Proposed US Access To Kiwi Biometric Data Poses Serious Privacy And Data Sovereignty Risks – Privacy Foundation NZ

The Privacy Foundation New Zealand is deeply concerned by reports that the Government is considering granting the United States access to New Zealanders’ biometric data under an “Enhanced Border Security Partnership” (EBSP). According to media reports, the United States has asked all Visa Waiver Programme countries, including New Zealand, to conclude an EBSP by the end of this year or risk losing visa-free travel.

The proposal appears to go far beyond the limited “hit/no-hit” checks currently used in Migration Five arrangements, and may give US agencies automated access to New Zealand’s national biometric databases.

Unacceptable risks to privacy and data sovereignty

The Privacy Foundation considers that granting a foreign government automated access to New Zealand government’s biometric databases would represent an unprecedented loss of data sovereignty. Biometric information is among the most sensitive data we hold. Once shared, it cannot be retrieved, and New Zealanders have no control over how US agencies might use, store, or further disclose it.

The Foundation notes that the US Department of Homeland Security’s own assessment confirms that biometric data may be used to vet “any individual encountered” during border or immigration investigations, including minors, victims, or witnesses. This is expansive language, leading to real uncertainty about the retention and use of the information, including whether it could be used for purposes that are very different from the purpose for which the New Zealand government agency originally collected that information. New Zealanders have no visibility over what happens to their biometric information after it is transferred. The potential for complete loss of control over New Zealanders’ biometric data is fundamentally incompatible with even basic privacy principles.

Opaque process and lack of consultation

The media has reported that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade refused to clarify which safeguards, if any, are being contemplated, or whether Parliament or the public will be consulted before any agreement is signed.

The Foundation considers this unacceptable. Any proposal with such profound implications for New Zealanders’ personal information must undergo:

• full public consultation,

• Parliamentary examination, and

• a comprehensive analysis of the privacy implications of the proposal, followed by transparent publication of all privacy and human-rights impact assessments.

Inconsistent with New Zealand’s legal and human-rights commitments

Automated foreign access to biometric data, particularly with no case-by-case oversight, raises significant questions under the Privacy Act 2020 and potentially the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, including rights to be free from unreasonable search and surveillance. The Foundation emphasises that neither the Government nor any public agency has authority to establish such a data-sharing regime without clear legislative mandate.

The Foundation has consistently warned against unnecessary expansion of biometric surveillance and stresses that such systems must meet high standards of necessity, proportionality, and democratic accountability.

Call to action

The Privacy Foundation calls on the Government to:

1. Immediately halt negotiations on the proposed EBSP until full transparency can be provided; 2. Commit to public and Parliamentary scrutiny, including release of all relevant documents;

3. Guarantee that no automated foreign access to New Zealanders’ biometric data will be permitted without explicit legislative authority that provides adequate privacy protection for that information; and

4. Complete and publish a comprehensive privacy and human-rights analysis of any proposed changes to border-security data-sharing arrangements.

New Zealanders should not be compelled to trade away their most sensitive personal information to maintain visa-free travel. Privacy is a fundamental right. Any proposal that compromises it must be justified openly, scrutinised rigorously, and rejected if it cannot meet the highest standards.