Locke Keith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Locke Keith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:636;Page:6927] 
9.  
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: What security risk to New Zealand justifies the proposal in the immigration review document released yesterday to subject New Zealand citizens returning from overseas to intrusive fingerprinting and iris scanning? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 To reiterate the answer I gave to oral question No. 1 there is no—I repeat no—proposal to fingerprint or take iris scans from New Zealand passport holders. 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister in his answer referred back to question No. 1 and in his answer to question No. 1 as I understood it he admitted that legislation had been proposed that would allow such a proposal to be implemented. There is a contradiction between the two answers. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. The Minister did address the question. 
Keith Locke 
: Why under another proposed change should migrant workers be excluded from whole industries simply because employers in those industries misuse the visa information they are required to get from the Immigration Service and in the words of the Minister when speaking on the radio this morning “would no longer be able to employ migrant labour”? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Employers already in current law have a legal obligation to employ only people who are in this country legally. One of the ways they seek to satisfy themselves about that is to look for an Inland Revenue Department number. The problem is that workers can get such a number without a valid visa or permit. Therefore we are ensuring that there is an ability for employers to do a valid check. That is not too hard to understand. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is with regard to the validation of material that one needs to provide the Clerk’s Office with to ask a question. I presume that Keith Locke would be subject to the same stringent requirements that National Party members are and that the Clerk’s Office would not have allowed the primary question through without some material validating that the immigration review document released yesterday subjects New Zealand citizens returning from overseas to intrusive fingerprinting and iris scans. If the document did not do that Mr Locke would not have been able to get the original question on to the Order Paper. Mr Locke got the question on to the Order Paper and the Minister referred to his answer to question No. 1 which was that there was no proposal actually to use fingerprinting and iris scans. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. On the question of authentication the requirement for authentication does not mean that a Minister will necessarily reply to the question in terms of the authentication provided. Members cannot specifically require an answer that is directly related. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This is a similar point but from a slightly different angle. I sought the leave of the House to table the Government document that was distributed yesterday which does in fact include as Maurice Williamson just said subjecting returning New Zealand citizens to biometric testing. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: There is a very simple explanation and that is that reading against a photograph is considered a biometric which does not include either an iris scan or a fingerprint. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Does that clarify it for members? Right. 
Peter Brown 
: Will the Minister concede that in this volatile world in order to maximise our security it might well become necessary to sacrifice some freedoms? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: This Government like all Governments has a constitutional duty to protect the security of our borders and our citizens. We need to recognise that a New Zealand passport is a very valuable document. It is under attack every day in many countries of the world by people who have been shown to use it for dishonest and nefarious purposes. 
Keith Locke 
: How will the Minister stop employers from abusing blackmailing or paying minimal wages to migrant workers as a consequence of employers having added responsibilities and wider access to information on the immigration status of prospective migrant labour? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: As I previously explained in the first instance employers already have the same legal obligation and in the second instance only an employer who is registered to hire a migrant labourer would be allowed to access that information under this proposal. If employers abuse the confidentiality requirements that are part and parcel of that they stand to lose that accreditation to the detriment of their business. That is a strong incentive. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Is it not a fact that both here and in many other developed countries people who are illegally in a country are far more at risk of blackmail and underpayment by their employers than are people who are legally in a country? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I can certainly confirm that. I can further confirm that the presence of significant numbers of illegal workers is an age-old trick for driving down wage rates to the detriment of all workers. I am sure the member would not support that either.