Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Senior Citizens) Link to this
It gives me a great deal of pleasure to speak on Part 1. Part 1 covers clauses 3, 4, and 5. Clause 5 is split into two subclauses (1) and (2)—very appropriately named for a two-section division. Clause 3 outlines the amendments to the principle Act, which is the Social Security Act 1964.
Clause 4 sets out the purpose of Part 1, which is to amend the regulation-making power currently conferred by section 132A of the principle Act, so that regulations can be made to allow the issue and use of entitlement cards with cardholder photographs and embedded microchips. This clause has been the subject of some misunderstanding and misinterpretation, and that was very broadly demonstrated tonight by the contribution from an ACT member.
It was clearly a historic moment to have an ACT member considering referring this card—because of this clause in the bill—to the Privacy Commissioner. It is a major breakthrough for the ACT party to even acknowledge the role of the Privacy Commissioner, let alone to propose in this House that the card be sent. It may be pure politicking—which would not come as much of a surprise, given that it is the ACT party—but I think it is very inappropriate for a member of Parliament to misrepresent the purpose of an entitlement card and the proposal to have embedded microchips. I am sure that will be debated further throughout this section.
Madam Chair, I wonder whether you could stop the whip from the Opposition from interjecting constantly. It is very disruptive.
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) Link to this
It was a constant barrage. I ask the Minister to please continue.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I also make reference to Supplementary Order Paper 111—the only one that is tabled in the Committee so far, I think—which amends clause 4 to reflect an amendment to clause 5(2), which relates to the inclusion of barcodes on entitlement cards. Perhaps members who are concerned about the embedded microchips issue, and about the barcodes, privacy considerations, and the potential use or misuse of those barcodes, might read the Supplementary Order Paper. They would then understand that the purpose of this proposal in the legislation is to ensure that, as technology advances, our senior citizens have access to the best available technology in order for them to have access to information they have agreed to have shared—bar-coded information, which is currently available through shops, as we all know—and that they would be able to use directly from their entitlement card. So I recommend that members read that Supplementary Order Paper.
Clause 5 deals with regulations providing for the issue and use of entitlement cards. Clause 5(1) amends section 132A(1) of the Social Security Act 1964 by inserting paragraph (ab). Members will recall that clause 4 amends an earlier provision in that same section to create a new regulation-making power in relation to cardholders’ photographs on entitlement cards. Specifically, paragraph (ab) allows regulations to be made: “providing for cardholders’ photographs to be affixed to or imaged into a category of entitlement cards and prescribing procedures, requirements, and other matters relating to those photographs:”. It is very important, as we seek to enhance the card through the use of the photograph, that those specific regulations are detailed in this legislation.
Section 132A of the Social Security Act allows regulations to be made for the use and issue of entitlement cards, and it has actually been used in the past to make regulations relating to the community services card. We all know that that card preceded the health entitlement card regulations in the 1990s. This section also allows for the making of regulations providing for the issue and use of entitlement cards, and will therefore allow regulations providing for issue of a standard non-photo SuperGold card—because, obviously, that is a discretion that is allowed rather than a mandatory provision. But currently it does not confer the power to make regulations providing for the inclusion of cardholder photographs on entitlement cards.
Clause 5(2) amends section 132A(2) of the Social Security Act 1964 to create a new regulation-making power in relation to embedded microchips on entitlement cards. The clause would allow entitlement cards to contain the information set out in that subsection on a magnetic strip. Members should realise that that is currently allowed—exactly the same information that is being proposed to be allowed on a microchip is allowed currently on a magnetic strip. So if people oppose it and raise concerns, they do not understand that it is exactly the same information that is allowed currently on a magnetic strip rather than on an embedded microchip. That is the conclusion of Part 1 in this debate; we have clauses 3, 4, and 5, with clause 5 being divided into two parts.
I look forward to a robust debate on this very important legislation. This legislation is being watched and monitored by thousands of people over 65 years of age around the country, because they heard the commitment that was made prior to the election by the leader of New Zealand First, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, to have this card introduced. They saw the commitment that was made by Labour and the Progressives after the election in their negotiations and agreement with New Zealand First to deliver on that. This Committee stage of the bill is the next step forward on delivering on that promise and that agreement.
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) Link to this
I was the deputy chairperson of the Social Services Committee when we looked at this bill. Concern was expressed about microchips, and I have to say that I am a little bit perturbed at the somewhat mean-spirited contribution from the Minister and the personal attacks on our parliamentary colleague from the ACT party. I thought that was quite nasty and, frankly, nothing much to do with the bill.
I think it is incredibly important that people do, in fact, consider, and state, whether they have any concerns about this provision—the microchipping provision—because, after all, I would have thought the ACT party was more like the Libertarianz Party, who are real liberals as opposed to people like myself who are more conservative by nature. I think that a valid point has been raised. Whether it is something that we need to take further than the concerns that were expressed in the commentary back to the House is another matter.
It is unfortunate that we have this bill when it really does not do an awful lot for superannuitants or veterans. It simply says that somebody is old enough to have a superannuation payment or has a veterans pension. When looking at the explanatory note of the bill, it really just talks about the fact that this is just a discount card so that people can claim a discount if a commercial facility wishes to offer it to them. So that is not really much. In fact, most of us now, when we shop at some of the supermarkets, get discount vouchers for our fuel bill. Certainly I partake of that. I get vouchers from Countdown, New World, or any of the other supermarkets that partake, when I am doing the grocery shopping because basically that is what people do. This is not an awful lot more than that.
What this card does have, however, is provision for a photograph and for a microchip. I was not in the House when my colleague Maurice Williamson was the Minister of Transport who brought in drivers’ licences with photographs, but I certainly remember all those years ago that there was a huge carry-on that somehow people would have photographs—these modern things called photographs—on drivers’ licences. Today most of us think, well, of course one would have a photograph on one’s driver’s licence. They have, in fact, become a sort of de facto identity card for those of us who have them, and I guess in many ways this is exactly what this is going to be. But I note the concern about microchipping. I note that other information may be put on there.
I also note some of the concerns about the next part of the bill as to the information the Ministry of Social Development can obtain in relation to births, deaths, and marriages. What about people who are living in relationships that are not formally recognised, other than through legislation brought into this House? That information will be difficult to access. It is not going to be a perfect entitlement card. I am not sure whether it will do an awful lot more for veterans, other than to say they get a veterans pension, whereas most veterans would have expected a bit more. Most veterans wanted a veterans’ gold card, as proposed by the National Party, which would have given them some entitlements, not simply something they can wave around and say: “Would you mind giving me a discount, because I’m a pensioner.” Frankly, I think many pensioners and many veterans pensioners, and many national superannuitants, would find this somewhat insulting.