Locke Keith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Locke Keith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:640;Page:10328] 
8.  
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Does she endorse the police proposal to use mobile fingerprint scanners on New Zealanders who have not been arrested or charged with any offence; if so what steps will she be taking to introduce it? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Police 
: I can advise that the possibility that police might use mobile technology to verify identity arises from the discussion document  
Policing Directions in New Zealand for the 21st Century  
which is the next step as part of a full review of the Police Act 1958. This discussion document is currently being consulted on with all political parties and the public throughout New Zealand. The discussion document is not Government policy. 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister did not answer my question as to whether the Government actually endorses it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think the Minister did address that question through that answer. 
Keith Locke 
: Does the Minister not accept that it is quite different and much more Orwellian to use these scanners on thousands of innocent New Zealanders who are not charged with any crime or have not been arrested and how can the Minister sidestep the issue in that way by saying that it is essentially up to the police to determine what happens? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I do not think I said anything that the member has just raised. I pointed out that there is a review going on a discussion document called  
Policing Directions in New Zealand for the 21st Century 
. There are a range of ideas in there and none of them constitutes Government policy at this stage. Because we are going through a process of discussion does not mean that the police are now going to go off and do anything that is in the document. This is a discussion that the member will be involved in and the whole House can be involved in because political parties have been sent the document. It is a well-overdue discussion about the Police Act which was passed in 1958. I would basically refute all the points made there. The document is there and I invite the member to get stuck into it. 
Judy Turner 
: What work has been done regarding an ethical framework for Government confiscation of biometrical information; and if no advice has been sought and quantified will the Government continue to progress the means of taking biometric information from New Zealanders without ethical guidelines? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: My understanding is that this discussion document will provide a very good opportunity for having a look at those kinds of frameworks going forward. One of the points I want to make here on behalf of this document is that there will be a large number of changes over the next little while in technologies and in challenging issues like the ethical framework for taking samples from people. This is the chance to discuss that. This is the chance to see whether we can put in place a framework that will deal with those complex issues. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does the Minister not think it is going just too far even to be considering having the police being able to fingerprint members of the public at will and having commuting members of the public stripped naked by airport scanners especially when this Parliament does not want MPs sitting here in a suit having their picture taken? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I imagine there are a lot of MPs in this Chamber who would fear the technology the member has just outlined being used at airports but I do want to put on record that there is no such plan to make use of technologies like that as people go through airports. I also say that there are as I mentioned before opportunities for a large number of new technologies to be used in a variety of ways in years ahead and this is a chance to discuss them. No one is saying anything will be used. Nothing is set in stone. The police are not doing anything. They are simply offering an opportunity to talk about these kinds of issues and revue an Act that was put in place in 1958 long before for example things like mobile phones were even thought of. 
Keith Locke 
: How can the Minister say that the police are just offering an opportunity for debate or discussion when it is clear that they are going all out to introduce these mobile scanners which will violate the rights of thousands of innocent New Zealanders—surely it is our right in a democratic society not to have our bodily integrity violated without due cause; and why should the Government just stand aside while the police fast track us to a surveillance State? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I can simply say that I understand the issue the member is raising. Of course we want to be cautious about these kinds of new technologies. But this is a discussion document that offers an opportunity to talk about a wide range of issues that may or may not be part of the scene in the future. This is an opportunity to discuss it. The police are not fast tracking anything to my understanding. 
Keith Locke 
: How can the Government stand aside from such a critical debate where its police force is arguing strongly for a course of bringing in these Orwellian devices for fingerprinting and also talking about bringing in iris scanners when we see that these have been brought in in overseas jurisdictions that the Government has been following—in fact just this week the United States is bringing in 10-finger fingerprinting devices for New Zealanders passing through American airports? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I can only reiterate that there is nothing here other than a discussion at the present time. But I stress that this is the 21st century. This Act was passed in the middle of the last century. It is time to have a discussion about things like new technologies. In some cases getting identities worked out may mean a person does not get arrested and does not have to go to the police station because his or her identity has been established. This is a chance to have a discussion. This is an opportunity for the member to do so.