a privacy impact assessment (PIA) was not a legal requirement, it was good practice, helped organisations address privacy risk and improved public trust, the spokesperson said.<\/p>\n
The OPC said it was unable to say whether it had involvement with AT\u2019s programme, citing confidentiality obligations.<\/p>\n
An Auckland Transport mobile parking camera car showing cameras on the roof and side of the vehicle using licence plate recognition technology. Photo \/ Michael Craig<\/p>\n
Privacy Foundation chair Katrine Evans said camera systems were genuinely useful in protecting people, property and enforcing the law, but they were intrusive.<\/p>\n
Agencies needed a very clear justification for setting up a camera system in the first place, she said.<\/p>\n
\u201cThey then need to design and manage the system in a way that achieves that aim, but also protects against unnecessary intrusions on privacy as much as possible,\u201d Evans said.<\/p>\n
This included having proper signs to inform the public they were being filmed and why.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe Privacy Foundation would expect any agency like Auckland Transport to have a proper PIA in place for its camera systems, particularly for those that use more intrusive technologies such as automatic number plate recognition or facial recognition.\u201d<\/p>\n
Recent parking issues are not limited to Auckland, with a Mount Maunganui woman complaining a three-second drop-off <\/a>captured by a camera and resulting in a $100 fine was an example of \u201cover-the-top\u201d revenue-gathering by the local council.<\/p>\n Tauranga City Council reviewed the matter and considered the infringement notice was justified as double parking was an offence.<\/p>\n Mike Scott is a senior visual journalist at the New Zealand Herald. His work spans writing, photography and video, and he has won numerous journalism awards, including Videographer of the Year and Best Documentary. He has worked in media for more than 25 years, producing stories across New Zealand and internationally.<\/p>\n