Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill

He did say it. That is one of the things he said in that speech. That is not—[ Interruption] I ask members to check or do us and me a favour—listen to their colleagues debating in the Chamber. He most certainly referred to sharing information with the United States. [] Excuse me—I ask the member to sit down and not to do that again. It is unbelievable, Madam Chair, that while I am on my feet, that member, who has been here for a while, gets up and starts to behave like that. I say it is not pertinent, it is not relevant, and it has not been introduced or thought about at all. The fact that he related passports to this issue is an attempt to scaremonger amongst the elderly, otherwise why would he have raised it?

The second thing is that nobody is being microchipped. Nobody is being microchipped. [Interruption] Madam Chair, if he does that again, would you get him out of this Chamber because he cannot do that.

Hartley The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) Link to this

The member cannot rise and speak like that. If the member wants to rise for a point of order, that is different. However he cannot rise and just join in the debate. Please desist.

Nobody is being microchipped and those who say that are wantonly spreading misinformation, “sadly with malice” to quote the head of the Law Commission.

Could I just say that photos on the card are optional. That is how far we are prepared to go to ensure that there is no process that the elderly will not be happy with. The Law Society will be, has been, and will continue to be consulted, as will the Privacy Commissioner. As we indicated to her from the very start, we intended to go through this process always in consultation with her office to ensure that a very important facility for the elderly was not made use of because the process may have been defective.

I want to make sure that the State Services Commission is consulted, as well. And I am happy for the parties in this Parliament to be consulted, as well. But if anyone thinks that we should stand around and wait whilst the service industries of this country are, as we speak—and I am talking months now, not years—availing themselves of this technology, then surely that person does not intend to be part of the modern environment of politics or commercial services for that matter.

I want to say that in the New Zealand Herald today there was a front-page report. I want to say this to the reporter. For a reporter to call the Minister and leave a message on his cellphone after 6 p.m. the day before that reporter intends to publish an article in a paper that is available on the streets of Auckland at 5 a.m. the next morning is not professional, it is not being responsible, it is not designed to elicit information, but rather to try to make out that the journalist has professionally consulted all parties. That is nonsense. I know when that reporter called and it is simply not good enough. But, most important, to repeat a series of statements that are misinformation—disingenuously so, and worse than that demonstrably false and known to be so by some of the participants—is not good enough.

I want to make it very clear that we will not be deterred because some members rather than help the elderly, have acted differently, as has been their wont to do—not just lately but over many, many years—and believe that they will get away with it. If they think they are going to win on that basis then they will be found out to be wrong. I have spent more time in my career being concerned about privacy issues than that member ever has. I have been more concerned to disclose and put sunlight on certain issues that have never had sunlight on them than that member and his whole party ever has been. So I regard this as a personal slight, as does my party and I am not going to proceed on the basis that that member should trust me, but rather that the process is one that can be trusted.

Roy HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) Link to this

I rise to speak in the Committee stage of the debate. At the outset I would like to say that the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill is actually a very good initiative for the senior citizens and veterans of this country. My only objection to this bill is the addition of a microchipping provision to the legislation, when the background work on that has not been undertaken—against the advice of the Law Society and against the wording of the Privacy Commissioner. I want to continue to talk about that because, when it comes to the protection of private information about New Zealand citizens, that is a very important issue.

I wrote a letter to the Privacy Commissioner, because her comment has been noticeably absent both at the select committee hearing and in the public arena, and I was not sure at all whether she knew about this issue. Thankfully she did and has been doing some work on it, but she made some comments generally about the issue of microchipping. She has given me a range of comments, and I want to share some of them with the Committee. The Privacy Commissioner believes the introduction of the card needs to be preceded by a proper assessment of the implications and by an opportunity for public debate on the issues. Mr Peters may well sit there, bag the media, and bag the Opposition for raising these issues, which should be debated in the public arena—everybody else is to blame except himself. He could well have instigated a discussion on this issue himself, but no, getting his precious card through is much more important to Mr Peters than is having a proper and fair public debate.

The Ministry of Social Development too was very good in its assessment of the issues raised by the Social Services Committee. I want to talk about one of those issues, which I raised at question time today. The ministry’s advisers were specifically asked about the consequences of recommending that the clause providing for microchips be deleted. This is what they said: “If clause 5(2) was deleted from the bill, there would be no immediate consequences for the launch and implementation of the SuperGold card.” However, it was reported in today’s New Zealand Herald that an adviser from Mr Peters’ office had told senior citizens that the card had to have the microchip in order to be functional. That is clearly not true, and is a complete misrepresentation of the whole microchipping issue.

A public debate on microchipping should be held. There is no point in putting in this legislation an amendment that is not just about this card but the introduction of cards under the Social Security Act, so that microchips can be used in any card that the department wishes to put forward. The issue, of course, is that there are many different types of microchips, but Mr Peters’ legislation does not specify the microchip type or function that will be used. The microchips that we must avoid at any cost are radio frequency identification tags—“RFID”s. This legislation, if passed into law, will allow for such tags to be put in place and legitimately used to pass on information from senior citizens and veterans to any John Doe on the street, and goodness knows what will then be done with that personal information. That shows a complete disregard for the privacy issues of New Zealanders.

The Law Society gave a very strong recommendation that a general review should occur around the principles governing the use of high-functional technologies such as microchip technologies, and that the matter should be referred to and commented on thoroughly by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. That is absolutely the right process to follow. The Privacy Commissioner should have been involved from the outset and asked to comment publicly about these issues. Mr Peters and the Labour Government have neglected the security of some of their most vulnerable citizens, by bypassing basic privacy principles. They are playing privacy poker with other people’s chips, and I tell Mr Peters that that is absolutely outrageous. His card does not need to have a microchip. It can proceed as it was planned, and in the time frame that was planned, without having a microchip. We should take stock of the issues that have been raised both here and overseas. In the last 6 months the United States and the European Union have highlighted the concerns about microchips and have moved away, until proper research and consultation are done, from using microchips of any kind for human identification processes. That is the right and proper thing to do.

I will move an amendment that seeks to delete the wording “or a microchip embedded in them” from Mr Peters’ amendment. I am happy for the magnetic strip to stay on the card, I am happy about the barcode, and I am happy about the optional photograph—I think that is a very good idea—but I want microchips to be removed.

Field TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Independent—Mangere) Link to this

I just want to congratulate the Rt Hon Winston Peters. I think it is a very good initiative. It is clear up and down this country that the SuperGold card will be in the interests of senior citizens. It will allow their numbers to take advantage of benefits, and we know that other businesses operate by using large numbers of people to gain good concessions, discounts, and benefits for their members. I see no reason why this gold card cannot be used to the benefit of senior citizens, and I congratulate Labour and New Zealand First on this initiative, which formed part of the coalition negotiations that this Government is now putting in place.

In saying that, I appreciate the concerns that other members have had in relation to personal information that could end up in the wrong hands, and how that information could be used. Although I am supportive of this bill, I do appreciate the concerns that have been raised. I had some discussions this morning, particularly with other members, and I acknowledge the contributions of Judith Collins, Tim Barnett, Heather Roy, and Keith Locke. Those members have been in dialogue with me about the wording of an amendment that I believe should give some reassurance to senior citizens about the concerns that were in the media in this morning’s paper, particularly in relation to the president of Grey Power calling for a halt to the process of this bill—certainly in relation to microchipping.

I signal that an amendment in my name has been tabled. That amendment is in relation to ensuring that the critical importance of the protection of the privacy of personal information is conveyed to senior citizens and everybody else, if, in fact, we are looking at technology that could very well be misused. So my amendment, and I hope members of this Committee will support it, will mean adding the following subclause after subclause (2) in clause 5: “Section 132A is amended by adding the following subsections: (3) An Order in Council providing for the embedding of microchips in entitlement cards may not be made under this section except on the recommendation of the Minister. (4) The Minister must not recommend the making of an Order in Council referred to in subsection (3) unless, to ensure privacy and personal information are fully protected, adequate consultation concerning the privacy and security of the information to be contained in the microchip has taken place with—(a) the States Services Commission; and (b) the Privacy Commissioner; and (c) any other State agency, department, or organisation the Minister considers relevant.”

I hope that amendment will give some reassurance to senior citizens. That wording has been agreed to by the Rt Hon Winston Peters as a way of ensuring that we promote the benefits that this gold card offers to senior citizens, but makes it clear that their privacy and personal information will be protected, and that the relevant State agencies will endeavour to draft the appropriate protection in the advent of microchipping being implemented. With those comments I just want to congratulate New Zealand First on the initiative it put forward as part of the coalition talks, and I know that most senior citizens will benefit from this initiative. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

Dyson Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Senior Citizens) Link to this

There are two ways of going about things in the House of Representatives. One is to deliberately misunderstand and misrepresent proposals, to scaremonger up and down the country, then to vote against them. That has been the National-ACT position in relation to this legislation. There is another way of doing it, and that is to recognise that there are some genuine concerns about proposals that the House is considering, to look at them, and to see whether they can be fixed. That is exactly what Taito Phillip Field is alluding to in his amendment.

He said that he supports the SuperGold card initiative proposed by New Zealand First and supported by the Labour-Progressive Government as part of our confidence and supply agreement, and that he wants it progressed, but that some people have concerns about future-proofing access to information in a microchip. People are worried about new technology; in particular, people who have not read the legislation are worried about the new technology. So, to make it beyond doubt, Taito Phillip Field’s amendment proposes what was basically outlined in the original Cabinet paper submitted by the Rt Hon Winston Peters. As recently referred to by Phillip Field, I think that was a sensible way of putting in the law measures to address the concerns that have been raised about people’s privacy.

But I say that those concerns have been misunderstand and misrepresented for political point-scoring only, and the senior citizens of New Zealand will know that is the case, because the legislation makes it very clear what information can be stored. It does not allow anything in addition to what can already be stored on a magnetic strip. Let me outline to the Committee exactly what can be stored.

First is the cardholder’s name. Well, I do not think there is a lot of risk of that being lost or identified by someone else. If a photograph is included—which is voluntary, as the Rt Hon Winston Peters outlined—that provides additional security. The strip can include an identifying number assigned by the department to the cardholder—the superannuation number. It can have a number or code indicating the cardholder’s class of eligibility for the card. That does not seem a big threat. It can have an identifying number assigned to the card, and—wait for it, this could be the real threat to a person’s security and privacy—the commencement and expiry dates of the card, and a code number for mailing purposes.

If members read section 132A(2) of the Social Security Act, they would see in the law that that is the limit of the information that can be stored without any further legislative amendment. There is no issue about breach of privacy. The legislation ensures that as future opportunities for discounts and concessions for senior citizens become available, and become available only through use of a microchip, we do not have to spend hours of time in this Parliament using up legislative opportunity to do something that the law already allows us to do.

This concern is just political point-scoring by National and ACT, to the detriment of over 550,000 New Zealanders who are interested in seeing the outcome of this legislation, rather than being scared by misunderstanding and misrepresentation. I think the progress of this bill through the House will be welcome news to all those senior citizens throughout the country. I know that having heard the entire debate, they will understand that their private information is not under threat. The sole intention of this measure is to ensure that as smart technology advances, they are able to access it at the earliest possible opportunity so that more concessions and more discounts can be added to the SuperGold card.

I am delighted to be participating in this debate as the Minister for Senior Citizens, and before I conclude this contribution I want to commend the determination of my colleague the Associate Minister for Senior Citizens, the Rt Hon Winston Peters. This measure was one of his key pledges to the electorate prior to the last election. On day one after the confidence and supply agreement it was on our agenda for implementation. A lot of work has gone on, and I acknowledge our officials in that regard, as well as the select committee.

Turner JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) Link to this

I want to make a contribution to this part of the debate on this bill regarding the SuperGold card. United Future, along with some of the other parties on the Social Services Committee, did register—and we certainly included a minority view in the commentary on the bill—some concerns around microchipping. But I want to be clear that our concerns about microchipping were not really to do with the microchipping provisions in this bill. In the bill it is very, very clear what information can be stored. It is very mainstream information, and we would have to return to this House to extend those provisions at any stage for any mechanism used to store information.

So our concern was not sufficient to support the amendment by Heather Roy. However, we did discuss this issue at caucus, and our concern, as I mentioned at question time today, was whether we were progressing this idea of the Government use of microchip technology without having had the wider debate about the kinds of privacy issues that may need to be considered into the future around the use of this technology. The fact that we are including the provisions by stealth, it would seem, was of concern.

So because we do not feel that there is any need to pull the provisions out at this stage, as they are very limited in respect of what information can be stored, we have written to a series of people. We have written to the Minister of State Services, the Minister of Justice, the Privacy Commissioner, and the Law Commission asking them to take this matter into consideration and to provide some ongoing advice to the House about any of the ethical considerations around Government use of microchip technology into the future. We have asked them to provide this advice so that in future, when bills like this come up in which there is a provision for the use of microchipping, we have some clear guidelines and protocols, and we can proceed with the use of this technology, knowing that we are keeping New Zealanders safe from any use of invasive information that may be to their detriment.

We have weighed the issue up very sincerely. Unlike the previous speaker, Ruth Dyson, I believe that Heather Roy’s attempt is sincere. I do not believe she is trying to grandstand or do anything in a politicking sense. I think she is genuinely concerned, and we have looked very closely at her concerns. We feel that this bill is safe in its use of microchipping, but we think that it has raised a very important issue. We in the United Future caucus have certainly taken action to contact the bodies that give advice to the Government and to Government departments. Those bodies should have a say and give serious consideration to this, and we have taken action to ask them to do some further work.

I think the amendment in the name of Taito Phillip Field is a good amendment. It goes a long way to addressing our concerns, and we are happy to support it.

Smith Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) Link to this

A fundamental question needs to be answered about the SuperGold card. I quote directly from the report of the Social Services Committee. That report has been agreed to by the Government and by all parties. It states: “… the Government has no plans to incorporate a chip into the SuperGold Card”. Then, when I pick up the New Zealand Herald today, I see that it states this: “New Zealand First says the cards would not be functional without microchips”. That is contradictory, and I ask the Minister in the chair, right now, to clear things up.

I ask Mr Peters whether a microchip is intended to be in the card. The silence is deafening.

I’ll answer you. I am speaking shortly; I’ll answer you.

Just a yes or no answer will do. New Zealand First, on the front page of the paper, is reported as saying one thing, and the select committee is saying another. Before we can have an intelligent debate in this Committee, we need to have the answer to that fundamental question. What sort of disrespect is the Minister in the chair showing the Committee when he will not answer a simple question?

I will ask the Minister for Senior Citizens, Ruth Dyson. Will the SuperGold card, as the select committee was advised, not incorporate a microchip, or is it the case, as the New Zealand First spokesperson said on the front page of the New Zealand Herald, that the card would not be functional without a microchip? Can Ruth Dyson answer that question? Can any member of the Government answer that question?

Will you yield?

For a simple yes or no answer, yes.

The member will not be yielding for a simple yes or no answer. The member has made a statement that we are not prepared to debate this issue, and I am happy to take up the rest of the member’s time. Sadly, it is the case that the member has forfeited his right to speak in this debate—not in this debate, but for the next 5 minutes.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I sought the answer to a very important question; it is the most contentious question in this bill. We have contradictory reports from the select committee and from the New Zealand First spokesperson as reported in the New Zealand Herald. Now, the Minister in the chair sought for me to yield. I was very specific. I said I was happy to yield for a yes or no answer.

Simich The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) Link to this

True.

He then, in a smart alec way, said he was going to use all my time. I do not think that is appropriate.

Simich The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) Link to this

No; no comments sideways.

I stand by my decision to yield in order to allow the Minister to simply clarify that point, but that is all I am prepared to yield for.

In reply to that point of order, let me say that the member is not afforded the liberty, in a debate, of saying to another member that he or she is confined to one sentence in reply. If the member yields, then he yields the time that the other member reasonably takes to answer the question. That precedent has been set in other Parliaments, and we still have it ourselves. If the member looks at the Hansard—

Just give us an answer.

The member does not like it when he is shown to be inexperienced in this House, although he has been here a long time. He arrived in 1990. I know that, because I campaigned for him—I do not know why, in hindsight. But he arrived here 17 long years ago. So my point is that having been given the right after a yield request, I now want to speak.

Simich The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) Link to this

This matter has been correctly raised as a point of order. It concerns a matter of procedure. [ Interruption] I will just take a few more words from Dr Smith on the point of order.

I was very clear. The condition on which I yielded to the Rt Hon Winston Peters was that it was for a simple yes or no answer on the question of which report the Committee could reply upon in terms of the debate.

Simich The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) Link to this

I am very clear on that. We have gone past that point now, and the member has about 2 minutes left.

The Minister in the chair cannot give a straight answer to save his life.

Tolley Anne Tolley Link to this

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I asked for him to yield. He said he would. Now, he having yielded, I want my chance to avail myself of the opportunity he has afforded me to give him a reply. But there is no way a member can ask four questions and get one answer to all four—unless, of course, the member is Nick Smith and thinks like him. So I need a bit more time.

Simich The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) Link to this

Time is not in question here. It is just a matter of whom I give the call to.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Speakers’ ruling 55/1 states: “When a member yields to another, the member given the floor may refer only to the matter raised by the member yielding.” I believe that my colleague Dr Nick Smith is absolutely correct.

Simich The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) Link to this

Both contributors have gone a fair way outside of that. I can give the call to anyone, as I said before. Time is not an issue. The Minister in the chair may speak call after call after call in Committee, and it is the same for Dr Smith.

Smith Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this

The issue is very simple. I was on the select committee and received the advice of the officials. They told us two important things about this bill. They said the SuperGold card did not need to incorporate a microchip in order for it to be launched. They went even further than that; they said it was their view that not even within the next few years would it require a microchip. So why, in a rush, is Parliament expected to give approval for microchip technology for the SuperGold card, when it is not needed to launch it and is not needed in future, but it is just the case that at some time in the future the officials might want to incorporate it? I have a very simple answer. At the time in the future when they want to, they should come to this Parliament and put their case, and we will consider it.

The most important thing is this: did Mr Peters tell superannuitants at the 2005 election that the card would have a microchip? No. Did the Government, when it introduced the bill, say the card would include a microchip? No. Will Mr Field’s amendments give the 540,000 superannuitants the opportunity to have a say on whether they want a microchip to be put in the card? Again, the answer is no—it will not.

So I simply say to the Minister that we do not need to have this sort of bad process. If the ministry wants to introduce a microchip at some time in the future, then it should come to this Parliament with a bill and set out the reasons for it. This Parliament can then make a proper, considered decision as to whether it is a good or a bad thing. We will not then have legislation by stealth, in which, in a rush to get the SuperGold card up and running, we include a sneaky little clause to allow for a microchip when it is not needed.

Peters Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Associate Minister for Senior Citizens) Link to this

It is very disappointing when someone comes to this Parliament as a very young member, thereby inheriting the nickname “Young Nick”, and 7 years later, first, demonstrates an inability to understand changes in the modern economy, and, second, carries on an infuriating practice of doing no research, getting most of his parliamentary responses wrong, and behaving in a way that makes one wonder how he will get past the 2008 selection process.

Just answer the question.

The answers have already been given. Will the microchip be required in respect of the golden age card? The answer has been advised to the member and everyone else: no, the microchip will not be required on day one. [ Interruption] See, there he is. The member is shouting out again and not waiting for the full answer. He did not raise the issue to get a full answer; he got up on his feet in just a vain attempt to maintain his position on the front bench. His being there is inexplicable to anyone who knows anything about how the National Party used to be. How he got there is beyond me.

I tell members that on day one the microchip will not be required. As we have said, the microchip will be needed only if seniors are to avail themselves of many of the benefits in the modern economy that are available only through microchip technology. The banks are already moving in that direction. Some will be there by the end of 2007. Banking is a major service industry. It is a major component in our economy. If the banks are going there, then maybe we should be forward-thinking and visionary enough to provision elderly people to be there with them.

For members to get up in this Chamber and start shouting about some sort of heinous, Gestapo-like practice or Nazi-type behaviour—

He didn’t say that.

That is what those members are saying on the stump—make no bones about it. Some members are even saying that the microchip will be embedded in the people themselves. Those members know full well that that is not true. There is a word for that; it starts with “h”. There is another explanation for it; that word starts with “l”. A bunch of mendacious sybarites is what I am talking about. The National members do not understand what that phrase means, so they will not raise an objection to it. All these bright people in the National Party do not know what a mendacious sybarite is. That is why I can say it with no chance of anyone getting up and making a complaint. My colleague the ably qualified lawyer from the Hawke’s Bay understands what it means, but most of those members, like Judith Collins, do not.

Tolley Anne Tolley Link to this

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I ask the member to translate his comment into one of our official languages—either Māori or English.

Or New Zealand Sign Language.

Or New Zealand Sign Language, sorry!

The word “mendacious” is actually English. It is derived from a Latin phrase—as is the other word. I am astonished that anyone who had any legal training at all would not know what either word meant. But together they mean that member and her colleagues.

Smith Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) Link to this

In contradiction to what Mr Peters has said, I seek leave to table the statement: “… New Zealand First says the cards would not be functional without microchips …”.

No, you’ll find out at question time.

That is what New Zealand First said, I say to Mr Peters. I seek leave to table that statement for the record.

Simich The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) Link to this

Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Stewart BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) Link to this

I am delighted to contribute to this debate on behalf of New Zealand First. I am absolutely astonished and very sad that such an atmosphere of misinformation and fear has been created around the use of a simple super-gold card for 540,000 senior citizens here in New Zealand. The card is something that Australian senior citizens already use on a daily basis, and it is not too difficult to implement over here.

The doom and gloom that we are hearing in this Chamber is absolutely incredible. Logically, one should step back and ask why the Government would invest millions of dollars in microchips in order to spy on what our elderly are doing. The answer is that it definitely would not. This is total misinformation. It is scaremongering.

To say that personal information will be accessed is wrong. It is set out quite clearly in the legislation what will be on the magnetic strip. The information will be exactly the same as what would be on any microchip. We have a list here: the cardholder’s name, an identifying number assigned by the department, a number or code indicating the cardholder’s class of eligibility for the card, an identifying number assigned to the card, the commencement and expiry dates of the card, and a code number. The strips that are already on other cards that people have contain much the same information as will ever be contained in a microchip when that technology becomes available.

In relation to the argument that the card will track the user’s activities, we have to accept that really whenever we use a card—whether a bankcard, a card for an ATM machine that takes our photo, a petrol card, or a Fly Buys card, which I would say many of us here have in our possession—we do not think anything of it. They are all cards we have at home.

We will not ever return to the good old days when we never had cards. The fact that we have a photo on our driver’s licence is something that years ago people regarded with total astonishment. We thought people would steal our identities, steal our signatures, if they were on cards. But has that happened? No.

So really we are hearing a lot of misinformation. We have a microchip on our ID cards here at Parliament that tracks exactly where we have been—which doors we have opened, and which areas of the House we have walked through. As we have heard today, next year banks are changing their technology. Guess what? Because banks are changing, retailers have to change, too. If we want to use our cards, they will have to be updated to be part of the new technology. And, as was pointed out today in question time, the cards for seniors will not initially be issued with a microchip.

The concerns that we have heard here today are interesting, and I think they should be part of a wider debate, perhaps, on the use of microchip technology. But I believe that our senior citizens can be assured that the cards will not be used for purposes they are not supposed to be used for. The concerns we have heard show total misunderstanding; they are examples of political point-scoring. The information, as we have said before, is clearly set out in the bill.

It is a shame that now that the SuperGold card is becoming a reality for our senior citizens and our veterans, all of these hassles have been brought to the fore. We know that seniors are eagerly awaiting this particular card. We often heard criticism in the earlier part of the debate from those on the other side of the Chamber that they did not know the details of what is actually on the SuperGold cards. So be it! We have all heard that details will be released—and we know they will be—when the card is launched. That is the usual practice for any card to be launched.

We in New Zealand First believe that it is very sad to play politics with this initiative.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) Link to this

I want to make it perfectly clear from the beginning that National will, indeed, support everything possible to ensure that our senior citizens get access to all the entitlements that they can, from the discounts available to them. But I take the point that my colleague Nick Smith made earlier on—that the majority of the Social Services Committee members made a recommendation. They first of all said: “We received a submission that raised concerns about the use of microchips in the entitlement cards on such a large scale, and recommended a review of the principles governing the use of such technology.” That is not a difficult thing to achieve, but the committee went further: “While the amendment would allow entitlement cards to be issued with embedded microchips, the Government has no plans to incorporate a chip into the SuperGold Card, or entitlement cards generally, at present.” Whether the intervening time has been too much of a rush for New Zealand First, I do not know, but it was indeed quite extraordinary to read in the New Zealand Herald this morning the point from New Zealand First that the cards will not be functional without microchips, which could be in use as early as next year.

I think there is an absolutely correct concern by a variety of responsible people as to taihoa-ing—taking caution—with the use of microchips. First of all, there is the New Zealand Law Society, the view of which I understand the Rt Hon Winston Peters has in some respects rejected. But then we can go to Marie Shroff, the Privacy Commissioner, who said she was not opposed to smart-card technology but more debate was needed—which I think is very reasonable. In fact, she went on and made the statement that there is the potential for functional creep, where the card ends up being used for far more than what was originally intended.

To balance that view, we heard from Keith Locke, who was talking about the nightmare of the photograph, when he went through the USA. Indeed, his photograph could indeed be a nightmare to a lot of—

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON Link to this

Oh, not kind.

“Not kind”, the member says? But, look, I tell members that the soothsayers and scaremongers, and the disaster predictors from the Green Party, revel in this sort of thing, and they conjure up all sorts of things that are quite unrealistic. I think that a balance is required—the balance required and suggested by the Law Society, by Marie Shroff, and indeed by Grey Power.

I cannot understand why New Zealand First is wanting to stampede into this, when Grey Power is saying that microchips are potentially an invasion of privacy and could track user activities. That may be a colourful description of what can happen, but there is no doubt that the sensible thing is to have thorough debate on the issue of microchips. Technology—globally and in New Zealand—is rapidly changing, and we have a functional card that can be made available to superannuitants right now. They can take advantage of the discounts that the Rt Hon Winston Peters says are available. We have yet to see exactly their reality; he says they are commercially sensitive. But we hope that the expectations will be lived up to, and that the Rt Hon Winston Peters has done some very solid groundwork to make sure that the commercial arrangements and advantages that stem from these cards will bring real benefits to our seniors.

I understand that Heather Roy is bringing in another amendment, to ensure that part of a proposed amendment to clause 5(2) will be deleted, thus meaning there will be an opportunity for a proper debate to take place on the way in which new technologies can be used in New Zealand. I think that is absolutely sensible; I believe that National will be supporting such an amendment.

I go back to say that yes, indeed, we support the original intent of this bill. We are looking forward to seeing the arrangements that the Rt Hon Winston Peters has worked so hard and diligently on to ensure that the seniors of our country will have real benefits from discounts. He might be able to give us just a little bit of an idea of what those arrangements might be, without giving away the commercial sensitivities that he talked about in question time this afternoon.

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) Link to this

It is important to remember, when we debate this Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill in Committee, what will be achieved. First of all, convenience will be achieved. The proposed SuperGold card is nothing but an item of convenience for our older citizens. The Opposition members, of course, would oppose that.

Hon Members

No, we’re not opposing it.

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER Link to this

They do not oppose a card of convenience? Well, if they accept a card of convenience, then they must accept all that follows from this bill, because this bill changes absolutely nothing once we accept the convenience aspect.

The bill brings in the power to include on a microchip that which is already included on a barcode under section 132A of the Social Security Act 1964. As outlined in a speech earlier on by the Minister for Senior Citizens, Ruth Dyson, the information on the microchip will include the cardholder’s name. That is not a breach of privacy, because the cardholder’s name is on the card anyway. So members cannot toss the word “privacy” around in the hope of creating fear, suspicion, and concern in those considering attaining a card of convenience.

The microchip must contain an identifying number, which will be assigned to the cardholder by the Ministry of Social Development. Again, that is not a breach of privacy, because each identifying number is between the ministry and the particular cardholder.

The microchip will have a number or code indicating the cardholder’s class of eligibility for the card. The number or code is there so that the class of benefit the cardholder can access is identifiable immediately. That is not a breach of privacy; again, it is a matter of convenience.

The microchip can include an identifying number that is assigned to the card. What privacy breach arises from this? One has a card and it has a number. One has a number and it has a card. There is no privacy breach there, whatsoever. It is a matter of convenience.

The commencement and expiry dates of the card are also on the microchip. A card starts, and it may end; it may because it has started. It is a convenience, not a breach of privacy.

There is also a code number on the microchip for mailing purposes. Well, we all have mailing addresses, and no one suggests that they are a breach of privacy.

I take up what the Associate Minister for Senior Citizens said about the “mendacious sibilations” coming from the other side of the Chamber in respect of this matter. I am pleased to note that the term has obviously been accepted by the opponents to this bill. The Associate Minister quite fairly put it on the table for them to debate, and they have accepted, without dispute, their mendacity in this matter. They have accepted, without dispute, that their actions in opposing this bill are “sibilantic”. They have accepted, without dispute, that the voodoo politics, which the Opposition—

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER Link to this

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. We did not actually accept it. We just—

The member did not understand the statement.

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER Link to this

No, no, some of us actually did our law degrees when they were taught in English rather than in Latin, because we are a bit younger.

Simich The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) Link to this

No, that is not a point of order.

Hon Member

She still doesn’t know!

Perhaps if the member had studied some Latin, she would have learnt some of the important terms used in this House, and she would have appreciated the absolute precision with which the Associate Minister used the term “mendacious sibilance”, because it is a very accurate description of the voodoo politics we are hearing from the Opposition members this afternoon.

The Opposition members see that we have a group of senior citizens, aged 65-plus, who are not familiar with some of the modern technology, so they throw in phrases such as “breach of privacy” and “undermining your security”, and make the people for whom this card is designed, as a matter of convenience, nervous about it and concerned about whether they should have it. That is one of the definitions of “mendacious sibilant” behaviour, as advanced by the Associate Minister. What the Opposition members are saying is not true. It is spoken out of the side of their mouths, and it is said with a degree of contempt for those to whom it is addressed. In accepting the currency of that term in this debate, the Opposition members have themselves defined their approach to the debate. The Associate Minister was able to sum up in two succinct words—quite accurately, on this occasion—exactly what the opposition to this bill is all about.

Heather Roy’s amendment will be put to the Committee, and if she is true to her neo-liberal policies, she will seek to amend this bill to make the card a platinum card. She will not want to have all senior citizens accessing, with convenience, the discounts that are to be offered by her neo-liberal friends in the Business Roundtable. The elitism of the neo-liberals, as typified by the ACT Party, is that not everybody should have equal access to all matters. No, the true—

Roy HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) Link to this

I would like to talk about the amendments that I have before the Committee.

I have indicated to the Clerk that I will withdraw Supplementary Order Paper 110. When we came to vote on it, it would have been ruled out of order. The Minister Winston Peters’ amendment would have come first, and as a result mine would have been ruled out of order.

I have submitted a separate amendment, which is an amendment to the Minister’s amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 111 to clause 5. It omits from the proposed substituted section 132A(2) the wording “or a microchip embedded in them,”. The effect will be exactly the same, but the process will be somewhat different, and my amendment to the Minister’s amendment will be voted on first.

I also have a second amendment that I want to put forward in case at the end of this debate we are left with microchips—a terrible thought, I know. Should that be the case, I want to put some safeguards around the use of microchips, particularly in light of the Privacy Commissioner’s comments to me yesterday about the use of microchips. The amendment adds subclause (3) to clause 5 and reads: “Any highly functional technology (including microchipping technology) used for the purpose of human identity verification under subsection (2) must comply with approved international privacy guidelines.” I think it is very, very important that this happens and is followed, so that proper process is gone through and we end up with the right sort of microchip not only in this card but in any card that might be established under the Social Security Act.

I would like to address a couple of points made by previous speakers. Judy Turner said that this issue was very safe in light of this particular card. That may well be the case. The advice we received from the officials was that there were not very many concerns about, perhaps, this bill. But my point is that this amendment is not just about the SuperGold card; it is an amendment to the Social Security Act, and it will mean that microchips can be added to other cards.

Roy HEATHER ROY Link to this

No, no, where’s the amendment for that?

Mr Peters might like to shout from his chair, but if he likes to take a call of his own, then he can give the Committee his point of view. In fact, he is wrong.

It is very sad, I think, that both United Future and Taito Phillip Field have decided not to support my amendment. Those members have spoken very strongly against the use of microchips and have the same concerns that I have about them. What we are seeing in this Committee, sadly, is that support for Mr Peters is more important to them than the importance of privacy issues to our senior citizens. It is a sad day in this Chamber when their concerns are ignored. Those senior citizens include veterans who have fought for the freedoms we enjoy today; it is sad that their privacy can so easily be taken from them. If microchips with no type, no specification of type, and no specification of function can be inserted into law and passed through this House, it is a very sad day indeed.

The reason I have put my amendment forward is not, as others on the other side of the Committee have suggested, voodoo politics and the like; it is because I care about the privacy of our senior citizens. I worry that what Marie Shroff, the Privacy Commissioner, has said might happen, and let me quote from an email she sent me yesterday: “There is the potential with microchips for function creep where the card ends up being used for far more than was originally intended.” It is all very well specifying what is going to be on this microchip but what—

R Doug Woolerton Link to this

What about the banks?

Roy HEATHER ROY Link to this

Mr Woolerton is quite right; the banks need to be involved in this sort of discussion, too, because function creep can happen with their microchips. We have never properly had a discussion in public about the parameters around what microchips can contain.

Function creep is where the card ends up being used for far more than was originally intended. Marie Shroff also said that security is a real issue, both for the data stored on the cards and for the risk of identity theft. She spelt it out in black and white—identity theft. She also commented that a possible microchipped SuperGold card has some far-reaching implications that need to be explored thoroughly before a final decision is made. How much clearer could a Privacy Commissioner be about an issue? She wants this issue debated publicly and explored thoroughly, and that has not happened in this debate. She wants those issues addressed before anything happens. SuperGold cards should be something that senior citizens and veterans could look forward to.

Peters Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Associate Minister for Senior Citizens) Link to this

I do not think the member Heather Roy should refer to her leader like that—talk about function creep! There are certain rules in this Parliament and there are certain standards.

The member talked about function creep as though we are not aware that there are two great dangers. Function creep is a danger with any new technology; our job is to set parameters and to always be conscious of it. The other danger is that the technology soon becomes obsolete. Well, that is life.

But I suppose that member, who thinks it is right to take 6 months in the army at the taxpayers’ expense—at her age—might have missed what every other member has been working on in her absence. She would not have been brought up to date.

Personal attack.

Roy Heather Roy Link to this

It is not a personal attack. I find it an affront to the taxpayer for someone to desert her role as a member of Parliament for 6 months and think that somehow she is fulfilling her democratic and constitutional responsibilities—in particular, given that her leader was off dancing with the stars at the time and the party was without representation in this House.

What’s that got to do with the bill?

How is that relevant to the bill? Well, if that member had been here when these discussions were going on, she would know.

She was.

No, she was not. She was off with the army.

I want to say this: how would the Law Society have known about the issue of the microchip if not for the fact that we brought it to its attention? [Interruption] I know that the member wants to persist with looking in the mirror and talking about function creep, but she should desist and get back to listening.

The second thing is how the Privacy Commissioner would be aware of this issue. Well, amongst other things, we spoke to the commissioner and said we wanted to be alongside her office’s consideration of this issue because these are serious issues and we wanted to be certain that, in attempting to ensure that people were brought up to date with the modern requirements of being a consumer and using their consumer power of numbers, we did not somehow introduce any evil that was foreseeable or predictable. That is why the commissioner knew about the issue.

The third thing is that these matters raised today were already part of the Cabinet paper and the Cabinet paper approvals. Although it is OK to raise the issue once, to go on month in and month out, knowing that these matters have been and are the subject of the Cabinet paper that brought this measure about, is purely a waste of Parliament’s time.

The last thing I want to say is this: to now talk about other cards being affected by this card’s technology is again drivel, nonsense, and scaremongering. It is scaremongering. It is not the case that other cards will be affected. This card is a stand-alone card.

He’s lost the plot.

Lost the plot? Well, I tell that member that if all she has done in the time she has been in Parliament is talk about mangroves, then she never had a plot in the first place. In fact, when one talks about it that way, one sees that her whole presence has been a conspiracy against her electorate.

I thought Judy Turner handled this matter in a responsible way. I thought Taito Phillip Field handled his concerns in a responsible way. From National, we are seeing the same kind of obstructionist behaviour that it indulged in when we sought to give the retired far better amounts in their retirement. National members shouted from the rooftops that we could not afford it. Then their leader, Don Brash, turned up at the last campaign and said they now agreed. On the question of savings, they obstructed—

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Please clarify how the comments being made are relevant to the bill in question.

Roy Heather Roy Link to this

Speaking to the point of order, can I say the comments are relevant to the bill because I am describing the kind of behaviour I see from certain National members as not being new. I am just talking about it in passing. If National members cannot take it, then they should not come to this House. This is a tough arena here. They should not be so soft and pathetic.

Hon Members

Mr Chair—

Simich The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) Link to this

First, I have to dispose of the point of order.

The Minister raised the issue of Cabinet papers. He referred to comments made in Cabinet papers that none of us—certainly, none of us on this side of the Committee—were privy to. I ask him to table those papers in the House so that we can see that they contain the things he says they do.

Speaking to the point of order—

Simich The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) Link to this

We have gone on to a second point of order here. The one raised before by Sandra Goudie is disposed of.

Speaking to the second point of order, which was raised by Heather Roy, can I say there is a thing called the Official Information Act. The rest of us use it from time to time—some more than others. If the member wants to see the papers, then she should leave off the military training and put in an Official Information Act request.

Mr Chairman, I refer you to Standing Order 368: “Whenever a Minister quotes from a document relating to public affairs a member may, on a point of order, require the Minister to lay the document on the Table.” I believe that the matter should be dealt with in that way.

Speaking to the point of order, I say that that Standing Order refers to a Minister quoting from a Cabinet paper. It does not state that a reference to the existence of a Cabinet paper requires one to table it.

You quoted from it!

Just humbug! That member is a person with some legal training, I am told. And there is the Whip, sitting in her chair. Neither of them knows the Standing Orders. Their sitting here clearly is a total waste of the taxpayers’ money. After all this time, holding down a seat—

I raise a point of order—

I am speaking to the point of order. Sit down.

Well, then get on to it.

Sit down, there’s a good girl. Sit down. Do not be long about it.

Simich The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) Link to this

We know the rulings with regard to points of order, so we will not go down that track. I take it that the Minister was not quoting from an official document. Therefore, that disposes of that point of order. Outside of that, it is entirely up to the Minister whether he wants to table it.

Goudie SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) Link to this

National is quite clear about the fact that it actually supports the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill—let me make that very clear. However, I am sure that at the first announcement that there would be a super card entitlement bill the Rt Hon Winston Peters went out, celebrated, fell asleep at the wheel, and has not woken up since. Otherwise, he would quite clearly understand the—

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman. That is an outrageous allegation. I tell that member that unless she withdraws and apologises right now, then I will take it much further than that. I will not have somebody get up and talk about me going out for a celebration and falling asleep at the wheel, which is demonstrably false. The member knows that, so she should now withdraw and apologise or take the consequences.

Simich The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) Link to this

The member has taken offence at that.

Roy Heather Roy Link to this

I withdraw and apologise. It can be quite clearly—

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman, I would like to know why it is acceptable for the Minister to make outrageous comments about other members in this Committee, which he has done continually throughout the debate, but it is not acceptable for members to make comments about him.

Simich The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) Link to this

It is sort of borderline. Of all the personal reflections or comments that are made, certain ones are outlawed. In the case of others, if the member concerned takes exception to them, then we require a withdrawal and apology—that has been done—and we move on. The comments are not acceptable, but I think most members know that if a member who is the target of those comments takes exception to them, then that is the way we deal with it.

Henare Hon Tau Henare Link to this

It is quite clear that the Minister has lost the plot. Here is a Minister, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, who thinks that the New Zealand Law Society submission on the bill was rubbish. That was said during the second reading of the bill, I think it was. The Minister could not understand the fact that, as the Law Society pointed out, the bill actually provides regulation-making powers for cardholder photographs—

Is this the microchipping bill?

We are talking about the SuperGold discount card that is being touted here.

But I make it very clear that the bill provides for regulation-making powers for cardholder photographs to be on entitlement cards. That is not just the SuperGold card discount card. It includes the SuperGold discount card, but it means any entitlement card. That is why I say to the Committee again that the Rt Hon Winston Peters has lost the plot, because he fails to understand that very, very clear distinction. He also fails to understand that it is also about making regulatory powers for microchips to be embedded in entitlement cards. That means any entitlement card, not just the SuperGold discount card.

When will the Minister get that right? And when will the Labour members of the Social Services Committee and the other Labour members who are speaking on this bill get it right? I have not heard one of them get it right, and that is in spite of the New Zealand Law Society making that abundantly simple and clear in its submission to the select committee. National members got it; we understood it. We raised some concerns about microchipping and the issues around photographs during the first reading. That is why that came under discussion at the select committee. It is about time that the Minister, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, got a grasp of what is really happening here, but I do not see that being about to happen in a hurry.

Look who’s talking!