In New Zealand, North Macedonia, Andorra and Denmark which govt departments, agencies and sector etc and which processes mandates biometric verification of their citizens?
Executive summary
New Zealand explicitly mandates collection of biometric information—photographs, fingerprints and iris scans—under the Immigration Act 2009 when an individual applies for a visa, and the country has recently introduced a Biometric Processing Privacy Code to govern broader public- and private-sector biometric uses [1] [2] [3]. The supplied reporting does not contain authoritative, comparable descriptions of statutory biometric mandates for North Macedonia, Andorra or Denmark, so this briefing confirms New Zealand’s documented mandates while flagging a gap in the provided sources for the other three states [4].
1. New Zealand: statutory visa biometric collection and expanding regulatory guardrails
Immigration New Zealand (INZ) states that the Immigration Act 2009 enables and requires collection of biometric information—photographs, fingerprints and iris scans—when someone applies for a visa, and INZ uses that data to verify identity and entitlement to services [1] [2] [5]. Parallel to the operational collection by INZ, New Zealand’s Office of the Privacy Commissioner has moved to regulate biometric processing across sectors: the proposed and now issued Biometric Processing Privacy Code sets proportionality, notification and transparency obligations and applies to organisations (including government agencies, businesses and NGOs) that collect biometric data for automated biometric systems [3] [6] [7]. The Code introduces requirements to disclose reasoning for collection, assess necessity and proportionality, and—per media coverage and legal commentary—creates a compliance window for existing systems while tightening rules for new deployments [8] [9] [10].
2. What New Zealand’s mandates mean in practice: visas, AML and private-sector limits
INZ’s operational guidance makes biometric capture routine for immigration processing, linking biometric matching to identity verification in visa workflows, and the Privacy Commissioner’s Code extends obligations to commercial verification such as anti-money‑laundering (AML) customer onboarding where facial images and liveness checks are common [1] [2] [8]. Commentary from legal and industry sources stresses the Code’s focus on proportionality and on providing alternatives, and notes that organisations must publish assessments of the pros and cons of biometric use and ensure safeguards before collection—measures aimed at curbing intrusive or unnecessary biometric programs [3] [11] [8]. The public record supplied shows a two-track reality: statutory mandate for immigration biometrics, and new regulatory limits intended to constrain broader automated biometric processing [1] [6] [7].
3. North Macedonia, Andorra and Denmark: supplied sources do not document biometric mandates
The material supplied references visa and passport contexts in passing—an ICAO standardization of e-passport biometrics and a visa note that includes Denmark and North Macedonia in a list of countries with various passport rules—but it does not include authoritative legal or agency texts establishing biometric mandates for North Macedonia, Andorra or Denmark comparable to New Zealand’s Immigration Act and INZ guidance [4]. Because the provided reporting lacks primary-source statutes, ministry statements or national privacy-code documents for those three countries, this analysis cannot confirm whether specific government departments, agencies or sectors in North Macedonia, Andorra or Denmark mandate biometric verification of citizens or residents; further country-specific legal documents or official agency guidance would be required to make those determinations.
4. Caveats, alternative viewpoints and hidden agendas in the available reporting
The supplied sources are heavily New Zealand–centric and include industry and law-firm commentary that naturally frames biometric regulation as both risk-mitigation and compliance cost—an implicit industry incentive to shape rules that permit continued commercial verification services under clearer boundaries [8] [11]. Regulatory materials emphasize necessity and proportionality tests that civil‑liberties advocates welcome, but businesses offering identity verification have incentives to interpret “necessity” narrowly to retain market access [8] [9]. Finally, because the evidence for Denmark, North Macedonia and Andorra is absent from the supplied corpus, readers should treat any outside claims about mandates in those countries as unresolved by the provided reporting and seek primary national sources—official immigration or interior ministry pages, data‑protection authority guidance, or statutory texts—to close the gap.