Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill

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

I move, That the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. The third reading of this bill marks one of the final stages in paving the way for the SuperGold card to be launched in August this year. New Zealand First campaigned on a dedicated seniors card at the last election. We made such a card a cornerstone of our supply and confidence agreement, and we have worked since that time to bring it to fruition. The SuperGold card recognises the immeasurable contribution our seniors and veterans have made and continue to make to New Zealand society. From August this year the SuperGold card will be available to approximately 540,000 New Zealand residents who are aged 65 or over or who are aged under 65 and receive New Zealand superannuation or a veteran’s pension.

The benefits of the card are many and, moreover, they can be expected to grow over time. Some members may know that seniors cards have been available in Australia for some 15 years now. We know from the experience there that the seniors card system over there has improved dramatically over time. As well as enabling senior citizens to access commercial discounts from SuperGold card business partners, the card will help them to access the wide range of central and local government entitlement services and concessions already available to them.

The card and the information services that support it will be a focal point for ensuring that seniors know all about the assistance currently available, and to be available, to them, and ensuring that they can go about getting it. There are a host of benefits so legion that I cannot possibly list them all now. [Interruption] For the benefit of the member for Coromandel, who goes around disabusing people of the truth on this matter and says all sorts of things that are fictional when she knows from this House and from the law—if she only understood a part of it—that what she is foreboding as being likely to happen is not a fact, is not the law, and is not going to happen, I ask her to forget about the mangroves and try to focus on something serious for a while in her political life, as brief as that will be.

In this way, the card will be a platform—a vehicle providing our seniors with the help and information they need to live healthy and independent lives now and in the years ahead. It will replace the community services card for eligible cardholders aged 65 and over, and the superannuation card. Cardholders will be offered the option of a photo—I ask members to notice the words “option of a photo”—on their card. That will be useful for those who do not have a driver’s licence or other form of photo ID. Veterans with war and emergency service may opt to receive a specially branded veterans’ version of the card. There will also be a dedicated SuperGold card website, 0800 phone number, and printed directory promoting the range of entitlements, concessions, and discounts available to cardholders across the country from central government, local authorities, and businesses.

Let us consider the provisions of the bill and clear up some of the confusion, wanton and egregious as it has been, that was apparent during the second reading debate. As members will be aware, the bill makes two amendments to section 132A of the Social Security Act 1964, which is an existing provision that enables regulations to be made for the issue and use of entitlement cards. I repeat: it is an existing provision. The first amendment in Part 1 will allow regulations to be made allowing for cardholder photographs to be placed on entitlement cards.

JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) Link to this

Unlike the Minister who has just sat down, I do not intend to indulge in 10 minutes’ worth of personal abuse, because that is certainly about all we got from the Minister of Foreign Affairs. We got an awful lot of talk about the veterans card and the SuperGold card, neither of which, by the way, is mentioned in this legislation. The legislation is called the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill.

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) Link to this

I have just listened to the speech of the previous speaker, Judith Collins, who busily danced on the head of a pin. She tried to make fatuous comments so she could put out yet another press release on the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill to take the credit for its passing—knowing that the bill would be very popular with the senior members of our society. She will want to obfuscate the fact that in her last speech in the House she said that it was bad legislation, and that National members voted for the bill in the Social Services Committee only for some spurious reason of support and to get the matter through the committee.

The last time Judith Collins spoke about the bill in the Chamber she noted that National always reserved its objection to the bill. But now, of course, as the legislation becomes a reality, she rushes off to issue her next press statement and take unto herself the credit for work she has not done. She does not quite fully mention that this bill has gone through, over her vigorous rhetoric and opposition, and that there has been no constructive input into the process from either her or her party. If she omits that from her press statement, that will perhaps be in keeping with the continued contribution—and I use that word in a very ironic way—of the National Party to the progress of this bill.

What the National Party does not like about this bill is that it recognises the valued members of this society, as the Minister said. The National Party, being an entity that recognises value in terms of dollars, is unable to see that a gold entitlement card is a statement to each and every senior citizen that the work those senior citizens have contributed to build up New Zealand to what it is today is valued, even if each individual senior citizen with a card has no great material wealth. It is itself a statement of recognition and a statement that, finally, this country recognises the very many ways that it is a good country because of the work of our senior citizens.

We heard again in the previous speech from that member, who sought to dance on the head of a pin, that she tried to suggest that there was some untoward conspiracy here—perhaps she should become a sub-editor on Investigate magazine—and that there was an attack on recipients of social security benefits generally. I have to say that this matter was not raised at the Social Services Committee by her or by the National Party at any stage, otherwise it would have been explicitly dealt with in the report, and I would have voted against the bill.

I repeat, at this stage of the third reading, that the purpose of this bill is simply to make amendments to the Social Security Act 1964 and the Births, Deaths, and Marriages Registration Act 1995 to enable full effect to be given to the Government’s intention in regard to the SuperGold card. We are talking here about the SuperGold card. That is what this bill is about, and that is the bill that has gone before Parliament and will be passed today, in the fullness of time.

Just as National members, as they prepare for their press releases, are trying to take credit where it is not due unto themselves, they have also tried to take from Taito Phillip Field the credit for his amendment, which reinforced the steps that are handy but not necessary to ensure the sanctity of privacy of information—

SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) Link to this

I rise to speak to the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill. In doing so I acknowledge that National is supporting this bill, in spite of the rhetoric from the member who has just spoken and from the Minister in charge of this bill. This bill has been dubbed the “SuperGold Card Discount Bill”, and we do have to ask ourselves why. All the rhetoric is about the SuperGold discount card, yet the bill does not mention the SuperGold card once.

National members have no problem with what has been achieved through this SuperGold card—well, we think something will be achieved but nobody actually knows what will accrue to this card. We would be delighted if some real benefits could come out of this for our senior citizens, and we acknowledge the great work that Grey Power has done. It is to be congratulated on all its efforts with regard to the SuperGold card. We recognise the importance of the advocacy role of Grey Power and we are pleased to support the recognition of that and its contribution, and the contribution our senior citizens have made and continue to make to our society. We cannot overstate that in any way.

But I do take issue with the Rt Hon Winston Peters and the Minister, Rick Barker, over the wording of the bill. At no time did they make much reference to the bill. It was all about the SuperGold discount card. Yet the bill has only two parts to it, and not once in the bill are the words “SuperGold discount card” mentioned.

The purpose of Part 1 is to provide regulation-making powers. What is that for? The regulation-making powers are to provide for photographs and to provide for microchipping. But the regulations will actually constrain what is going to happen around those two provisions. Not once is the word “optional” mentioned. The explanatory note of the bill goes on about the photograph being optional. Well, given that that is written in the explanatory note, I guess the Government can be held to account—if it is still there at any future date—to ensure that that provision is indeed optional. But there is absolutely nothing that says “optional” in this bill—we only have to read the wording.

That was something that was made quite clear by the New Zealand Law Society. In fact, the Rt Hon Winston Peters actually rubbished the New Zealand Law Society’s submission, which pointed out that the wording is quite specific. Paragraph (ba), inserted by clause 5(1), states: “providing for cardholders’ photographs to be affixed to or imaged into a category of entitlement cards and prescribing procedures, requirements, and other matters in relation to those photographs:”. Clause 5(2) also amends section 132A(2) by inserting the words “or a microchip embedded in them.’ ” So regulations allow for those two activities to take place with regard to entitlement cards, not with regard to the SuperGold card. The bill does not mention the SuperGold discount card. The bill talks about entitlement cards—any entitlement card. That means any card issued by this Government that gives people an entitlement to something. The SuperGold card itself is not actually mentioned at all. I just cannot understand why there is so much rhetoric around the SuperGold card when the bill is actually quite clear, quite simple, and quite specific around a number of issues.

However, the one thing that is needed with regard to the SuperGold card is for the Government to be able to access the information in order to provide that SuperGold card to the 540,000 senior citizens who are entitled to it, who I am sure would include the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) Link to this

I am very pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a call in the third reading of the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill. We in New Zealand First are very pleased to see this card becoming a reality. It has been very sad to hear in this debate the cynicism of the National Party speakers. They do not really like to see anybody receiving discounts or anything that they cannot get or have not initiated. I seem to recall that it was no hassle for the National Party to get information on superannuitants at the last election. I remember some letters were sent out. So how the National members can get up and say it is shameful to have knowledge of people’s superannuation details is really beyond me.

I find it very surprising, too, that the National Party’s support for this bill has been quite reluctant, particularly when we know that senior citizens and veterans are looking forward to the SuperGold card and to receiving some discounts from participating business, so that their pensions can go a little bit further than they do at present. At last, New Zealand’s senior citizens will be able to enjoy some of the benefits that their Australian counterparts enjoy—and have done so for some time. That is basically how it should be here in New Zealand. If it can be done in Australia, it can definitely be done here in New Zealand. This type of approach is long overdue.

It has been a very great shame that this card has been caught up in the general hysteria over microchipping. Seniors have nothing to fear over the SuperGold card. A card like this is used safely by Australian senior citizens, and the same will apply here in New Zealand. As the Rt Hon Winston Peters said in question time last Thursday, the SuperGold card will not be issued with a microchip but will have a magnetic strip and barcode. The information contained on them will be limited. It is quite interesting to see that the legislation has a clause that deals with microchips, but that is basically aimed at future-proofing the card. We know that magnetic strips and barcode technology are rapidly going to become redundant. We are also very aware that banks and retailers are already moving towards the use of microchip technology. When it comes to this particular card, it would be totally negligent for us not to at least think of trying to future-proof the legislation. If that clause had not been in the legislation, New Zealand First would be castigated for a lack of vision or forward planning. Really, in this particular case it is a bit like being the meat in the sandwich. The scaremongering directed at our seniors has been quite scandalous. If the SuperGold card is to be functional in the future, it will require that technology.

But, again, we emphasise that the SuperGold card will not be issued with a microchip when it is launched in August. Like all other MPs here in this House, the New Zealand First members know that any move towards microchip technology will require a thorough review by both the Privacy Commissioner and the State Services Commission. That will always be the case, despite the scaremongering we have heard. Microchip technology is not being slipped on to the SuperGold card secretly in the dead of night. We on this side of the House have no desire to see any information related to our seniors be abused or misused. The checks are already in place to provide the strongest possible protection against the misuse of information. Our seniors and veterans—and we know there are over 540,000 of them—deserve far better than to have this sort of fear put into them.

I believe that the SuperGold card is an excellent example of what can occur in the MMP environment and of how MMP actually works in practice. We must acknowledge the Hon Ruth Dyson, the Minister for Senior Citizens, for her support and work to ensure that the SuperGold card becomes a reality. At the last election New Zealand First campaigned on a dedicated seniors card, and we have worked since that time to ensure that it has become a reality. We are very aware in New Zealand First that those with goodwill can work together in the best interests of all New Zealanders. With this particular card, New Zealand First did not promise the moon and deliver dust—as many others have often done at election time. We followed through on the policy, and we will continue to do so with regard to every one of the items in our confidence and supply agreement with the Labour Government.

We are very pleased to hear that a website is to be set up when the card is launched, to keep seniors informed of developments. I accessed the Australian Seniors Card website and was very interested to see the competitions, discount directories, short-term offers, latest discounts, and travel discounts—the list just goes on. I am sure that if all of that information is included on the New Zealand SuperGold card website, then our seniors will be absolutely delighted. For those people who do not use the Internet—and we know there are some—there is a freephone number. We must also remind them that a published, printed directory will also be available to promote the range of entitlements, concessions, and discounts that are available to cardholders from central government, local authorities, and businesses. Really, seniors will have all of that information available to assist them to make the best possible use of the benefits available.

We in New Zealand First see the SuperGold card and the benefits that will be available as being complementary to the Grey Power card. Both of those cards will have the common objective of ensuring the best and most extensive use of the purchasing power of every senior’s income. We believe and we know, particularly from the Australian experience, that those cards—both of them—will provide tangible benefits that will make a real difference to the lives of our senior citizens.

In New Zealand First we have always maintained that the treatment of our seniors sends a clear signal of our status as a developed nation. This card recognises the contribution that our seniors and veterans have made, and continue to make, in our society. We know for a fact that the voluntary sector, in particular, is helped hugely by our senior citizens—St John Ambulance, Meals on Wheels, SeniorNet, and the many other organisations that our seniors belong to. There are far too many to list here. Our seniors make a really great contribution, and it is timely to ensure there is recognition of that. I think that all of us here in this House have to recognise that many of our seniors—our parents—are busy looking after their grandchildren after school so that those children do not have to go into after-school care, and caring for sick children on the days that parents have to go to work. Seniors do make a huge contribution.

Our senior citizens can choose to use their SuperGold card as a form of photo ID if they so wish, and that will be entirely at their own discretion—it is optional. I know that many of us use our drivers’ licences as ID for that particular purpose. Some of the senior citizens I have spoken to are actually looking forward to having their photos on their SuperGold card, because they believe that it will actually safeguard their card.

We can assure people that the benefits of the SuperGold card cannot be discussed prior to its launch, because they are commercially sensitive. Nobody can say which businesses are participating in the SuperGold card before the card is actually launched. I know we have heard criticism of that from National members over the past few weeks, but they should just wait—help is on the way, the discounts are coming, the directories will come, and people will be able to find out.

New Zealand First is very pleased that this bill has now reached this stage in the process. We support this bill, and we look forward to the launch of the card in August. We believe that our seniors have earned the SuperGold card, and we look forward to receiving their feedback on it.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) Link to this

The Green Party will be supporting this bill, on the grounds that it will enable pensioners to get better access to services, and to discounts from various agencies—both Government and private agencies. We hope it will give an impetus to various firms, and to those in the local body and Government sectors, to provide greater discounts. If we travel to Australia, for example, or to Ireland, we find that pensioners there, or people getting superannuation, often get considerably greater discounts on a greater range of things than is the case here in New Zealand. Hopefully, this SuperGold card will be an advance for pensioners and beneficiaries on superannuation.

This legislation has been controversial, beyond the basic nature of the card, in terms of the legislative provision for microchips to be added to the cards. There was an argument from the various parties in the House that were rather cautious about putting microchips on the cards at this stage—or about giving legislative provision for that at this stage—and they wanted much more investigation into privacy issues before that took place. So there was a difference between the Government side where members said they wanted this legislated in advance, and the rest of us on this side of the House who thought: “Why not inquire first and, if need be, legislate later?”. If we did have a proper inquiry or investigation into microchips and all their implications, there might well be consensus in the House and it would not be difficult to put through legislation for that—possibly even in statutes amendment legislation. I think all the scaremongering about how difficult that would be is quite wrong. It is much better to err on the cautious side.

We did make some progress during the debate. Taito Phillip Field’s amendment, for example, talked about the State Services Commission, the Privacy Commissioner, and other State agencies being consulted before an Order in Council was enacted to put microchips on cards. That goes a little way towards satisfying our concerns, but not the full distance. It is good that the Privacy Commissioner is to be involved there, and perhaps the fact that the Social Services Committee recommended a review of the principles governing the use of such technology could lead to a fairly urgent review, of some form—one involving public input. Whether that is another select committee review or some broader review, I think that a review is required.

The concerns of those who were worried about what the Privacy Commissioner called function creep—it could also be called mission creep in another circumstance—were that there are dangers there. It is said that the card will be voluntary, but we can easily see how in practice a voluntary card can become a compulsory card, either through reward or punishment, if the use of the card is extended to other categories of the population—other beneficiaries, or whatever—or if people are denied access to certain services without the card. That could take place in either public or private institutions. It could also become more obligatory if there are extra rewards, or if people are being told that if they want extra rewards they have to have their cards on them.

The other problem is that once we have a microchip system—and if the microchip has sufficient capacity, if it is a fairly modern microchip—all sorts of other things can be added to it. We know that the microchips in our passports have facial recognition systems digitalised on the chips, which are used particularly when we pass through the United States immigration service, and when officials take photographs and compare those with the digitalised versions of our faces on the microchips in our passports. Of course, when we go through US border control we have our fingerprints taken, which are digitalised and kept in the records there. Those sorts of recognition biometrics can be added to a microchip at any time.

The other thing about microchips that we really have to go into is the way in which the information on them can be easily transferred to databases and be the basis for a more general ID card in the community. We have to move very cautiously so that we do not go as quickly down the road as some other countries in Europe, and Australia, are going, towards generalised ID cards. There are huge privacy problems involved when generalised ID cards are used for virtually everything in society—for what we are doing, our preferences, where we are moving, and all sorts of things. Those can be so easily kept track of, if we have a generalised ID card, of course, and we know that that ability exists to some degree already in the various cards we have. But if everything is wrapped up in one card, it can be even more intrusive in a privacy sense.

Although we live in a fairly tolerant society now, I think we always have to work out our privacy legislation, and what we do with things like ID cards, on the basis that at some future time we might have a less democratic Government or in some ways a more repressive Government. We do not want to set up a system to enable a more responsive Government to control the population to a large degree. Someone said to me that if we think back to Nazi Germany, if they had had all this really modern surveillance technology with universal ID cards, we know that none of the Jews would ever have escaped from being sent off to concentration camps. They would have been so easy to track down. So we have to think of the use of this technology not in terms of the liberal form of society we have now, but in terms of a more repressive society.

That is not to say that we are against microchips on various cards. There is nothing wrong with bus cards, debit cards, cards for convenience, and all those sorts of cards, some of which have photo ID and some of which do not. No one is against the use of modern technology in terms of cards and in terms of microchips, but we have to be careful how that is implemented, particularly on State-provided cards.

I also take up the point Judith Collins made that it is rather strange that on the one hand we have this legislation that enables people to in effect have access to birth dates and other information from the Births, Deaths, and Marriages register on the card, but on the other hand we have a Births, Deaths, and Marriages bill before the House in which the Government is trying to reduce all public access to information in that register, information that has been open since 1848 and that is so critical for historians, biographers, genealogists—anyone doing research of a historical nature. It is so stupid for access to the register to be closed to these people under that bill. There is no reason for it to be closed. It is so stupid to have provisions where one has to wait for 50, 80, or 100 years to get access to information, or one has to get the agreement of the immediate family one is trying to access information about. It is a rather confining sort of bill, and it is in contradiction to the information being provided on the SuperGold card under this bill.

As I say, the Greens will be voting for this bill because of the advances it will make for pensioners. We will be looking forward to the inquiry into whether microchips should be put in the card, and we will put a serious focus on the privacy issues involved. Thank you.

TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party) Link to this

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnātātou katoa. Today is an auspicious day to be debating the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill. May 15 was proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in 1993 as the International Day of Families. So as we mark this international day of whānau, we turn to thoughts of our kaumātua, who are at the very heart and core of whānau. In thinking about elders and in farewelling the late head of State of Samoa, the Māori Party takes this moment to express our sympathies at the sad passing of another revered elder, kuia MaeraMoekau Couch, who gave her life to the communities of her beloved Pae-o-Hauraki and Rāpaki. It was not very long ago that this 92-year-old kuia was honoured with an award that recognised the distinctive contribution she had made in encouraging other seniors to play an active role in society. Moe mai e te whaea rangatira ki tōmoengaroa.

[Slumber there in your sleep without end, matriarch.]

Any proposals that come into this House to improve the standard of living of our elders, to enhance their access to Government services and entitlements, and to improve the provision of information to them will earn the support of the Māori Party, particularly because only 4.1 percent of our old people actually live long enough to ever receive superannuation. Our elders are those who provide us with the leadership and the vision to guide our future directions. We in the Māori Party are very conscious of wanting to protect the special place that they have in our communities, to value their contribution, and to put strategies in place by which we can ensure the continued participation of older people.

We believe that the SuperGold card recognises the contribution our pakeke have made and currently make to Aotearoa, and we are happy to support it. We thank New Zealand First for negotiating such a great opportunity for the elderly in its coalition arrangements, and we thank the Hon Ruth Dyson, the Minister for Senior Citizens, for her support of the card.

We have debated the pros and cons of this bill. We have been aware that in improving the standard of living for seniors, we must also be mindful of the need to ensure that whānau members and caregivers are informed of the purpose of the entitlement card and the opportunities that it represents. Far too often, individual entitlements are not promoted to the degree of attracting universal understanding. We do not want the eligibility for particular services to be granted only to those in the know. The well-being of all senior citizens must be guaranteed, and if this card brings with it commercial concessions, thereby reducing the cost of goods and services, we must ensure whānau are supported to take up those rights. So we hope that when the first tranche of the SuperGold cards comes off the production line in August, our senior citizens aged 65 and over—or aged under 65 and receiving the veterans pension in their own right—will be well informed of exactly what their entitlements are.

But we have one very significant concern with regard to this bill. It is the hidden danger behind the honourable intentions of supporting our pakeke, which is of course the element of intrusion and surveillance piloted in this bill: the microchipping proposal. The Māori Party supported the amendment by Heather Roy to have the microchipping clause removed from the bill, and we did so on the grounds that this bill, as the Law Society advised, was the first occasion on which legislation has authorised the use of microchips on cards. We have heard all the arguments, including those of the Minister, that it would be irresponsible to introduce a discount card without ensuring it could apply the technology of the future, and, of course, we know the future use of radio frequency identification tagging, known as RFID, is not very far off. The microchips introduced under this legislation are just one step along the way towards the global surveillance society.

The concern for the Māori Party has been the way that such a significant proposal has been slipped in the back door, riding on the coat-tails of a proposal designed to support our pakeke and enhance their golden years. I remember when George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four seemed fanciful fiction, and in that novel “thought crime” was monitored by the thought police, who had “telescreens” in every home and hidden microphones and informers in order to catch the potential “thought criminals”. The “Ministry of Truth” exercised complete control, subjecting the nation to a re-education to the newspeak of the totalitarian Government. At one point the key player—ironically also with the name of Winston—Winston Smith is told: “But always—do not forget this, Winston—always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on the enemy who is helpless.” But, of course, the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill is set in 2007, not 1984, and we are given every assurance by the Rt Hon Winston Peters that under this legislation microchip technology will not be introduced without the Privacy Commissioner’s and the State Services Commissioner’s agreement.

The tension for us is in allowing microchips to be introduced. None of us really know what else lies in store. Which other Government social service card will be next? Twenty years after Nineteen Eighty-Four,the 25 privacy commissioners of the European Union adopted an initial position on the use of radio frequency ID technology. In their statement on 19 January 2005, they expressed their concern about the possibility of radio frequency ID technology being able to “violate human dignity as well as data protection rights”. The questions we raised at the second reading of this bill reiterated the concerns of New Zealand’s Privacy Commissioner, Marie Shroff: concerns such as who controls the access to the information, what sort of technological protections should be mandated to guarantee privacy, and how to avoid function creep, with the information from the microchipped cards being used for wider purposes than were originally intended.

The concerns around microchipping are influenced by a paper from Dr Paul Roth, a professor of law at the University of Otago. In his paper Workplace Privacy Issues Raised by RFID Technology, he describes a case in 2004 where a Mexican Attorney-General and 160 of his employees had rice grain - sized radio frequency ID tags implanted in their arms to regulate access to restricted areas of the headquarters. Then there is the VeriChip, the very first Food and Drug Administration - approved human implantable radio frequency ID microchip. It was approved in 2002 in the United States and is typically implanted in the arm. It is code named by privacy advocates as a “spy chip”. The primary concern, of course, is that like Big Brother in the Orwellian tale, the movements of a person can be traced without his or her will. These new types of electronic bloodhounds—the bio-chip implants and the biometric fingerprints—may indeed be part of a future that we must all be prepared for.

So in the context of the SuperGold card, we cannot be oblivious to the risks inherent in the microchipping device. It may not be a case of the “Ministry of Truth” or the thought police, but there are certainly sufficient grounds for concern to have the members of the Māori Party worried. We welcome the amendment put forward by Taito Phillip Field to provide that the microchipping will go ahead only after consultation with the Privacy Commissioner, the State Services Commissioner, and any other relevant body. We will be following that process with great interest, to ensure that every concern is explored. We remain convinced that the jury is out as to whether the use of microchip technology is of such critical importance to the senior citizen discount cards that one could not have been voted on without the other. But we will not stand in the way of our elders, and it is with their interests at heart that we vote in support of this bill. Kia ora.

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

I rise on behalf of United Future to speak to the third reading of the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill. One of the interesting things happening around the progress of this bill is the number of businesses and organisations that are sending very clear signals that they will be offering discounts for SuperGold cardholders. In fact, one of the reasons why the bill needed to be amended to address the fact that barcoding provisions had been overlooked was that large retail chains have indicated their willingness to honour senior citizens with credible discounts, and they wanted to manage that opportunity from head office rather than to have staff do that at the point of sale.

The passing of this legislation is the beginning of a huge challenge to recruit as much buy-in as is possible to ensure that the potential this policy offers is fully realised. The cost of the card is justified only if there is an allocation of funding to promote it to the business and community sectors. The question remains for me as to whether Government departments will match the private sector in using this mechanism to provide improved and affordable access to health, education, and local government and social services for the over 65s. The tensions that exist between providing fair income rates for superannuitants and the maintenance of a sustainable superannuation scheme into the future mean that it is more than helpful if, underpinning our system for seniors who are on low fixed incomes, we have a system of community support that effectively reduces living costs while encouraging community participation.

Perhaps the other potential for the SuperGold card that most excites to United Future is the opportunity it provides us to tangibly honour our over 65s. Honouring our elders is usually dished up—or neglected—at a family level. Where families do this well, this card will merely supplement their efforts. However, for those who live without significant appreciation and support, this card could make affordable the chance for them to participate in community activities, to belong to community clubs and organisations, and to attend community events. I believe there is huge community goodwill that can be tapped into.

Commercial advantages are great; social advantages are priceless. I hope that as this card is promoted, as much effort is put into securing the support of the community sector as is put into gaining buy-in from the retail sector. Australian veterans are a classic example of people who revel in the status that their gold card provides them with. It is a simple mechanism—a simple card—but with the potential to deliver recognition, status, goodwill, and advantage to our 540,000 deserving older New Zealanders. United Future is happy to support this third reading.

HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) Link to this

I rise to speak to this third reading of the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill on behalf of ACT New Zealand. I would like to be standing today and saying that ACT proudly supports this bill, because I think it has some very good initiatives in it, particularly with regard to the SuperGold card—although it should be remembered that this bill is not specifically about the SuperGold card but is an amendment to the Social Security Act to cover all entitlement cards that fall under that broad heading—but, sadly, that is not the case. ACT will not be supporting this bill, for the very reason that it does contain a provision for the use of embedded microchips in cards that are covered under this amendment bill. Sadly, the work has not been done to support the safe use of these cards, particularly with regard to privacy issues—and I will come to that issue in a moment.

When the New Zealand First member talked about this bill, she spoke about a good deal of hysteria and said that that was scandalous. In fact, the issues raised last week during the Committee stage of this bill were not hysterical. They were not about hysteria. They were very real concerns that I had about privacy issues, and those concerns were supported by 59 members in the Committee—almost half of the members that we have in Parliament.

There were concerns around the use of microchips. This work has not been done. Overseas countries, such as the United States and the countries comprising the European Union, have all signalled their discomfort with the use of microchips, particularly the use of radio frequency identification tags, when some microchips are able to act in this capacity. Those countries have decided within the last 6 months to stall any decision-making around the use of these microchips for the purpose of the verification of human identification.

When they are signalling such strong concerns, I think it is pertinent that we take a moment to stand back and look at what the issues might be, to look at the prospect of adding these microchips without the background work having been done either internationally or here in New Zealand, and to look to the very good advice that we have in New Zealand around the use of such technology.

The New Zealand First member said that it is scandalous, and I would like to ask her just what exactly is scandalous. She talked about hysteria, which to my mind does not exist at all. Very real concerns were raised, and they were raised by a large number of people—not only by me in my amendment, and other Opposition members in this Chamber, but also by the Privacy Commissioner, who is not normally a woman referred to as someone who suffers from hysteria. She normally gives very good, respected advice. For the member to say that she is dealing in the area of hysteria I think is, quite rightly, wrong.

The Law Society gave a very strong submission. Its recommendation to the Social Services Committee was that there should be a general review of the principles governing the use of highly functional technology, such as microchip technology, on Government-issued cards generally, and that the matter should be referred to the office of the Privacy Commissioner. The Privacy Commissioner had made some comments on this bill, but had made no public statements until last week, because she had not been asked to do so. The Privacy Commissioner said that this SuperGold card has some far-reaching implications that need to be explored thoroughly before a final decision is made. She went on to say that a microchipped card may mean many things, especially if it is also used as an identity card for commercial purposes, perhaps with a unique identifying number for each person. She said that security is a real issue, both for the data stored on the cards and for the risk of identity theft. She also talked about the very real issue of the potential for function creep, where the card ends up being used for far more than was originally intended. I think that, far from being hysteria, both of those comments, from the Law Society and the Privacy Commissioner, are very measured responses to a very real issue of privacy that exists in our society.

The other support for my amendment came from Grey Power, and I think it would be very odd for New Zealand First to start saying that Grey Power is suffering from hysteria. I can see that the New Zealand First member Barbara Stewart is protesting at this very moment, but when she uses words such as “hysteria” she should use them with a great deal of caution, because I think that these people will take exception to the use of such words.

So what is scandalous? It is not that people raise valid concerns about privacy with the use of microchips on these entitlement cards—and it is not just the SuperGold card. Of course, we now know that that card will not come out with a microchip. The advice we were given by the Ministry of Social Development at the select committee was that if clause 5(2) had been deleted from the bill, then there would have been no implications for the introduction of the SuperGold card. So my question relates to why we are racing this measure through in our legislation when, in fact, it is not needed for the SuperGold card, at all—despite the fact that last week Mr Peters’ office told the New Zealand Herald that the card would not be functional without the microchip. So there is a good deal of confusion within the New Zealand First office itself.

What is scandalous is not that these concerns have been raised but that New Zealand First and Labour have a complete disregard for the privacy concerns of Kiwis—and, in this case, those people are some of New Zealand’s most vulnerable citizens. I regret that I am not able to stand here today and support the bill. We had fully intended to, until the issue of embedded microchips—or the potential for such—came to the fore. Until then, we had certainly intended to support the bill. Identity theft is also something we have not talked a great deal about, but it is a danger, particularly with microchips that can act as radio-frequency identification tags. It could well be that cards with these tags in them could make it to somebody’s letterbox and the information on them read. This is actually the electronic version of steaming open an envelope.

I do not for one minute mean to suggest that all microchips have this capability; they do not. But if we read clause 5(2) very carefully, we see that it talks just about embedded microchips. It does not talk about the type of microchip and it does not specify the function that these microchips will have. So by passing this measure into law today, this House is actually allowing a free-for-all in the use of microchips of any type or nature.

When we consider our veterans—veterans who are also entitled to the SuperGold card and who have fought so proudly for our freedoms in this country—it is wrong that today we are putting in place legislation that could see their private details being stolen, in many cases without their knowledge.

I come back for a moment to the comments made by the Law Society in its submission. The general review of principles governing the use of highly functional technology—and the matter being referred to and looked at thoroughly by the Privacy Commissioner—is very important. This is exactly what should have happened with this bill at its very outset. Sadly, it did not, and, as we are seeing today, measures are being rushed through.

The process that the Law Society outlined would have been absolutely the right process to follow. The Privacy Commissioner made some very important comments last week that are being disregarded here in the Chamber today as people vote in favour of this bill. She should have been involved. She should have been involved very thoroughly.

In putting forward this bill as a Government bill, Mr Peters and the Labour Government have neglected the security of some of our most vulnerable citizens. They have done this by by-passing basic privacy principles. We are seeing the potential for the playing of privacy poker with other people’s chips. ACT will not stand in this Parliament and condone this. For that reason, we will be opposing this bill.

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

As the Rt Hon Winston Peters said in his introductory comments, the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill is the next step in making the SuperGold card a reality. Its purpose is to enable the full effect to be given to our Government’s intentions in regard to the delivery of this card. Specifically, the amendments contained in the bill will allow regulations to be made under the Social Security Act 1964, providing for implementation of a SuperGold card offering an optional cardholder photograph that will be useful for those who do not have a driver’s licence or any other form of photo ID, and containing a bar code that will help streamline the process by which businesses apply SuperGold card discounts to cardholders when they present their card at the point of sale. In order to future-proof the card, the bill will also allow regulations to be made providing for an imbedded microchip in the card if and when this proves useful to cardholders at some stage in the future.

The card as originally—and, in fact, always—intended will be launched without a microchip in August this year. Again as was always intended—and the bill now makes it explicit because of the amendment moved by Taito Phillip Field—any move to use microchip technology in relation to the SuperGold card, or in relation to any other entitlement card, will not occur without consultation with the Privacy Commissioner and the State Services Commission.

The bill will allow a bar code or a microchip to contain only information that can already be stored on a magnetic strip. I know that some people have raised concerns about the information to be stored, but I say that those concerns have been misunderstood and misrepresented for political point-scoring—and senior citizens will know this to be the case, because the legislation makes it very clear what information can be stored on the card. It does not allow anything in addition to what can already be stored on a magnetic strip.

Let me outline to the House exactly what can be stored. First, is the cardholder’s name. A photograph, if it is included—and it is voluntary, as the Rt Hon Winston Peters outlined—will provide 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. An identifying number can be assigned to the card. The commencement and expiry dates of the card, and a code number for mailing purposes, can be on the card.

If members had bothered to read section 132A(2) of the Social Security Act, they would have seen that that is the limit in law of the information that can be stored without any further legislative amendment. So in order to merit the concerns raised by the “bordering on hysteria” member for the ACT party, the law would have to be changed. 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 if they are available only through the use of a microchip, we do not have to spend hours of time in this Parliament using up legislative opportunity to do something the law will already allow us to do. This concern is political point-scoring by both 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 deliberate 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. It is the sole intention of this measure to ensure that senior citizens are able to access smart technology as it advances, at the earliest possible opportunity so that more concessions and discounts can be added to the SuperGold card.

Finally, this bill will also allow the Ministry of Social Development to obtain and use information from theRegistrar-General of Births, Deaths and Marriages for the purposes of verifying a person’s eligibility, or continuing eligibility, for the card. The Labour-Progressive coalition Government and New Zealand First are proud to have worked together to establish the SuperGold card. As well as providing access to discounts on goods and services from businesses around the country, the SuperGold card and the information services that support it—a website directory and 0800 number—will help ensure that seniors are easily able to access the range of services, entitlements, and concessions available to them from central and local government.

The SuperGold card is the last in a long list of policies and initiatives that our Government has enacted to ensure that seniors have more support to help them to live independent and healthy lives. As the SuperGold card is part of Labour’s confidence and supply agreement with New Zealand First, we have committed to adjust New Zealand’s superannuation annually to a minimum of 66 percent of the average ordinary wage for a married couple—1 percent higher than required by legislation. We first fulfilled this commitment on 1 April last year. On 1 April this year we adjusted the New Zealand superannuation and veterans pension rates yet again, raising them by 5 percent. More than 508,000 New Zealanders have been benefiting from extra money in their pockets since that time.

Since 1 July 2004, New Zealanders aged 65 and over have been eligible for lower-cost general practitioner visits and prescription charges through their local primary health organisation. Two-thirds of SuperGold card holders will have an identifier on their card that also indicates their entitlement to income-tested community service card benefits. That means they will have to carry only one card instead of two.

In July of last year we increased income thresholds for the rates rebate scheme to $20,000 per annum—up from $7,500—meaning that more people than ever are eligible for this assistance. Couples whose only income is New Zealand superannuation will now receive some level of rebate if their annual rates bill is more than $1,150. As an example, a couple in that situation who have a rates bill of $1,900 are now eligible for the maximum rebate of $500.

We are also developing a code of practice for home equity conversion schemes in order to ensure that the financial interests of older people are protected. Financial protection of older New Zealanders is also a focus of our work to amend the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988 to ensure that older New Zealanders and others have greater legal protection when setting up an enduring power of attorney.

Of course, we have recently made a number of changes to the licensing requirements for older drivers, doing away with mandatory age-based road tests. For those older people who no longer drive, other forms of transport can provide the means for their independence. For example, the total mobility scheme provides a subsidised taxi service to people with serious mobility constraints. People who qualify receive taxi discount vouchers, usually of 50 percent off the normal taxi fare.

Last but certainly not least, in 2001 we launched the New Zealand Positive Ageing Strategy. That strategy provides a framework for integrating policies and programmes across the whole of government at central, regional, and local level and ensures that our Government departments and agencies consider older people before making decisions. The new SuperGold card sits alongside and compliments these Labour-led Government initiatives.

Importantly, it encourages the private sector to get involved in improving the lot of older New Zealanders. Businesses around the country are able to sign up as a SuperGold card business partner. People may have tuned in to listen to, or they may have watched, Parliament this afternoon. I encourage all businesses that have not already done so to pick up the phone and call the SuperGold business partner freephone 0508 650 000. Not only will they be giving something back to senior citizens, they will be doing themselves a favour. Older people are loyal customers. They value word-of-mouth recommendations, especially from their peers, and they are a growing group. There is also a contact phone number for cardholders—0800 254 565. By August a website will also provide a wealth of information on the entitlements available to older New Zealanders.

The SuperGold card honours the contribution older New Zealanders have made, and continue to make, to New Zealand society. It is an acknowledgment of the respect they deserve. It will be a physical reminder of the Government’s commitment to seniors and to veterans and will improve their standard of living through the commercial discounts available through the card and by helping them access the range of services, entitlements, and concessions available.

This bill is a fine example of how a modern-day Government works. Cooperation and delivering on promises and arrangements made—in this instance a confidence and supply arrangement with New Zealand First—leads to something of this kind: the SuperGold card for our senior citizens, the first-ever card of its kind in New Zealand.

I commend the perseverance of my colleague my Associate Minister for Senior Citizens, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, for making this bill and the SuperGold card a reality. I conclude by also acknowledging the officials and the select committee for their work.

KATRINA SHANKS (National) Link to this

I rise to speak to the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill. I have listened to hours of debate on this bill before Parliament in the last couple of weeks, I have read the Hansard of the debates, and I have pretty much absorbed what everybody has been saying. The discussions have ranged over a huge topic, from Russell Fairbrother talking about homophobes to discussions about passports being microchipped in order to allow Americans to track us, to my fellow National colleagues being called bizarre—often quite absurd—names. And so the debate has gone on. But the intention of the bill is that this amending legislation be used as a vehicle for the SuperGold card to allow concessions and discounts for New Zealand residents who are aged 65 years and older. The intention of the card is to provide commercial discounts to cardholders from participating businesses, and it will help to facilitate seniors’ access to concessions on central government and local authority services.

There really is no debate that senior citizens have contributed significantly to our community and deserve to be treated with respect and, where possible, given concessions in their retirement, in recognition of the great contribution they have made to our society. It is important that we recognise the efforts of Grey Power, which has lobbied hard and efficaciously for this card. Whether the card can deliver commercial discounts and concessions from central government and local authorities, we will have to see. Many are touting this card as a failed attempt at Fly Buys. We have not been told yet whether anybody has signed up to the card, or how committed central government is to giving more discounts to senior citizens than those that they already receive. But I am sure that people will be lining up for the card, and that sooner or later we will hear from those who are committed to helping our senior citizens.

There are only two parts to this bill. Both are quite simple. The first part relates to an optional photo on a card and the ability to microchip the card at some time in the future. The second part relates to the Births, Deaths, and Marriages register database being used to collate the necessary information. When this bill was first introduced only three submissions were received, so it is not a very contentious bill. The submission from the Law Society was the biggest submission received. It made a submission on the entitlement card in which it stated that the prospect of microchips being embedded on cards issued by the Government did raise a more general concern, due to the functionality that microchips can possess, including the ability to operate as radio frequency ID tags.

The society went on to say that as far it was aware, this bill would represent the first occasion when legislation has authorised the use of microchips on cards. At least it is the first time that such use has been authorised on such a large scale. This provision impacts on 540,000 senior citizens. We are talking about a massive scale of use, and one whereby the cards will be reissued with a microchip whenever the Government decides to do so. The Law Society recommended that the Social Services Committee call for a general review of the principles governing the use of highly functional technology on Government-issued cards generally, and that the matter be referred to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner.

Strong views were voiced at the select committee that a more general inquiry, particularly around the use of microchips, is necessary before legislation allowing microchips is enacted. There was debate at the select committee, raised by the National Party initially, concerning microchips. So National was concerned from day one about these microchips and what could be recorded on them. The officials came in many times to tell us exactly how the microchips would work, even though at the time they could not give us a figure as to how much the cards would cost.

The debate in the House on this bill has related mainly to microchipping. Microchipping is something that I do not believe this country or this Parliament has had an opportunity to speak on. I believe that the people of this country need to have a discussion about it, so that they can make a decision themselves about whether microchipping on the scale of this measure is a path that New Zealand really wants to go down, or even whether we are ready to go down that path now. I believe it is wrong that we are passing this legislation without hearing the opinions of New Zealanders on that issue.

Last week one of my colleagues spoke about the bill being a Trojan Horse, saying the legislation is not about the gold card at all but about developing legislation that allows all cards to be microchipped in the future by only a change in regulation. National is very concerned about the information that may be stored on the microchip, and we believe that the provision regarding microchipping should be deleted.

We believe that senior citizens deserve something—and something good—but that the way to really help them is by truly raising their standard of living and the only way we will do that is by raising the average income in New Zealand. National is committed to raising the average income, which will then have a flow-on effect on to the superannuation that our senior citizens receive. We believe that this card is a good thing, in general, and say we are committed totally to the senior citizens of New Zealand. Thank you.

DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) Link to this

I am really pleased to take a call on the third reading of the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill, which we are debating here today in Parliament. I think it is very important legislation for older New Zealanders, and it is not only a good sign from a policy point of view of what we are doing for people over the age of 65 but it is also another reminder of how Government works under MMP.

I would like to start off by congratulating the Minister in charge of the bill, the Rt Hon Winston Peters. The card is not a new idea from Winston Peters—he has been in favour of it for a very long time. It was one of the things that New Zealand First brought to the table as Labour worked with New Zealand First after the last election to put together the governing arrangements for New Zealand. We have now been able to put the idea into legislation and make it happen. It is a good reminder of the way our governing system works under MMP. A Government is formed and other parties that support that Government bring their ideas to the table, and we are able to turn those ideas into legislation. So I welcome this legislation not only for the policy and what it does but for what it represents as well—yet another contribution to the great MMP system that our country voted to have at the referendum in 1993.

Speaking as the member of Parliament for Otaki, I remind members that that electorate has a higher number of people over the age of 65 than any other electorate in New Zealand.