Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on Part 2 of the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill. This part deals with the Births, Deaths, and Marriages Registration Act and disclosure of that information on microchips embedded in the cards. That is a concern because this same Government has been talking about restricting the right of New Zealand citizens to access births, deaths, and marriages information, yet it wants to keep for itself the right not only to access that information but also to stick it on to a microchip and put that microchip into a card. Why do we have this double standard going on?

I heard one of the speakers before from the Government side of the Chamber speak about the information that would be on the microchip—name, address, date of birth, those sorts of things. Most people would think that was quite fine. But how do we know that that is all that is on that card, in that microchip? How do we know? The reason we do not know what is on the card is that we do not all have little microchip scanners or magnetic strip scanners to tell us what is on it. We do not actually know. So when the Government says that the only information on the microchip is what is already on the card, superannuitants can only hope that is true, because they have no way of verifying it. That is a real concern.

We have asked people whether they have thought about what happens with cards that are already being used, from which information can be downloaded and stolen. The Privacy Commissioner has drawn our attention to that, and she would like to have a proper inquiry and debate on this issue. That is why National members have supported amendments relating to this issue. We do not believe that we should not have microchips and should not have barcodes, but we do believe that when we introduce new technology into very sensitive areas like this, we should have a proper public debate on it. This bill has had a sort of truncated process; it was introduced at the end of November and sent back to the House in March—all for some political grandstanding by the Associate Minister for Senior Citizens. None of it is about making sure that information is safely held.

I do not know whether many people know of people who have used their credit cards overseas, come back home, then all of a sudden found that $10,000 had been whipped off their credit cards. That happened to a friend of mine who was in Italy. She used her credit card in a restaurant, came back, and found that thousands of dollars had been run up on her credit card. There are sophisticated ways of taking information out of magnetic strips and microchips, and that information is then sold to criminal gangs working in Europe and Asia that use it to manufacture new cards. We should be saying to superannuitants that they need to be aware of that. When they hand their cards over, they need to know that those cards are not just cards; they have information on them that is private.

Some of that information, births, deaths, and marriages information, is so private, in fact, that this Government wants to restrict the right of New Zealand citizens to access it, because it does not want it to be used wrongly. Yet here it is putting that information on a card when it does not really need to be there.

The other thing we need to think about is that this bill allows births, deaths, and marriages information to be put on a card in relation to a person’s spouse or civil union partner, or former spouse or civil union partner. What about the long-term de facto people who the previous Parliament said were just the same as married people and civil union partners? What about them? I did not vote for that bill, because I knew that it was silly. But this Government, which forced that legislation through, has forgotten about those people whose relationships are not registered. People in long-term de facto relationships will be treated differently from other couples. Has the Minister considered that? I do not think he has.

The Minister talked about the various people who made submissions about this issue, and he just dismissed them as being wrong, because they did not agree with him. They include people from the New Zealand Law Society, which has a special committee to look at these things. Those people do not sit around all day thinking about their next overseas trip; they are sitting there thinking about very serious legal issues and saying they are issues that should be taken into account.

I want to take just a very short call on Part 2. That was an astounding speech from the member Judith Collins. We are now in the realm of fantasy. In her speech she said that because there was a microchip on the pensioner card that will carry valuable information—

💬 Judith Collins: For whom?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE:—for the pensioner—not only the Mafiosi in New Zealand but Asian crime gangs around the world will be hunting down every pensioner and attending every Grey Power meeting, so they can get pensioners’ cards and seek the information that may be on them about every discount and every bit of preferential treatment that pensioners may get. One can see the Asian crime gangs around the world focusing on New Zealand, and saying they will change their criminal strategy and target every Grey Power meeting in the country! I tell the Rangiora branch of Grey Power in my electorate, if it is listening, to watch out and to call the police, because Judith Collins proposes the stupid idea that somehow to have 21st century technology will expose every good pensioner in the country to every organised crime element from not only within the 12-mile limit of New Zealand but right around the world!

I put it to the members of the Committee, and even to Ms Collins’ colleagues, who were cringing under their desks when listening to that, that she must be scraping the bottom of the barrel to come up with such a ridiculous argument to try to oppose a good policy to back pensioners. Just because Ms Collins is in Opposition, does not have any ideas, and does not have any policy in respect of Part 2, she tries to invent a preposterous proposal like that.

In all seriousness, I say that this is a serious debate about giving our pensioners a bit of extra help and giving them a card with some technology that will allow flexibility, as is the case with most cards in New Zealand. But what is the best that the Opposition can do? The best proposal it can put forward to try to defeat the logic of this bill—

R Doug Woolerton: A space cadet!

Exactly. “A space cadet!”, my learned colleague Mr Woolerton says.

💬 Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I have put up with a lot of insults this afternoon from these upset people. But to now be called a space cadet by that man—I think he should withdraw and apologise.

I withdraw and apologise. I am sure other terms could be used.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: How about silly twit?

I say to Mr Peters that I could not possibly comment on that. If the best that the Opposition can do, and if the best that National’s front-bench spokesperson on welfare can come up with, is to say we should not have this bill because the Asian crime gangs and all the gangs of New Zealand will hunt down all pensioners in order to grab their gold cards, then I suggest that she ought to go out the back, have a wee lie down, get on the oxygen bottle, and relax.

That is the silliest contribution I have heard for a very long time in this Chamber. We have the Associate Minister for Senior Citizens in the chair, who thinks that this whole debate is a joke, despite the fact that those of us on the Opposition side of the Chamber want to defend the privacy issues raised very sensibly by us. Now we have a very silly contribution from a Minister who is supposed to take some interest in these things, but who clearly misunderstands the whole of Part 2 of the bill.

The Minister in the chair seems to think the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill is about the SuperGold card. Perhaps he would like to flick to the front page of the bill, which states: “Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill”. He may like to consider for a moment the fact that we are not actually talking about the SuperGold card here. We are actually talking about a raft of cards that exist or may exist in the future, and about putting strict parameters in place so that they cannot be abused and so that the people who are entitled to them receive them and those people who are not entitled to them do not. In fact, if we look at clause 8, we see that its effect is to give the power to the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths and Marriages to disclose certain kinds of information to the Chief Executive Officer of the Ministry of Social Development in order to verify a person’s eligibility. I would have thought that that was a very important point, yet all the Minister can do is to make fun of Ms Collins and those of us on the Opposition side who support that. We should not have to put up with that act of silliness in this Committee.

The senior citizens who are listening to this debate today should not have to put up with that level of debate, when we are talking about a card that they have been looking forward to for some time, and that they should rightly be able to look forward to. Instead, they are getting the potential for their private information to be passed on to unauthorised sources. Mr Cosgrove talked about gangs, space cadets, and goodness knows who else. He seems to think it is a joke that people can actually access other people’s information. Perhaps he should live in the real world, because radio frequency identification tags have the ability to pass all sorts of information on. If a tag is sitting in someone’s wallet amongst other cards with magnetic strips, it can be powered up to transmit not only the information embedded in that microchip but also the information on those magnetic strips to all sorts of unauthorised sources that do not have approval to obtain that information.

Judith Collins was quite right to raise the issue of what is in these microchips. We have absolutely no idea about that, because ordinary Kiwis cannot read them. Goodness only knows what information is being passed on. Government members defended the Privacy Commissioner and said she does a good job—and she does; she is very well respected, and I have a great deal of time for her—but today they are sitting here and making fun of her because she has made a point that they want to ignore. She has said we should be very worried about two things: function creep—and I have heard all sorts of ridiculous statements from Russell Fairbrother, who is supposed to know the law, and from Clayton Cosgrove, who is meant to be a Minister who can be taken seriously in this Chamber—and identify theft. That includes identity theft that people do not even know is occurring. That is not right.

The Minister in charge of the bill should have paid a good deal more attention to the issues when they were raised. He should notify his office about the reality of the situation, instead of having people be told that this card cannot be produced without a microchip. That is clearly wrong and was not the information that the officials gave to the Social Services Committee. Superannuitants in this country have been misinformed on this bill. They have not been told about some of the realities regarding the privacy issues raised by this bill. They should be able to look forward to receiving the SuperGold card in the mailbox. Instead of that, it might already have been read and their details on the card distributed before they even open the envelope.

The Privacy Commissioner is not being made fun of. The Privacy Commissioner has been consulted, and has raised in today’s paper the issue of function creep. Well, that is a warning that we would always be apprised of, no matter what technology we were dealing with, and we are not ignoring it.

The second thing I want to say is that it concerns me to see repeated in 2007 the kind of tribalistic behaviour that says that if a photograph is taken of someone, it somehow leeches something from that person’s soul, or spirit, or mana, or physical being, and therefore should be resisted on any and every occasion. One does not expect MPs in 2007 to be repeating that sort of primitive, tribalistic mantra, but they are.

The third thing I want to say is that if Sandra Goudie wants to quote the New Zealand Law Society, let me say this: we wrote to the New Zealand Law Society that, with regard to some of its submissions, we believed that it was wrong, and gave the reasons why. You know what? We are still waiting for a reply from the Law Society. It is not always right. I can give examples of occasions when it has been wrong.

Ms Collins rises to her feet and asks how we know that that is all the births, deaths, and marriages register information on this card. The answer to that question is pretty obvious: because the law will specify it. It does now, and it will under this legislation. She then went on to talk about her friend who went abroad and lost thousands of dollars in a case of credit card fraud. Let me tell her that that is not related to this legislation at all. But let me also give some sound advice to her friend: when people go abroad, they should never let their credit cards out of their sight. That applies in this country too, sometimes. That is wise advice I give to her friend—and to her, too, because she has demonstrated some appalling naivety in this Chamber today.

She raised the question of partners who are not spouses. For goodness’ sake, the National Party should make up its mind. Everything I heard from the National Party in the past was about the law covering partners who may not be spouses.

💬 Judith Collins: There’s no registration of them.

Oh, she says there is no registration of them. We know there is no register of births, deaths, and marriages that covers partners—because they are not married! But do we stop there because we see that small hill, or do we use some experience, in consultation with others, and realise how we can get past this problem? I can understand, though, why that member would be so full of conspiracy theories. If one began one’s political career by stabbing a fellow party member, a sitting MP, in the back, one would have a propensity for thinking that way.

💬 Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The member needs to come back to the bill, and I ask him to withdraw and apologise for those comments, as I take offence at that language.

She cannot just get up—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Are you speaking to the point of order?

Yes, I am. She cannot just get up and demand that a member withdraw, when that member has stated a fact. [Interruption] Oh yes, she has. The long-time description of that sort of behaviour, as we have seen it in the past—and Hansard is filled with it over decades and decades—is to stab a colleague in the back. That is what she did. That is why she is a conspiracy theorist. She thinks everybody behaves like her.

💬 Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The member has not withdrawn and apologised. He has simply gone on and made the matter worse. He actually has misled the House, because in fact there was no collegial relationship, as he should have known.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Can—[Interruption] No, I do not need any help, thank you, Mr Cosgrove. I would just like to know at whom the alleged remarks were directed.

💬 Judith Collins: I presume, from what the member has just answered back to me, that he was relating them to me. He was speaking about me at that time. He was talking about Judith Collins; he had said my name just beforehand. His comments have nothing to do with this part of the bill. They are just another attempt at bullying, which that member always does whenever he is in trouble—as he is now.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I know, but originally they were, I thought, directed at Sandra Goudie. If they were directed at Sandra Goudie, then it is up to her to object to them, not any other member.

💬 Sandra Goudie: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I have no way of thinking that there was any relationship between myself and any of the comments that Winston Peters was making. In fact, it is very hard to understand what he is meaning, but my limited understanding did lead me to believe that he was talking about Judith Collins. That was about the full extent of my interpretation of his particular language.

💬 Judith Collins: Mr Chairman, I have taken offence and I wish that matter to be dealt with.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I am dealing with it, Ms Collins. You have taken the member’s remark as a reference to yourself and you have taken offence. If you could withdraw and apologise, please, Mr Peters.

I withdraw and apologise.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Let me make it very clear that to set a new standard in this House whereby someone’s past history cannot be recited is really a very sad day for this Parliament and a terrible low in our parliamentary behaviour. I am talking about a member who challenged the candidature of a sitting member—namely, Warren Kyd—to get into this Parliament. Now she is offended because I have described what that was. That should not be allowed. I can recite members in this House, John Carter and others, who have had to wear this allegation year in and year out, and along comes this little prissy who does not like it being made about herself.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): That is not a point of order. The first point of order was dealt with; there was a withdrawal and an apology, and that is the end of the matter. The Minister had been making some very valid comments, and he still has time left if he wishes.

💬 Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I take offence at the last comments from Mr Peters. He referred to me in a very derogatory way and called me a name that is not my name.

Mr Chairman, I referred to her as a little prissy—“p-r-i-s-s-y”.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): You will have to withdraw that.

Well, I withdraw and apologise on that score, and say that Bill English was right—she was promoted way beyond her ability.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): You may talk about that but not in the context of a withdrawal and an apology.

💬 Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. How can that be a proper withdrawal and apology, when the member just continued with another insult? My understanding of the rules is that he should just withdraw and apologise and that is it.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): That is exactly what I said, Judith Collins—that it must not be qualified. If the Minister could make the withdrawal. He may raise that matter at any other time, but if he would make just a straight-out withdrawal.

I apologise and withdraw.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I want to make this point of order by way of an explanation. Bill English was right—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): No, no.

This is the point of order now.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): No, you are compounding it.

I withdraw and apologise.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Thank you.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Is it a fresh one, Mr Cosgrove? Thank you.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I am not challenging your ruling, but I have two points. Apart from Ms Collins continually attempting to break up a member’s speech, I would ask you to consider this. As far as the term Mr Peters used—to stab someone in the back—is concerned, I do not think there is a ruling in the Standing Orders saying that that language is unparliamentary. I would ask you simply to consider—not to waste time on it now—that it is a long-used term to describe a wide range of political behaviour over many, many years in politics in this country, and I fail to see how somebody could take offence at it. I do not challenge your ruling; I am asking you to consider it.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): That is good. We have dealt with the issue, and I thank members for enabling the Committee to deal with it.

I want to bring this Committee debate to Part 2 of the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill. As a refreshing change I think we should start talking about the contents of Part 2. I start that—[Interruption] Members should close their mouths; then I can see who is speaking.

I will start by referring to the microchip card hanging off the clothing of the member on the other side Judith Collins, when she—

💬 Judith Collins: Where? I have not.

I do not want her to undress in front of me. She spoke about microchip cards. She has gained access to various parts of this building today with a microchip card. I bet members a dollar for a penny that she does not have a scanner in her office and that she has not checked the accuracy of the information on her microchip card. I bet she does not know who is reading about her movements. I bet she does not know who is reading her bank account. I bet she does not know who should be nervous about her having a microchip card in her possession—particularly with some of the places she goes to.

💬 Judith Collins: What?

I have seen her at Law Society functions. She is a member who has good cause to be apprehensive about carrying a microchip card on her person. It falls into the area of function creep, as introduced previously by the “ACT for Silliness” speaker, Heather Roy. The function creep that that member gets up to just beggars the mind.

I want to get back to the microchip card that has been found to be so offensive by members of the Opposition. That is an insidious, patronising attitude; they should be ashamed of themselves. They are saying to members of this House, to members of the public, and to everybody out in the street that they are far more responsible than our senior citizens. If the speakers for the National Party can stand up in this Chamber to express concerns about microchipping, then leave this Chamber and gain access to their offices with a microchipped card—not having checked the microchipped card on a scanner—then they are wilfully winding up alarm among our older citizens.

Of course, our older citizens are entitled to know what Part 2 relates to and I want to get on to that in this speech. But before I do I want members to look at that man stroking his bald head, David Bennett. I bet that that is a detail that is imposed on the microchip hanging off his belt. [Interruption] No, the member’s is not as well polished. There will be a detail about the bald head on the microchip of that member as he makes his way around this building. [Interruption] No, I do not refer to the member or anyone else. There are some very elegantly bald heads in this Chamber and they should be on our cards.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I cannot be too strong on you, because other members have done exactly what you have done, which is refer to everything except the part we are dealing with. Go back to the bill or we will put the motion.

I want to speak on Part 2. I go back to the bill we are discussing at its Committee stage.

I want to talk specifically about not the word “principally” but the words “principally on the age and residence of a person”, which we find in clause 7 in Part 2. The golden age card is the inspiration of the Associate Minister for Senior Citizens, Winston Peters, who is bringing to our senior citizens the ease and convenience that the National members take for granted and want to deny our senior citizens. Through the phrase “principally on the age and residence”, Winston Peters is bringing to the senior citizens of this country the ability to access their benefits. But, what is more, the Opposition is trying to deny access to the benefits for spouses and partners of senior citizens, because Part 2 extends only to lawful spouses—whether they be spouses or civil union partners.

Here is the rub: homophobia is emerging once again. I see that member for Hamilton East, David Bennett, sitting up when I mention civil unions. His lips start to crack, his tongue comes out, and he licks his lips, because he knows what civil unions are all about. I advise that member to leave his microchip card at home when he visits some of his dearest, closest, and best friends. They will not be on the card, because they are principally not of his age and residence. He pricks up his ears at the words “civil unions”, and boy, not only his ears, at this time as I speak about this bill.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. There is a Standing Order and numerous Speakers’ rulings that say that members cannot move to another seat and thereby take advantage of that relocation to interject and shout across the Chamber in the way that someone in this Chamber has. If members want to recognise who that person is, I tell them it is the person who was behaving like a fishwife on market day, shouting from the start of that last speech by my colleague Russell Fairbrother to the end of it. She never stopped. I have not mentioned her name.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I understand your point of order. I do not agree that that person has changed seats for the specific reason of being more effective at interjecting. She did change seats but that was to have a better position from which to make her contribution.

It is very sad that a very positive initiative such as a golden age card for older New Zealanders, which has overwhelming support in this Committee, is clouded by the use of this wonderful new card to sneak in a new and highly controversial technology.

Frankly, I find very disturbing the sneering and trivialising by the Opposition members and by Russell Fairbrother, who is just leaving the Chamber now. I find his trivialising of the concerns around this highly controversial—indeed, some would say Orwellian—technology extremely disturbing. I point out to him that the United States and the European Union have backed off from using this technology, because they think they need to better investigate its safety and privacy implications. If all of Europe and all of America think it is of such concern that they need to have more time to think about it and to think through its implications, why should our Government laugh at, trivialise, and sneer at the serious implications of this technology?

I, frankly, was offended by the trivialising of, and sneering at, our concerns by members of the Government. If there were to be legislation called “Introduction of Microchipping Bill”, I do not believe that it would get through this House. I believe that there would be huge popular concern out there in the community, and that the Government would not want to have that. So what is it doing? It is sneaking it in through a card that it knows that people want. It is sneaking it in like a Trojan Horse, through the back door through this legislation. I think people are only just beginning to realise that; most people have no idea. Most of the elderly—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Sorry, we have dealt with Part 1. We are on Part 2, dealing with consequential amendments to the Births, Deaths, and Marriages Registration Act.

I think people are only just beginning to understand the consequences of having this embedded technology in their cards, when we have not even looked at the principles governing the use of the technology. All we are asking the Minister is why we do not put this on hold while we look at the principles governing the use of this technology, and while we consider the concerns that the Europeans, Americans, and people around the world have about it. Why do we not just do some wide-ranging investigation, rather than, through this bill, sneaking it into legislation?

Of course, once the technology is in the social security card, it sets a precedent. Then it can be used, and before we know it microchipping technology will have sneaked into New Zealand without any proper consideration of underlying principles, of privacy concerns, and of safety concerns. We are just sneaking it in. I think it is very, very sad that such a positive initiative as the golden age card is being clouded by what I think is a deliberate attempt to sneak microchipping into the legislation. I remember, when we were having the debate around the microchipping of dogs, that I said: “Dogs today; humans tomorrow.” Sadly, I was right.

We can certainly tell the Government is in trouble when its members start to become as shrill as Clayton Cosgrove did in his contribution—not to mention Russell Fairbrother and the Minister in the chair, Winston Peters, who talked about a primitive, tribalistic mantra. I think we heard that from all three of those members. Indeed, it is less than refreshing to hear Government members say they proudly wear their microchips in parliamentary passes and they are absolutely comfortable with that, when clearly they do not know the full implications of exactly what is on those microchips. I would be very interested to know, if the Minister could tell us precisely, the full implications of the microchips that most Government members are wearing today.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: What—are you asking now?

No, no. I am not asking now; the Minister can stand up and have a call later.

It is important, in terms of the subsequent arrangements in Part 2, to look at the purpose, which, under clause 7, is to “allow the disclosure of information required to give effect to Part 1 in relation to cards the availability of which is based principally on the age and residence of a person, or of his or her spouse or civil union partner, or former spouse or civil union partner.” Relevant to that is the functional creep that Marie Shroff, the Privacy Commissioner, talked about.

If we look at the information that came to the Social Services Committee back in February, we can see that the key information on the card was outlined. The SuperGold Card was to be a concession card for New Zealand residents who are aged 65 or over, or who otherwise qualify for New Zealand superannuation or for a veterans pension. The card was to be credit card - sized. It was to carry the holder’s name and number, and to state whether the holder received New Zealand superannuation or a veterans pension, or was eligible for community service card entitlements. A photograph for identification purposes was to be optional. Those key facts say absolutely nothing about any transmission devices, microchipping, or anything like that. The information did say that the card would automatically be sent to people who receive New Zealand superannuation or a veterans pension, and other residents aged 65 or over would qualify for the card but would need to apply. That was back in February 2007.

One then progresses on to the Social Services Committee report, which indeed shows that functional creep is a reality. There we have the majority, including the Labour Government and New Zealand First, stating: “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.” It seems extraordinary, in the presence of people like Graham Stairmand from Grey Power, and in the presence of advice from Marie Shroff and numerous others, that this Labour - New Zealand First coalition Government just does not listen to them. It wants to rush this bill through. We understand entirely, and we agree entirely, that those over 65 should indeed receive all the entitlements to discounts that are available to them. That is great; we support it. But we think the Government should, for once in its life, display caution in this area, which is very important to people and is encapsulated in the purpose of clause 7.

So although we have seen a wonderful display of a primitive, tribalistic mantra coming from the leader of New Zealand First, not to mention from some senior Ministers of the Government, one does have to worry considerably. I think the New Zealand public should be worrying considerably, when we have Grey Power New Zealand saying we should hold on. Surely a microchip will not make one bit of difference to the efficacy of this card. It is much better to make sure that this very, very questionable process, in a field of considerably rapidly changing technology, is looked at carefully.

In speaking to Part 2 of the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill, I will actually refer back to some of the other parts of the bill. This bill is a Trojan Horse that is being pushed along by the Rt Hon Winston Peters. Nowhere in this bill is the term “SuperGold card” mentioned—not once. This bill has absolutely nothing to do with the SuperGold card. It is actually all about changing legislation. It is changing the Social Security Act, and, in Part 2, it is changing the Births, Deaths, and Marriages Registration Act so that the information on the births, deaths, and marriages of all New Zealanders can be made available to the Ministry of Social Development or any other ministry that is identified in schedule 1A of the Act. If members look at clause 8, they will see this.

I tell members that the SuperGold card is not mentioned once in this bill. The bill is actually all about changing legislation. It is changing the Social Security Act to allow for microchipping and photograph regulations on any entitlement card, not just the card for those over 65 but any possible card whatsoever produced by this Government that is an entitlement card that people are required to use to get the sort of discounts or entitlements they want.

This bill is a Trojan Horse. It is not about the SuperGold card. It is a Trojan Horse, and it is being pushed by the Rt Hon Winston Peters. It is all about introducing regulation-making powers for having photographs and microchips on any entitlement card provided by the Government. So I say to members once again that this bill needs to be given careful scrutiny. The Minister in charge of this bill, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, has completely failed to show any clarity or understanding about what this bill actually does.

The emphasis in this bill is clear if we look at Part 2 in respect of the Births, Deaths, and Marriages Registration Act. The Minister might like to take a call and explain his understanding of what Part 2 is about. Part 2 is about making changes to the Births, Deaths, and Marriages Registration Act to allow that information to be provided in accordance with the changes made to the Social Security Act. This bill is about changing two pieces of legislation without any constraint, and without any recourse to members of the public to have consultation over, and an understanding of, this particular bill. People have been so consumed by the fact that this bill is meant to be allowing the SuperGold card that they have not appreciated that it is not about the SuperGold card; it is all about changing two pieces of legislation. This has been completely camouflaged by the SuperGold card issue.

This is a Trojan Horse, and not one single member of the current Government has exhibited any understanding of this bill whatsoever, and nor has the Minister, who is pushing this bill through as a Trojan Horse under the guise of the SuperGold card. I challenge members on the Government benches and I challenge the Minister to take a call and tell me exactly which part of this bill specifically relates to the SuperGold card, because I cannot see any part that does. I challenge the Minister to take a call. I challenge any Government member sitting here to take a call. Everything that has been said on this bill in this Chamber tonight by current Government members and the Minister in charge of the bill has not related to any aspect of the bill whatsoever, or taken into account the concerns that have been raised by many other members of the Opposition and of the minor parties.

With that, I give the Minister time to clarify his understanding, which, in my view, is clearly limited.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chairman. I make no apologies for standing on behalf of New Zealand First to support the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill because this debate has arisen from the confidence and supply agreement that New Zealand First has with the Government. I preface my comments by acknowledging Mrs Reene Peach up in Cambridge, Mr and Mrs Jim Stewart in Howick, Barry and Alison Hegley also in Howick, Mona Bloom in Howick, and all those other superannuitants who are waiting for this legislation to be passed.

Of all the scaremongering that has gone on over this legislation, much of it has been fostered by the Opposition. It should not be missed that the New Zealand Herald has also contributed to the scaremongering with its lead article today. Of course, all that does is to highlight the support that that particular paper gives to a particular party in this House. The contributions that the members on the Opposition side of the Chamber have made to this debate have added to the trivialising that the member from the Green Party alluded to earlier, in her speech.

Part 2 is all about ensuring that the required information that we want on these entitlement cards, including the SuperGold card, is a necessity. I suggest to those on the opposite side of this Chamber that all they need to do is to look at their computers every day. The number of unsolicited messages they get on their PCs is an indication that the information we are talking about protecting is already out there.

I just want to say—because time is going on—that New Zealand First is again proud of its so-called baubles of office. I want to remind those who have been critical of us that Part 2 is an example of the baubles that we have provided for the superannuitants, the elderly, and the senior citizens of our country. They deserve everything that they get. Kia ora.

I rise to speak to the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill. The SuperGold card will be a concession discount card for New Zealand residents who are aged 65 years and older. The intention of this card is to provide commercial discounts to cardholders from participating businesses, and to facilitate seniors’ access to concessions on central government and local authority services.

The bill amends section 132A of the Social Security Act 1964 to allow regulations to be made for the provision of a photograph on the proposed SuperGold card, and to allow the Ministry of Social Development to obtain information from the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths and Marriages to verify applicants’ eligibility for the card. This card will be distributed to approximately 540,000 senior citizens. These citizens then have the option of putting a photo on their card, unlike many other cards. This card will replace all the other cards they have in terms of being a senior citizen.

The second purpose of the bill is that microchips can be embedded in the entitlement card. Clause 5(2) amends section 132A(2) of the Social Security Act 1964 to create a new regulation to allow entitlement cards to contain a microchip holding the same information that may currently be stored using a magnetic strip. I wonder how many senior citizens will be happy to know that the Government will record on a database every shop they have been to, every retailer they have been to, and every purchase they have made. Initially the microchips will not be placed in the cards; however, the cards that are issued can be recalled at any time and be replaced at the whim of the Government. Certainly, I do not think the senior citizens will have the choice whether they have a microchipped card; they will just be told. As all their other cards will have been retracted, they will actually have no choice left as to which card they do take.

Submissions received by the Social Services Committee raised serious concerns about the use of microchips in the entitlement cards on such a large scale. They recommended a review of the principles governing the use of such technology. The Law Society made a submission on the entitlement cards, and stated that the prospect of microchips being embedded in cards issued by the Government raised a more general concern due to the functionality that microchips can possess, including their ability to operate as radio frequency ID cards. The society recommended that the 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 in the select committee that a more general inquiry, particularly around the use of microchips, is necessary before legislation allowing microchips is enacted.

National does not support the microchipping of cards for senior citizens, and we believe that the senior citizens of New Zealand deserve much better than the SuperGold card in the way it stands, which does not enhance the lives of senior citizens one bit. If senior citizens had known at the beginning what Winston was going to say about the SuperGold card, I am sure he would not have the support he has now.

Kia ora nō tātou. Firstly, Mr Chairperson, I must repeat what I said last night: you were a fantastic representative of that great mix of the Dalmatian and the Māori on national television. Sitting at your side is a great mix of the Scottish and the Māori, and both of you actually improved the quality of television for that brief period of time.

Secondly, what a load of misleading nonsense we have heard from the Opposition over their fears that microchipping failure, in terms of the security information, is on its way—as if they have no credit cards, as if they have no access to financial institutions through cards.

The member for Coromandel drives around in that smoke-belching, greedy, road-hogging machine that she calls her electorate vehicle, running on fish oil, possibly orange roughy. She needs a card. Opposition members say they have no fears about their cards. I tell you what, they may not have had cards, but they had taxi chits the other night on May 3 at Ohākea air force base. They are no strangers to these instruments. They are no strangers to these devices.

So it is absolute nonsense that they should come in and undermine, through their rhetoric, the work of this fine and proud politician from Ngāti Wai—our very good friend, the leader of Aotearoa Tuatahi—who is looking after the interests of the kaumātua by ensuring that although this card does not contain the device the Opposition fear, it provides an example of the efficiency—because we search for efficiency in the administration of the State—that is sought so they will not have to come back and listen to Sandra Goudie, or suffer the tired, misshapen rhetoric of Miss Collins. No, they will be saved all of that.

This legislation enables them to proceed with the card and enjoy all the entitlements and benefits that senior citizens desire—desire and deserve. They will get it only from the current Government. They will never receive it from National. Kia kaha. We wish the bill well.

Part 2 agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2

Clause 1 agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 111 in the name of the Rt Hon Winston Peters to clause 2 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

Progress reported.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 5.54 p.m.