NICKY WAGNER (National) Link to this
I rise to continue the debate on the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill. I would like to assure the House that National supports the idea of concessions and a discount card for senior citizens. We all appreciate the contribution that our older people have made for us, but I want to make sure that senior citizens understand clearly the very limited scope of this bill.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) Link to this
Would members leaving the Chamber please show some courtesy to the member who is trying to address the bill. Courtesy is contagious, and we will all prosper if we keep within the spirit of the Standing Orders.
Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. This bill is only a technical amendment and does not guarantee the delivery of any services at all. It reminds me of the fairy tale The Emperor’s New Clothes. Members will remember the story. It is about an emperor, a gorgeous peacock of a man who loved clothes and all that was glittery and gaudy. He loved, and he wore, shiny fashions, jewels, and baubles. Members will remember the story; the emperor bought a wonderful new “supergold” suit, of which he was enormously proud, but that suit proved to be a mere illusion. Alas, when the poor emperor was out parading in front of his people a little boy pointed the finger at the sham, and the emperor discovered that he was stark naked.
Today I am really concerned that the Minister of Foreign Affairs might just find himself equally as naked and exposed. This Minister has made lots of lovely promises when talking to this bill. He says that it will create a card that will carry a range of concessions and discounts available from central government, local authorities, and businesses. National supports rewarding elderly people, but the problem is that this bill does none of those things. All it does is set the rules to allow an entitlement card—any card—to be issued by the Government. The bill amends the Social Security Act 1964 so that the Government can issue a card, with a photo and microchip; although, in line with the dog microchipping legislation, I am pleased that the select committee has voted against microchipping grannies!
The bill also amends the Births, Deaths, and Marriages Registration Act so that information from the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths, and Marriages can be used to verify entitlement to this card. That is very ironic, considering that the Government, on the one hand, is passing legislation so it can use that information and, on the other hand, is also trying to pass legislation that will not allow you, me, or anyone else who wants to study the history of his or her family the same access. How equitable is that?
But what this bill does not do is provide business discounts. It does not make any concessions at all. It does not provide anything that is real or tangible to make life better for seniors. Yes, I know that the Minister has promised these things, and I know that he has promised them by August 2007, which is only 3 months away. That is why I am so concerned that he may be caught out stark naked. Nobody seems to know anything about the details of these business discounts or concessions. I have not heard anything in the media and I have not heard any advertising from companies that would like to be involved. So I called the 0800 number Ruth Dyson was promoting, which was set up to give information about the card. Firstly, I spoke to the consumers’ hot line, and guess what? No, the hot line did not know what concessions there would be, and no, it did not know of any companies that were interested in the card, although it was sure—it was very sure—there would be some.
Then I spoke to the hot line for companies that were interested in being involved, and guess what? No, it did not know what concessions would be available, and no, it did not know what companies were interested. In fact, it did not even know what a company had to do to apply to be involved, but it was very sure that there would be some companies, and it was sure that they would all be set up by August. What faith!
So I would tell the Minister that, after all that, I was even more concerned. National members know that senior citizens are looking forward to the card and we support that, but only if the card actually delivers something. Otherwise we have an expensive piece of puffery—just like the emperor’s new clothes.
This bill creates only a card; a blank cheque, so to speak, that someone has to provide the credit for in order to underpin the promises. With 3 months to go before the card’s issue the public has no idea of the value of the card, it has no idea what companies will be involved, and it has no idea what discounts and services may be available, and I fear that it will become just a costly way to access those benefits that are already available. There is a real danger that there will be nothing new and nothing of value offered by this card—and then there is a very real danger that a little boy might just point this out to the Minister, and he will be left out there in the cold with nothing on but his birthday suit.
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) Link to this
I rise to speak in support of the second reading of the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill. This is legislation that the Labour-Progressive Government was very pleased about, and we were excited to be able to work with New Zealand First on it as part of the confidence and supply agreement that we have. We have a lot of hope and optimism that the SuperGold card will be something that older New Zealanders will be able to use and get benefit from, in their thousands, in the years ahead.
It is time for us to have one central card for older New Zealanders that makes clear not only the range of Government services that are available to them but also, through negotiation, some of the commercial benefits that may be available. It is time to have those things on one card: the SuperGold card.
Obviously, the age demographic of New Zealanders over 65 is about half a million—about 540,000 New Zealanders are in that age bracket—so they are quite a significant purchasing group, if we choose to think about it in that way. They want to buy things in a number of areas that are conducive to their being able to have, in effect, a discount card—a SuperGold card—that reflects the contribution they have made to New Zealand over many, many years. Of course, it is also very handy, when the Government is so busy doing so many things to try to make life a little easier for our superannuitants, that a card can exist in a form that makes it very clear which services and benefits are available. This is one of the things that central government does to try to help older New Zealanders out after their long working lives, after long lives spent raising families, and after their having served New Zealand in times of conflict.
Anzac Day provided us with another reminder that every year there are fewer and fewer of the World War II generation still with us, but they are still a very important part of our country’s history. That is one of the reasons, I understand, that the SuperGold card has been pushed for—to be able to give tangible recognition to those 540,000 people who are over the age of 65 and receiving New Zealand superannuation or a veterans pension.
Hon Parekura HoromiaI hear the Minister of Māori Affairs call out: “Hear, hear!”, but I think he has quite a few years to go before he will be in receipt of this SuperGold card.
By then we will really have it in place, so I say to the Minister that it will be really cranking by then. There will be businesses lined right up by then, and quite a lot of people will be able to benefit from it.
The thing about this SuperGold card that we are bringing in is that it is another reminder of the coordinated effort we are trying to make for our older New Zealanders. Just a month ago today, on 1 April, New Zealand superannuation—an entitlement under the parent legislation that we are debating the amendment to this afternoon—was increased by $40 per fortnight for a couple. We pay our pension out every fortnight, so per payment it is $40 extra for a married couple, and $26 a fortnight—or $26 per payment—for a single superannuitant. That is a significant increase. Members have to recall that just last year New Zealand superannuation went up, as well—by $20 a payment. That reflected the confidence and supply agreement that the Labour-Progressive coalition Government has with New Zealand First. We raised the minimum base of New Zealand superannuation for married couples to 66 percent of the average wage.
I am sad to say that this commitment we have has not always been shared by all parties in the House. We all remember the terrible time when Bill English was the Minister of Finance in this country and New Zealand superannuation was cut. We heard that member say today in question time that he thinks the Government spends too much money. That is news to my constituents, because they want extra Government money spent on electrifying railway lines, building the Western Link Road, and getting Transmission Gully up and running. We want Government spending in these areas, yet the National finance spokesperson—the same man who cut New Zealand superannuation in the 1990s—used question time today to say that the Government spends too much money. I am very disappointed that that is his view, because putting a $40 per payment increase for married couples into New Zealand superannuation makes life a little easier for our pensioners. That is a real Labour-Progressive Government achievement.
We are working with New Zealand First, as part of our agreement, to ensure that that kind of increase, which comes along from the general money we get together through our taxation, makes a big difference for those New Zealanders for whom it is a bit of a struggle to make ends meet when they are on a low, fixed income. To hear that increase being criticised and opposed by the Opposition is a shame, because that is an entitlement under the Social Security Act.
This card is a reflection of a lot of the services that are available to older people. I think particularly of the rates rebate scheme, which had a massive increase last year—up to a $500 maximum rebate for our senior citizens, and the level at which it starts to abate out, or reduce, increased massively by up to $20,000. A lot of senior citizens think that if they earn over $20,000, they cannot get a rates rebate, but that is not right. They can still apply for one. The amount of the rebate is reduced according to how many extra dollars they earn over $20,000. That has been a great policy that a lot of superannuitants have been able to take up, to try to help pay their rates bill. Obviously, our councils are spending a lot of money on infrastructure and generational assets such as that. If superannuitants can get some assistance from central government by way of a rates rebate, then that will be important.
The Government made important changes for drivers over the age of 80, which came in last year. That is another service for older people that is available from the Government. We got rid of the previous National Government’s—and Maurice Williamson’s—really savage compulsory test for all drivers over the age of 80. It was not a fair test to have. We now have a medical “fitness to drive” test that has been welcomed by organisations like Grey Power. Such organisations have also welcomed the SuperGold card that we are debating at the moment.
Of course, the Government provides all sorts of services that might be able to be worked in conjunction with this card, which provides people with the ability to use Government services and businesses, as well. One of the areas that I think of immediately is the phase-out of asset testing that the Labour-led Government has commenced over the last few years. On 1 July this year funding in that area will increase by another $10,000—and up to $170,000.
The other thing the Labour-Progressive Government has been busy doing is rolling out the primary health organisation strategy, to reduce the cost of going to the doctor and paying for pharmaceuticals.
Hon Jim AndertonIt is a very, very busy Government, as the Hon Jim Anderton says. We are flat out around here. We are trying to do as many things as we can for old people. We are trying to get this card to be the best that it can be, and trying to make a real effort in that regard to give a tangible benefit to our older New Zealanders, which is such a crucial thing. For older New Zealanders the cost of picking up a pharmaceutical has now fallen to $3 for subsidised medicines. In a number of areas the cost of going to the doctor has about halved. Every year we used to see doctors’ fees going up. We know that older people go to the doctor in large numbers, and they access health services, so that policy has been important, as well.
The Government is making a great contribution by putting aside a slice of the surpluses we are running today—from the economic prosperity we have today—into the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, so that this country can afford to pay for an ageing population as the baby-boom generation comes into retirement. Those people deserve to have dignity in their old age, as well. So one of the big drivers from the Government service point of view, which we are debating in respect of the card, has not been to talk about just the 540,000 people in our country who are retired and will be eligible for this card when it comes in, in August but also about the New Zealanders who are yet to retire. The New Zealand Superannuation Fund is a very important part of that, because that is a case of the Government saving for its own future. Now we have to try to encourage ordinary workers to be able to save out of their wages and salaries, as well. I know that is hard, because a lot of families are struggling to get by—they are just keeping their heads above water. Despite the fact that there has been an increase in the minimum wage, and the introduction of Working for Families tax credits, it is still hard to put aside money for savings.
It is my real hope that from 1 July this year, when KiwiSaver comes in, we will get a real focus in our country again on savings, so that it is about the Government saving for the future with the Superannuation Fund, not being irresponsible with the surplus and frittering it all away. That is what the National Party wanted to do at the last election, when it proposed $11 billion of tax cuts. To fund those tax cuts it was going to borrow half of that figure from offshore. We will not go down that path. Instead, we are using the surpluses from today to be responsible and to build up the Superannuation Fund, so that our country can afford to pay that guaranteed rate to those aged 65—to pay at least 65 percent of the average wage to married couples.
So we can begin to see how important this bill is in respect of the SuperGold card, because it involves the real bringing together of the two areas. The Government is doing its bit to try to help out older New Zealanders and to make life a little easier for them, and to help working families that are coming into retirement. Also, the business and private sector can offer their goods, services, and products at a lower cost to our pensioners, thereby recognising the fact that there are 540,000 of them and they are a significant buying group.
I welcome this card. The Labour-Progressive Government is very pleased to be supporting it this afternoon. We know how important it could be in the future for people going forward. I welcome the second reading of this bill, and I thank the Social Services Committee for the work its members have done. I also thank the Minister in charge of the bill, the Rt Hon Winston Peters.
METIRIA TUREI (Green) Link to this
Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I want to take just a short call on the second reading of this bill. At the first reading I raised a number of issues that the Green Party had with the SuperGold card. One of those issues was that this is effectively just a loyalty card, and very similar to the type of loyalty card that businesses all around the country provide for their members in various forms and in various ways.
We continue to question whether it is necessary to have legislation that establishes just another loyalty card that will incorporate existing schemes, and perhaps might drive some new ones, but which really has limited benefit in that respect. But, at the same time, it was an issue that was part of the deal between New Zealand First and the Government, so I can understand why it is now in legislation. But, really, we could be doing more important things for superannuitants in terms of protecting their interests. One of the key areas where we could do that, and one that the Greens and New Zealand First agree on and have both worked on in the past, is the elimination of the exemption that allows for some superannuitants to have their superannuation means tested against income they receive from some overseas pensions. There has been a petition to the House on that issue. There continues to be a great deal of lobbying and involvement on that issue from Grey Power and from other organisations that represent older people’s issues.
If we are to have a truly non - means-tested superannuation, there is no justification for these few people to have their income means tested for a superannuation scheme that they are involved with, have worked for, and have been part of when they lived overseas. There has never been any good reason for it, and it could be dealt with very simply by a rather small amendment to the legislation to make sure that the superannuation really is non - means tested, as it is said to be. That would be a better use of legislation, and a better use of this House’s time, rather than this loyalty card.
I hope that between New Zealand First and the Greens we can progress this further with the Labour Government. It really is unnecessary to have such an exemption. It is unfair for those older people who have worked very hard for those pensions overseas. They are entitled to them and deserve to have access to that money, and to their entitlement in New Zealand to New Zealand superannuation.
The other issue we raised was microchips and whether it was justifiable that this legislation should include microchipping. At the time it was rather amusing, given the other microchipping issues that were going on, but there is real concern still within the Green caucus as to whether a provision allowing for the future use of microchips for this particular card is the appropriate way to deal with that issue. I know from my colleague Sue Bradford, who was on the select committee that heard the discussion and dealt with the issues in the bill—on my behalf, because I could not attend—that there was intense discussion at select committee level about this.
The issues were canvassed widely and for some time. But at the end of the day, if we are to enact legislation, there is still a question of making sure that it is useful, that it is the right thing to do, and that all of the issues around the legislation have been dealt with properly. We would much prefer to see a review of, or an inquiry into, the use of microchips. A number of our caucus members are very keen to see such a thing, so that where these bits of technology are in use, it is in a context of considered principles around their use. A great deal of consideration should be given to the privacy implications of microchips, and real protections should be put in place for people for whom this technology might be used.
I am aware that the bill has clear protections against which microchip information could be used. For example, the bill states that a microchip would include only the information already included on the card—that is, the cardholder’s name, the identifying number assigned by the department, the commencement and expiry dates of the card, and the kind of information that is very specific to the use of the card itself. The issue with microchips is that other information can be placed on them quite easily in the future. The legislation might confine that information now, but later legislation may expand it and provide for greater use of microchips in these contexts. That is not necessarily what was intended with this particular card.
A number of our caucus members still have real concerns about the bill and at the Committee stage we will be looking to see whether we want to support the calls by some other parties to take out that clause or whether an amendment might be more appropriate. Or perhaps we may consider that it might be OK to leave the bill as it is, but with some kind of intention from other parties in the House to hold some inquiry into, or to debate the use of, that technology, to find ways of confining its use to only those absolutely necessary requirements and principles. We look forward to that debate in the Committee stage and to the bill’s later debate. It is certainly not a clear issue for us at this stage and we offer no guarantees for future votes. We will be looking very carefully at what happens in the next few weeks. Kia ora.
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) Link to this
Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, kia ora tātou katoa e te Whare. I te meakuatakiwhakatātātouingārākuahipaakenei, me mihi rā ki ō tātou mate kuahingaingāwiki e torukuahipaake. Ko Don Selwyn tērā, ko Bob Rāwiritērā, ko te tini, ko te manokuahingairungai ō tātou marae. Ko tākunoaake, ko te poroporoaki i a rātou, haere, haere, haere koutou.
Huri mai ki a tātou katoa e te Whare, tātoukua hoki mai ki roto ingāpakitara o te Whare, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou.
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]
[Greetings to you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and to all of us in the House. Because we have rested well during the days in the 3 weeks past, it is fitting that we acknowledge those of us who passed away in that period—Don Selwyn, Bob Rāwiri, and a host of others who fell on our courtyards. I want to farewell them by simply saying: depart, depart, depart.
I turn to all of us in the House, those of us who have returned within the confines of the Chamber: greetings to you, greetings to you, greetings.]
It would appear from the outset that the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill has not exactly taken the nation by storm. I understand that three submissions have been received and one heard. But none the less there are two important issues that the Māori Party wants to raise in this debate.
The first is that of the intention of the bill to improve the living standards of our senior citizens. We believe that a commitment to our elders is a worthy goal that we, the Māori Party, wholeheartedly accept. We all know the stats about the increasing poverty levels of elderly people in Aotearoa. The Māori Party places particular priority on valuing the contribution and continued participation of our elder people. We believe that the SuperGold card will help our pakeke to have easier access to services and facilities—as outlined by Mr Hughes—and to be able to benefit from concessions, which can only be good. Such a proposal, targeting the aged and elderly, will ensure that we protect the special place they have in our society as repositories of experience and knowledge. In that respect, this bill has our full support.
We are happy to put forward our support also in recognition that older Māori people experience a worse health status than their non-Māori counterparts in a range of indicators. In February of this year a report produced by Public Health Intelligence, the ministry’s epidemiology group, revealed the grim fact that at the age of 50 years both Māori males and females had a shorter life expectancy than non-Māori. The data also revealed that Māori suffer from higher hospitalisation and mortality rates for almost all types of cardiovascular disease, cancer, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
The weird thing is that the data also reveals that Māori males aged 50 to 64 were significantly more likely than their non-Māori counterparts to report doing physical activity—as is borne out right here, I suspect, in the parliamentary complex we currently sit in. For proof of this assertion, all one needs to do is go down to the gym on any day and one is bound to find Mr Tau Henare—even with a push and a shove—Hone Harawira, Mr Clem Simich, our trusted Kaiwhakamārama Reo WīremuHaunui, our loyal security guards, and many other mighty Māori men working up a sweat on the treadmill. In fact, I have also been known to lift a few weights, sprint a couple of hundred thousand miles on the treadmill, and play the odd game of rugby for the greater good of the parliamentary rugby team in my time. I have a photo to prove it, by the way. But despite this, we suffer shorter life expectancy. The rates for renal failure and lower limb amputation are significantly higher for Māori, and the prevalence of doctor-diagnosed diabetes is over two and a half times higher in Māori males aged 50 to 64.
We support the proposal to give effect to the SuperGold card to enable Māori seniors to be eligible for Government entitlements such as New Zealand superannuation, the veterans pensions, and community services card entitlements. But there is one snag, and it is a biggie—namely, clause 5(2). The clause amends section 132A(2) of the Social Security Act 1964 in creating a new regulation-making power. In its effect, this allows the entitlement cards to contain the information, as set out in the subsection, on either a magnetic strip or an embedded microchip—as was spoken about by MetiriaTurei.
Every time we access the Internet, draw a salary, dial the phone, join a club, enter a hospital, hook up to Sky television, or zip zap our credit cards for the weekly groceries we are giving up our rights to privacy—whether or not we know it. So we might ask: “What’s another smart card amongst many?”. The Government insists that it has no plans to implement smart-card technology in relation to the SuperGold card, or indeed entitlement cards generally, at this time. That is no problem. We say to the Government that it should delete the clause.
The key issue, as the New Zealand Law Society pointed out in its submission, is that this will be the first time in which legislation has been introduced to authorise the use of microchips on cards on such a large scale. It has massive implications. We are talking about around 340,000 seniors who already have community services cards. Why would we venture down the track of an embedded microchip that the Privacy Commissioner herself has expressed serious concerns and reservations about?
Marie Shroff, our Privacy Commissioner, has asked a series of questions that take us to the very heart of the concern around privacy and personal freedom. How do individuals have any real control or choice? How will the information be kept up to date and accurate? Who will be able to access it? How could it be misused? What protections are there? Will its advantages outweigh its disadvantages? Those are all important issues that this House should consider if it wants to proceed any further along the microchip line. Indeed, Miss Shroff has recommended that the proposal not proceed until a comprehensive assessment of the potential privacy impacts has been undertaken. We in the Māori Party absolutely agree with her. We have consistently raised our concerns about the snooping culture and the environment of surveillance where Big Brother is the holder of all power. We support the call from the Social Services Committee that a more general inquiry into the use of microchips, particularly around issues of privacy, must be undertaken before any legislation allowing microchips is enacted. We are assured by the Ministry of Social Development that if clause 5(2) were deleted from this bill there would be no immediate impacts to prevent the launching of the SuperGold card.
Therefore, we are happy to support the bill as a useful way of recognising the contribution that pakeke continue to make to Aotearoa. We most strongly object to the proposal in clause 5 relating to the microchipping function. Kia ora tātou.
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) Link to this
I rise to follow the speech made by my good friend Te Ururoa Flavell in which he raised his concerns, fear, and suspicions. I have to tell him, as a recent past president of Grey Power, that members of Grey Power do not share the paranoia expressed in that speech. Grey Power represents the older generation, who carry with them the years of experience, the maturity, and the wisdom that bundles up to make one heck of a good bundle of common sense. As Mr Flavell will find out if he ever gets the chance, it is no easy ride to speak to a Grey Power meeting. It is no easy ride, and that is not because they do not understand, and not because they will be taken advantage of. It is no easy ride because they know the answers to most of the questions they will ask. They can assess the response and judge whether the person speaking is talking fact or fiction.
I invite Mr Flavell to repeat his speech to Grey Power and tell them just why the diversity of options available to our older members of society should not be reduced to a SuperGold card to make it easy for people to access the benefits that this Government is unfolding one step at a time. What the member’s speech was really about was suspicion and a lack of belief in the integrity of the older generation and those who try to help provide for them.
That is what this bill is all about. This bill is in fact the reflection of a Government that keeps its word. The SuperGold card recognises the contribution that senior citizens make to New Zealand, and it fulfils a commitment made as a part of the confidence and supply agreement that this Labour-led Government has with New Zealand First. It is this carrying-through of promises—which is the hallmark of this Labour-led administration—that ensures stable coalition Governments in this era of MMP. It is this carrying-through of promises, this basis of good faith, this belief that people in this country will do their best and that the people who endeavour to rip others off are few and far between, and this underpinning belief in the goodness of humanity that will ensure that a Labour-led Government will be returned to power after the next election. People know they can trust a Helen Clark - led Government.
I think it is important that I go back to the basis of this bill, because a lot has been said already this afternoon, and perhaps those listening to the debate might lose sight of what the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill is all about. I speak as one who is part of a long line of those who have delivered this bill to the House. As I said, the bill is the fruition of the negotiated working agreement between New Zealand First and the Labour Party at the time of the formation of the last Government. The proposals quickly came to the floor of the House and were sent off to the Social Services Committee, of which my good friend Georgina Beyer was the chair. Georgina saw the referral of this bill to the select committee, the advertising of calling for submissions, and, in fact, the hearing of submissions. When Georgina retired from this House to go to greener pastures, I took over the chairmanship of the committee and saw through the sign-off of the ultimate report.
The purpose of this bill is to create a SuperGold card, which will be available from August 2007. That is just 3 months away. The SuperGold card will recognise the contribution senior citizens have made and currently make to New Zealand. It is important to remember that. In fact, on Anzac Day, last Wednesday, most of us in this House probably took time out to celebrate. What was Anzac Day if it was not a celebration of the value of the senior citizens in our community? Those who attended Anzac Day memorials from dawn until dusk, as I did in Napier, would have seen a large number of senior citizens and their supporting younger families. What was significant at the dawn service in Taradale this Anzac Day was the number of younger people. It was probably the largest turn-out at a dawn service in Taradale in living memory, and, of course, the turn-out was that of the younger generation supporting the senior citizens and honouring the contribution they made to the New Zealand we have today.
This card carries on that vein of support and celebration of our senior citizens. This card will enable senior citizens to access discounts and concessions from participating businesses. My friend Mr Flavell was postulating about the dangers of microchipping, but it is not compulsory to have a gold card. It is not a mandatory requirement; it is an opt-in requirement. So those opting in will carefully consider the benefits and the disadvantages, and the evidence before the Social Services Committee suggested that there were very few disadvantages. The committee recommended that there be an inquiry into microchipping only as a matter of caution, and it could be an inquiry that may be worth undertaking by the committee later this term.
It is an opt-in card, so that our senior citizens can access discounts and concessions from participating businesses, the Government, or local authority services. It will indicate the eligibility of senior citizens to Government entitlements, such as New Zealand superannuation and the veterans pension, and, for seniors, it will replace the community services card and the New Zealand superannuation card. Both of these cards have shown that cards are useful to senior citizens as they go about their business and take advantage of that which is offered to them because of their age and past contribution to New Zealand society.
Just recently, I was speaking to a Grey Power meeting in Napier—in fact, to the very chapter I was president of several years ago. I proposed to speak for 20 minutes, and the question time that followed lasted for over an hour. I had to call an end to the vigorous question time from a large turn-out of members whose questions were all engaged in, and encouraging of, what this Government is doing. They were, of course, interested in the rates rebate scheme. They celebrate the fact that the Government recognises that pensioners on lower incomes are getting assistance with rates. As values of properties rise there is a downside for those who are not real estate agents—that is, those who pay the rates. As the values of properties rise so too does the value of the rates rebate. It is now sitting at $500 for those who are entitled to the maximum benefit. Of course, the gold card will assist our senior citizens to access benefits such as the rates rebate.
The SuperGold card will offer the option—I say option; it is not mandatory—of including a photograph of the cardholder. So if a senior citizen wishes to have his or her photograph on the card—and I have to say that it seems to me to be a very good idea indeed—he or she can indeed have a photograph. In future there will be the possibility of embedding a microchip in the card. If we extend that step of microchipping, it will make even more available the many benefits that this Government is underscoring and developing.
It has been a pleasure to represent the senior citizens of this country in this House. It is a matter on which I often reflect. As we rush toward the folly of youth, looking for young blood leadership, we sometimes turn our backs on those of advanced years who have the vigour of youth. Some, such as me, can both be a Grey Power president and have children at primary school. That is a combination I recommend to most of our senior citizens if they can get the right marital combination. However, I do urge those who are married to stay married rather than seek alternate partners.
I endorse this gold card to the House. I am delighted to take part in the second reading debate on this bill, and I listened with some interest to the carping criticisms of the previous speaker for the National Party, my friend Nicky Wagner, who once again raised her shibboleth—the emperor with no clothes. She seems devoted to mentioning it—she mentions it in every speech she makes. I suggest she turn one day to a better metaphor, or maybe lift her horizons above the clothing of her leaders.
I commend this bill to the House. It is my absolute pleasure to speak in support of it. Although it is easy to minimise the benefit of this bill, it is very risky to overlook the convenience it offers to senior citizens as they go about their business. It brings into one card the access to the many benefits that this Government has delivered upon. I think one of the most outstanding benefits is the assurance of a base level to the superannuation benefit. I remember too well watching a television programme that led to the birth of the Jim Bolger Government, where he gave an assurance that there would be no cut. The next day or so that promise was gone back upon. That is not the history of this Government. This Government is revealing a history of making promises and keeping them, and the delivery of this rather simple concept speaks loudly and poetically of what this Government is doing for our senior citizens. I commend this bill.
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) Link to this
I stand on behalf of United Future to speak in support of the second reading of the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill. It is fairly straightforward legislation. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of it is the fact that it contains some future-proofing provisions that allow for regulations to be made, should we have the need in the future to tighten up the ID aspect of the SuperGold card around things like photos and microchips. Submitters queried us on that issue, particularly in respect of the amount of information allowed to be contained on these cards.
The member from the Māori Party, Te Ururoa Flavell, alluded to some concerns on the part of the Social Services Committee that we were progressing this idea of the Government use of microchips for purposes of identification and holding information in a whole range of areas. Microchips are in passports now, and we have certainly made provisions in this bill for them. We talked about the fact that possibly this House had failed to have the wider discussion that could have been helpful around this matter—particularly around Government use of this technology and the type of information that it is ideal to have covered. It was not a fear-based concern; it was more of a generalised discussion about where this technology would go and whether we should at some stage stop and have an important discussion about what we think is appropriate.
Some submitters were concerned that the SuperGold card would be available only to New Zealand citizens. They were reassured that everybody over 65 would be entitled to apply. Actually, there are some provisions for those under 65 who may come under the category of a non-qualified spouse to also be entitled to have one of these cards.
One of the other questions was around the issue of identity cards. I think the National Council of Women queried whether people who currently hold a community services card would no longer need it, as the information that that card provided would be contained on the gold card—and, yes, the council was reassured that that card would no longer be needed. Something like 68 percent of over 65-year-olds currently hold a community services card, and this new SuperGold card will be able to act in that regard for them.
I agree with some concerns that there is an unclear area around exactly what Government concessions this card will ultimately entitle people to. But perhaps the greatest value of this card from United Future’s point of view is the opportunity it offers the entire community to honour senior citizens. As I was taking part in Anzac Day, which we have all just enjoyed—and I concur with Mr Fairbrother, who talked about how exciting it was to see the large number of young people who participated in Anzac Day celebrations—I was reminded that over in Australia the Australian veterans have for years and years had a gold card, which provides in a similar way to the intention of this card. It gives the opportunity for the wider community to offer concessions and discounts to veterans. I know for a fact that many New Zealand veterans have felt for years a little bit short-changed by the lack of that particular mechanism within the New Zealand approach to caring for veterans. Obviously, veterans over 65 will be included in this opportunity, and I think that will be a way to facilitate a national outpouring of gratitude to a generation that has done us well and that we are proud of in this country—for all sorts of reasons, not just for its military endeavours.
As I said before, this card targets all senior citizens and provides access to a potential range of discounts and concessions. I am keen to find out, when this card is rolled out, what sort of publicity money and public relations spin the Government will need to put into notifying not just ordinary people about how they can apply for and get a card but also—I think, more importantly—all sorts of businesses and community groups, so that they understand that they have a real chance to become included in the benefits of this card system for senior citizens, and to make available opportunities for senior citizens to bring their cards out of their handbags and say: “I’m here and I’m entitled to this discount.”
A question I had when we first started into this legislation was why we needed legislation; surely we could have just printed up some gold cards, made them available to people over 65, and let them be used. But concerns were raised that people who were not entitled to the cards could make copies of them and try to take advantage of their opportunities. So there was a real need for identification and a need to quantify what level of information we wanted to have contained on the cards, under what circumstances the information should be gathered, and where it could be stored and contained. It became apparent that legislation was probably the appropriate way to go about this.
We are very happy to support this second reading. I was a little surprised initially at the low number of submitters—I thought we might have been inundated with people submitting on this—but the ones we did hear from really reflected the fact that people were genuinely positively disposed towards this idea. So we are very glad to support the second reading.