Volume 639 Week 43 - Thursday 10 May 2007 
Volume 639 Week 43 - Thursday 10 May 2007 
[Volume:639;Page:9117] 
Thursday 10 May 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the next stages of the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill the Social Security Amendment Bill the Arbitration Amendment Bill and the Succession (Homicide) Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day and Thursday is Budget day. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 Can the Leader of the House tell us how much legislation is likely to flow from his Budget initiatives whether any of those will need to be dealt with under urgency and whether he intends moving some of the raft of bills that appear to be deadlocked on the current Order Paper meaning the Government has only about eight Government bills available to it at the moment? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 No I cannot give the member any information about that at this point. 
Questions to Ministers 
SuperGold Card—Microchip Technology 
1. BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Senior Citizens 
: Has he received any recent reports regarding the potential future use of microchip technology in the SuperGold card for seniors due for release in August? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I understand that that the answer will be longer— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No that is the next one. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The next one—that is all right. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Oh! What have you cooked up? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: We know it is the next question because the questioner is entitled to two questions. Has the member got it? He has been here a long time; he should know that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would members be seated for a second please. I raised that matter because this House can run in an orderly fashion only if people are aware of what is happening. So I ask members when one is trying to be helpful and to assist the House not to express themselves in the way they did. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I appreciate that. In the interests of the running of the House maybe with leave Mr Peters could ask the question himself and then answer it. That would help enormously. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order and it is close to bringing the House into disorder. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Are we to understand that the Minister has come to you and said that the answer to the first supplementary question will be longer than expected? That would be most unusual. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: What happens as the member well knows is that as a measure of courtesy to the Speaker those who are replying to questions from time to time indicate that the answers are going to be long so that they are not interrupted. The member who is asking the question in fact indicated that to my office and whether it was in relation to the main question or the supplementary question is irrelevant. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Associate Minister for Senior Citizens) 
: 
 I was asked as to recent reports on microchip technology in respect of the SuperGold card. My answer is yes. I have seen hysterical reports that make all sorts of fanciful claims about what might occur if microchip technology were to be adopted as part of the SuperGold card for seniors. Those reports are not only negligent for scaremongering over an extremely positive measure for our seniors but are ignorant of both the facts and the processes involved. This is not a sci-fi fantasy or  
Dancing with the Stars. 
 It is real life. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Can the Minister allay the fears of our seniors in relation to any future use of microchip technology? 
Rodney Hide 
: Is this the long one or the short one? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Well we know what the short one is. Yes I can—for three very simple reasons. First any move towards microchip technology would involve a thorough review by both the Privacy Commissioner and the State Services Commission. Microchip technology is not being slipped in secretly in the dead of night. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Are they the same microchips as for dogs? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: In the member’s case yes. Second for the past 2 years all New Zealand passports have used microchip technology which has safeguards to protect the privacy and integrity of the information the microchips store. Microchip technology is used for the security passes that all members of Parliament use for their own personal security. But some members would now deny that security to the elderly of this country. The third thing I want to say is that microchip technology will be replacing magnetic strip and barcode technology in the near future across a range of industries. If the SuperGold card is to be functional in the future it will require this technology after all the necessary checks have been made by the Privacy Commissioner and others. I conclude by saying that we have no desire to see information relating to our seniors be abused or misused. We want the strongest protections possible to ensure that that does not happen. In short the checks are already in place and will be utilised to protect the integrity of the card. 
Judy Turner 
: Does the Minister understand the concerns expressed by MMP parties in this Parliament that the use of microchip technology by Government departments should be given wider consideration by organisations such as the Law Commission and the Privacy Commissioner before being introduced on an ad hoc basis into legislation such as the SuperGold card? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I understand what the member is asking. By way of further explanation my answer is yes. But in terms of the timing for this introduction—it being a long way into the future— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: You opposed it for drivers’ licences. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Opposed what? 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: The microchip. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: No I did not. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Yes you did. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Oh no I did not. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Yes you did. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: No sorry! That member came back from Queenstown having seen the local bodies at the local body conference and told us all that they were all for this technology which would have had the certain outcome of six companies owning all the roads in New Zealand. That is why I opposed it. I am just putting the facts on the table. 
Hon David Carter 
: Chipmunk! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I say to that member he should look in the mirror and tell me who looks like a chipmunk. He is not saying very much now. I tell the United Future member that I understand her concerns. That is why I wrote to the Law Society to say that its first impression was correct and that its codicil or rider to its submissions was grossly incorrect and negligent on its part. I am still waiting for a reply from the Law Society—the august group with which I have some familiarity. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Will the card have microchips in it when it is launched in August? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: No it will not. The clause relating to microchips is aimed at future-proofing the card for the time when magnetic strips and barcode technology become redundant. With the banks and retailers moving towards microchip technology as we speak we need to ensure that seniors do not miss out on the full range of commercial discounts that will become available in the future. As I say again the privacy and sanctity of people’s private lives is something that is foremost in the minds of members of my party and of the Government at this point in time and the fear and scaremongering by some members is blatantly just that. It is without any substance whatsoever. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: When can seniors such as the members of Napier’s Grey Power look forward to receiving their SuperGold card? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: As noted earlier seniors such as Grey Power members and the former leader of the National Party— 
Darren Hughes 
: Which one? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Well I will receive the card when I turn 65—a very long time away from now as is obvious. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Is the Minister saying he is not yet 65? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Oh well who has lost his hair—or rather grown through it? These cards will be launched in August. In addition to the range of Government benefits on offer the Ministry of Social Development currently has a team negotiating with commercial entities to provide a range of discounts. I urge members please to let the elderly know what is coming because it is all good news. I ask members over there to be quiet for a little while as I explain what will happen in August. The Ministry of Social Development currently has a team negotiating with commercial entities to provide a range of discounts. Although we cannot name names at this stage due to commercial sensitivities I can say that we are confident of a range of significant commercial discounts. 
Judith Collins 
: When New Zealanders refused to support the microchipping of dogs why does the Minister now want to microchip our seniors for a discount card? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: You know people would think that someone who got herself ensconced in the gambling industry prior to coming here to Parliament would know something about technology would they not? They would think she might know about it. People will not have a microchip in a personal sense other than to carry it—which many do now with their passports and as that member does right now to ensure her security in this Parliament. Some would wonder why but she does have it. To make the kind of claim that the microchip will somehow be inside a person is false and irresponsible but is becoming unfortunately typical of the member. 
Keith Locke 
: To reassure Judith Collins would the Minister agree that he would intend to microchip only dangerous and menacing pensioners; and would the comparison the Minister makes between the passport microchips and the microchips on the SuperGold cards cause concern to those pensioners because the passport microchips have facial recognition data on them? Is this microchipping perhaps the thin end of the wedge to the use of such technology on Government-issued ID cards and should he not wait for a Government inquiry before legislating for its implementation? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: There are several questions there. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I get the gist of what the member is saying. Let me just say there was once a time in this country when the hard left could claim validly to have some concern for the poor and less well-off in our society. That member has demonstrated he has long abandoned that cause in a political sense. To stand here and make ridiculous claims and to laugh at something that has been discussed with the elderly as being a long-range benefit to them is to—[ 
Interruption 
]—no—to own up to where things have got with the Green Party. Those members would rather rush around protecting worms and snails than look after the elderly 540000 of whom live in this country. 
 Dr Nick Smith 
: Is the Minister aware that officials advised the select committee that the microchip technology was not needed for the SuperGold card and that they did not know what specific purposes it might be used for but that they might like it at some time in the future; and is it not appropriate for Parliament to consider legislation for that microchipping when we actually know what the reason for it is rather than give officials a blank cheque for the future through which to collect data on our superannuitants? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: There are many future developments that the elderly of this country will wish to avail themselves of and they will hope that the politicians of this country have been modern enough in their approach to prepare the policies and provisions for them well in advance. 
Hon Member 
: Such as? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Such as? As we speak all the banks are moving to use microchips. I do not recall any of those members saying anything about the banks doing that. The passports of this country have a microchip now. I do not recall one member protesting about that. But of course for some cheap political advantage—which they will never get because the elderly are wise to them—those members are prepared to get up and make some claim that we are microchipping the elderly when clearly we are not. The most important part about this technology is that we will not go any further with it until the Privacy Commissioner the State Services Commissioner and the elderly are happy with this advance. But why would we want to waste years getting legislation through Parliament when we know now that the commercial world is moving rapidly to that state of affairs? 
Heather Roy 
: In light of that answer is the Minister aware that Ministry of Social Development officials advised the Social Services Committee that deleting the provision for microchips would have “no immediate consequences for the launch and implementation of the SuperGold card”; why is his adviser Damian Edwards telling senior citizens in the  
New Zealand Herald  
today that this card has to have the microchip in order to be functional and why is the microchip being foisted on our old people with a lie? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Because my office sought to respond to misinformation purveyed by that member. That member knows full well that we have referred to a whole range of future benefits many of which will not be able to be otherwise obtained from various service sectors or industries because those industries have microchip technology. We have to likewise have that technology available in the long term. Most important we are doing something not just for tomorrow but for the next 10 20 50 and 100 years. That is a fact. In discussion with my officials I have asked them to ensure that we do not just take steps now that will see us having to rush back to Parliament possibly by December of this year to fix the matter up. Let me just say to National members that as they have demonstrably let the old people down I think they should retire fly a white flag and quit while they are behind. 
Rodney Hide 
: That was a very very long reply but the question was actually about why this microchip is being foisted on old people with a lie—because that is what is happening here. The microchip is not needed for the launch of the card. I am sure the Minister would like to respond to the question of why his office is lying to old people. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I overlook the obvious defamation and insult from that member—he is known for it. The fact is that my office responded to misinformation that was being purveyed by Heather Roy MP. I told her that in my answer and the second thing is that I pointed out why the microchip needed to be considered now. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I listened very carefully and the Minister certainly addressed the question. 
Heather Roy 
: I seek leave of the House to table the article from this morning’s  
New Zealand Herald  
where it is reported that Mr Peters’ office told senior citizens that this card needed a microchip. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Heather Roy 
: I seek leave of the House to table the select committee report where the Ministry of Social Development officials said that this card did not need a microchip. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek leave to table the New Zealand Law Society’s submission to the select committee on the bill which talks about— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I want to make it very clear—because this may help the future working of the House—that we are objecting to the tabling of the documents because the information is readily publicly available. This should be a privilege. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is a matter of debate and there have been plenty of opportunities to discuss that. 
Economy—Operating Balance Surpluses 
2.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What is the cumulative total of any operating balance surpluses between 2000 and 2006? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The cumulative operating balance excluding revaluations and accounting changes figure over the 7 years is $35.5 billion. That has enabled us to reduce net debt by $13.7 billion and invest $9.9 billion in the Superannuation Fund and particularly over the last 2 or 3 years when the exchange rate has been high and monetary policy has been tightening fiscal policy has continued to lean against inflation. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Is the IMF wrong when it states in its recent analysis of the New Zealand economy released publicly this month that the fiscal surplus has risen to levels well above that required to meet his fiscal objectives; if the IMF is not wrong is this further evidence of the consistent over-taxation of New Zealand workers and businesses by his Government? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I remind the member that yesterday his party’s spokesperson on finance asked me a question about the same report which suggested that we should actually be maintaining a large fiscal surplus at the present time. It would be helpful if the National Party could get its position on macroeconomic management consistent from one day to the next. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Standing Orders require the Minister to address the question and not make comments about other members of this House. My question was very clear: is the IMF wrong when it states in its recent analysis released this month that the fiscal surplus has risen to levels well above that required to meet his fiscal objectives; if the IMF is not wrong is this further evidence of the consistent over-taxation of New Zealand workers and businesses by his Government? It was a very clear question. The House deserves an answer. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thought the Minister did address the question. He did make other comments but they were in response. But that was addressing the question. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Why given periods of low inflation and high surpluses has he not taken the opportunity to cut taxes in any of his Budgets over the past 7 years? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have. I invite the member to read the Budgets again. There were substantial cuts to business taxation and there were the Working for Families tax credits which mean we now have the second-lowest tax wedge on the average wage for a family with two kids in the developed world. I also invite the member to read the IMF report more closely about the difference between the fiscal issues and the macroeconomic issues. He clearly has not read that part of the report. 
Charles Chauvel 
: What reports has the Minister seen on the impact of announcing large-scale tax cuts in a macroeconomic climate such as ours? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have seen a report from Bloomberg this morning which particularly relates to yesterday’s question confirming what many commentators expected. The market has now priced in an almost certain interest rate rise in Australia following the tax cuts announced in this week’s Australian Budget and that is the actual differential between the Australian and New Zealand exchange rate movements. I do not believe that either homeowners or exporters want higher interest rates in New Zealand which would follow from large-scale tax cuts in this year’s Budget—which Mr English has been rejecting for the last 3 weeks. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Have the surpluses been earmarked for future services and projects and are these surpluses likely to extend to future years? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think the first point to note is very important. The operating surplus includes the transfers to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund and the earnings in the Superannuation Fund. We need to run an operating surplus of approximately 3 percent of GDP simply to keep gross debt to GDP ratio constant. That amounts to the sum of $5 billion a year in the size of the current economy. Above that the surplus is above what is required to meet the debt target. But they were required for macroeconomic management which is what has happened in the last 2 years. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Is the IMF wrong when in its recent analysis of the New Zealand economy it recommends shifting towards greater tax reductions and smaller expenditure increases; if so why is the IMF wrong with that recommendation? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I do not disagree with this; this is where there is a legitimate case for discussion about whether one has tax cuts or Government spending. I note that Business New Zealand today actually said what those cuts in Government spending should be in order to have a smaller size of Government—which Mr English will not tell us. It nominated the following: first income and asset test New Zealand superannuation; second cut Working for Families; third cut the rates rebate scheme; and fourth put interest back on student loans. I thank Business New Zealand for telling us what National’s secret agenda actually is. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: After 5 consecutive years of tax reductions in the Budgets of the Minister’s Australian counterpart is it correct that the net after-tax income of a person working at the average hourly wage in Australia has risen by 33.6 percent while the after-tax income of a New Zealander working at the average hourly wage has increased by only 18.9 percent? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Economic growth in the two countries has been roughly similar. The main differential movement has been in terms of gross wages. That has been because Australia had more union power pushing gross wages up. The right-wing Government in Australia has now changed that situation. The National Party has actually promised to loosen New Zealand’s labour market not tighten it. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: How is it that the Minister’s Australian counterpart has been able to both increase spending and reduce taxes every year over the past 5 years while the Minister has been able only to increase spending? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That is not true. Indeed there will be tables in the Budget summarising what has happened on taxation over the last few years showing significant reductions in both business taxation and in taxation on savings and an increase in tax credits for low to middle income families. Those people who have children and are on modest incomes very much appreciate it. I keep on getting stopped in the street by people thanking me for Working for Families. I do not expect Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith to thank me for that. 
Tertiary Education—Quality 
3.  
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education 
: What is the Government doing to ensure high-quality tertiary education and training? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister for Tertiary Education) 
: 
 I have recently announced—last week and today—increased funding including $127 million over 4 years for the institutes of technology polytechnic industry training and wananga sectors; $129 million for the university sector; and a further $199.5 million for the whole sector. Together with the tertiary reform legislation this will ensure the tertiary education sector fulfils New Zealand’s needs and provides better value for money for taxpayers and for students. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: How do these announcements show that the Government is achieving value for money in the tertiary education sector? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Much of the money available for this investment has come through savings in other tertiary education spending. We have been able to engage in that reinvestment because our reforms have stopped the out-of-control expenditure inherited from National’s failed experiments in uncapped tertiary education funding driven by student choice. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Does the Minister consider that sufficient time is allowed for those tertiary education organisations which confront significant variation in funding to respond to that variation given that the Tertiary Education Commission board of commissioners will not consider the plans until October or November 2007 and funding will occur in January 2008 according to the Tertiary Education Commission’s investment guidance document? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think that it is true that the final sign-off will be late this year. We have already released the investment guidance and there have been extensive meetings with the sector on its implications. Discussions between the Tertiary Education Commission and the tertiary education organisations will take place starting at the end of this month. So the organisations will have a much earlier indication of likely funding than the final sign-off would indicate. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Could the Minister explain to the House the purpose of the tripartite forum process and how it has been operating? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The purpose of the tripartite forum is to look at improvements to quality and at upskilling within the university sector particularly at how it is possible to lift relative incomes amongst the academic staff given that over a long period of time these have tended to fall behind and have put us at a disadvantage in terms of international comparisons. Both last year and this year we have been able to feed some extra money into the university sector with the assurance that that will flow through into salaries. 
Question No. 4 to Minister 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I am pleased that Dr Cullen has finished his answer to the previous question. He has managed to put his Associate Minister of Finance to sleep. [ 
Interruption 
] Have a look down there. How is that? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Members know that when they are asking questions if they preface them with comments that are irrelevant to the question it is likely to cause disorder. Would the member please just ask his question. 
Electricity—Supply 
4.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy 
: Is he confident that New Zealand will get through this winter without a repeat of the electricity crises seen in 1992 and 2003? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Minister of Energy) 
: 
 As confident as one could possibly be. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Minister confirm that the 30-day rolling average for water storage inflows shows that April 2007 was worse than April 2002—almost as bad as April 1992—and that the Meteorological Service is predicting La Niña weather patterns meaning little rain and much less supply of hydroelectricity this winter? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is certainly true that the inflows over the last 2 or 3 months have been below average but they started from a much stronger level at the end of the year. Actual lake storage levels at the moment are not much below the average for a normal year. 
Maryan Street 
: Has the Minister received any recent reports on electricity generation capacity in New Zealand? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have received reports of significant progress on the new more efficient E3P plant at Huntly. That of course will give us much greater thermal reserve capacity this winter than we have had previously. Of course the National Party opposed the agreement between shareholding Ministers and Genesis that enabled E3P to be constructed. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can he confirm that security of supply for 2007 will depend on the successful commissioning of E3P at Huntly with the consequence that not only the Huntly coal-fired station but also the new gas turbine will run at full capacity; does he expect that this year thermal generation will beat last year’s record year for thermal generation; and how does that fit with the Government’s carbon dioxide emissions strategy for carbon neutrality? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: If the member thinks he can predict rainfall for the next few months good on him. Predictions of long-term rainfall measures are often wrong. If there is sufficient rain then that will not happen; if rainfall levels remain low we now have much larger reserve capacity thanks to the decisions taken by this Government. But I do note that the status of the official risk meter put out by the Electricity Commission on 6 May—the latest—is still at low. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Why have so many renewable energy projects fallen over in the last 7 years; of all the new generation that has come on stream over the last 7 years how much is renewable and how much is thermal; and if he is able to give us an accurate answer how has that particular statistic helped the Government think it can get to carbon neutrality? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I do not have that statistic. However the member is incorrect in his assertion. The main renewable project that fell over was Project Aqua and it was actually opposed by the local National Party candidate. 
Peter Brown 
: In the event that a crisis situation does appear on the horizon can the Minister give the House an assurance that in the first instance the Minister would call for in ample time voluntary restraint so that New Zealanders could save of their own accord and in the second instance if the situation worsened would go to some lengths to provide financial incentives to encourage people to reduce their power usage? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Obviously we monitor the situation. In fact Cabinet continues to receive a report on both inflows and the reserve capacity on a weekly basis. It is far too early at this point to consider whether there is any risk of a serious crisis. The problem is of course that if we call wolf too early and nothing happens then the next time we call wolf people will take no notice so it is a matter of judgment. I emphasise again that the Electricity Commission has the risk meter at low at the present time. Mr Brownlee thinks he knows more than the Electricity Commission; I think that is something only Mr Brownlee believes. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: We will see. Can the Minister confirm that the Waitaki catchment now holds only 68 percent of its historical average for this time of year and that that level has dropped more than 25 percent in the last month putting us now within 500 gigawatt hours of the operational minzone at which point this country will face blackouts? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I can confirm that storage levels are below average for the time of year but at the present time not by the kind of margin across the entire system that the member is implying. There is not a serious risk at this point. I emphasise again that compared with last year the major difference of course is that E3P is coming on stream very soon and is a very significant addition to power capacity. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Has the Minister seen the Transpower website entitled Grid New Zealand which is an easily accessible information tool telling us about Transpower’s projects both those in construction and those that are held up; if so would he consider putting up on the website of the Government’s Electricity Commission a site perhaps called “Gridlock New Zealand” in honour of the commission’s delayed backlog of decisions which has meant that renewable energy has not developed in this country at the level it should have over the last 7 years? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member seems to have shifted from the Electricity Commission to Transpower in that question and they are two completely different bodies. If the member is referring to— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Can I read the question again? The Minister clearly did not hear it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Succinctly please. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Has he noted that anyone can go to the Transpower website called Grid New Zealand and see a list of projects held up by the Electricity Commission; if so will he consider putting up on the Electricity Commission website a page called “Gridlock New Zealand” in honour of its backlog of decisions which has contributed to a very very low level of renewable energy being developed in this country over the last 7 years? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Electricity Commission is not holding up renewable energy projects at all. There are difficulties at times with the planning process. I have yet to hear from the MP for Otago whether she supports the major wind power projects in Otago—there are a number of them—at the present time. I suspect she does not. I note that the major opposition to the upgrade of the North Island transmission line was in fact led by Judith Collins and Paul Hutchison. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My point of order is to indicate that the Minister has misled the House again today. Jacqui Dean was in fact on the local authority that voted for Project Aqua but the then member for Otago David Parker voted strongly against it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. It is a matter of debate as the member well knows. 
Treaty of Waitangi Settlements—NgatiWhatua o Orakei Claim 
5.  
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
 to the  
Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: E whakaponoana a ia ki ngakaimahi o Te TariWhakatau take e Paana ki te Tiriti o Waitangi me te Tari Ture o te Karauna kei te tohutohui a ia mongawhakataungairaroi te Tiriti irunga hoki ingapatapatai a Carrie Wainright te heamanatuarua tiati hoki o te Taraipiunara o Waitangi e whakawaanaingatono a NgatiWhatua ara he aha ai “itawhitia” “iwhakarapaina” raneietahipepawhaimana a “he mahi kanga he mahi whakahaweaeneiingakaitono”? 
[ 
Does he have confidence in the staff from the Office of Treaty Settlements and the Crown Law Office who advise him on Treaty settlements in light of questions from the Deputy Chairperson of the Waitangi Tribunal Judge Carrie Wainwright in the case of the NgatiWhatua o Orakei Treaty of Waitangi claim as to why documents were “overlooked”; why several historical assessments and internal memos were “withheld” which left “claimants insulted and disregarded”? 
] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 Yes. I am assured that the decision about the provision of documents was made as a genuine exercise of judgment and in good faith. I cannot say that I have the same confidence in the cut-and-paste question the member put together and in the quotes that were taken out of context and that misrepresented what the judge actually said on three different occasions at three different times. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: What consideration has been given to removing the Office of Treaty Settlements from the Ministry of Justice and placing it within the Prime Minister’s office to ensure that an all-of-Government approach is achieved in Treaty settlements; if there has been none why not? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: No consideration has been given to that because an all-of-Government approach is taken to Treaty settlements. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Is the Minister aware of the statement made by the previous Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations the Hon Margaret Wilson that the Government would pay special attention to cross-claim issues; if so how does withholding from an urgent hearing of the Waitangi Tribunal advice by senior policy analyst Peter Hodge that “lack of commitment to conferring with cross-claimants is a serious concern” and that the Crown’s negotiating behaviour involves “considerable legal risk for both parties” enhance trust among cross-claimant parties towards the Crown? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Because as I said to the member amongst the nearly 250 documents that the Crown released through the Office of Treaty Settlements and the Crown Law Office the documents he refers to were not initially considered to be relevant to the inquiry as their primary content was considered to be either outside the scope of the inquiry or significantly superseded by later advice in documents. 
Pita Paraone 
: What assurances can the Minister give that previously settled Treaty claims have not been affected by the Crown’s withholding and suppressing relevant documents and what redress is available to claimants if such actions have taken place? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I can certainly assure the member that as in this case the officials have acted in good faith. I take some confidence from Judge Wainwright’s view that notwithstanding this the tribunal will proceed because it is clearly of the view that this will not materially undermine the decision. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: What thought has been given towards establishing an independent settlements authority which would overcome the problems described by lawyer Paul Majurey of a two-way Crown view to ensure that justice is not only done but seen to be done? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I am not convinced that such a change would achieve anything of substance. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Is the Minister aware of comments from the deputy chair of the tribunal Carrie Wainwright that Crown Law was playing games with the disclosure process and of the response from Crown Law staff member Virginia Hardy that there had been an error of judgment and is he prepared to tolerate such errors of judgment as par for the course of the Treaty settlement process; if so why? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I am clearly aware of the comment. I referred to it in the first answer that I gave. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: This is a cover-up for your friends. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Oh for goodness’ sake. Mr Ryall should grow up. No error is ever desirable but I suggest to the member that any organisation that could claim never to have an error in judgment let alone an error of any sort simply is not credible. What I can say is that I have confidence of a very high standard of work and a high commitment to ethical behaviour on behalf of that organisation. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: I seek leave to table an article of 27 April 2007 entitled “Two-way Crown view adds to Treaty delay”. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: I seek leave also to table an article of 5 May 2007: “Flak flies over Treaty secrets” in the  
New Zealand Herald 
. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Television New Zealand—Charter 
6.  
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) 
 to the  
Minister of Broadcasting 
: What has the TVNZ charter delivered for New Zealanders? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Broadcasting 
: The Television New Zealand (TVNZ) charter has some 10 objectives within it. I am advised that TVNZ delivers to those objectives and produces a range of programmes consistent with those objectives and screens a range of programmes consistent with those objectives. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Has the Minister seen the New Zealand On Air 2006 television local content report and how does he explain the fact that since the implementation of the TVNZ charter the total local content hours on both Television One and TV2 have been in steady decline with 12 percent less local content on Television One and 20 percent less local content on TV2 in 2006 compared with 2002; and would the Minister expect the charter to deliver more or less local content on TVNZ? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I make two points. TVNZ’s own statement in relation to these matters is: “We operate in both a local and international framework. Our mission is to bring you more and better of New Zealand On Air as well as the best from around the world.” In fact Television One now averages 67 hours of local content a week compared with an average of 49 hours a week under the last National Government which is an increase of 36 percent. 
Darien Fenton 
: What has the Government’s broadcasting policy delivered for New Zealanders? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Government’s broadcasting policy has delivered nearly double the hours of local content on free-to-air television double the hours of New Zealand music on radio the launch of digital free-to-air television a strong and competitive screen production sector the Maori Television Service and the Pacific Island radio network to name just a few. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Will the Minister admit that his broadcasting policy and the TVNZ charter is actually delivering a year-on-year decline in the amount of local content being shown on Television New Zealand? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is correct that in recent times there has been a slight fall but the average is still significantly higher than it was under the National Government. It has not been year-on-year. That is not actually correct and I suggest the member reads the graph a little more carefully. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Why did the Minister say in his press statement following the release of the New Zealand On Air report that: “This proves that all of New Zealand’s national free-to-air TV channels are boosting local content”; why did he deliberately mislead the public by creating the impression that local content was going up on TVNZ when in fact it is very obviously going down? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That press statement refers to New Zealand’s free-to-air television. In 1999 free-to-air television carried 6142 hours of New Zealand content. In the last year it carried 10255. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Does the Minister realise that when he tries to fudge the figures on local TV content just as when he refuses to say how many children will have access to 20 free hours and just as when he continues to spin-doctor the serious problems with the National Certificate of Educational Achievement it just reinforces for the public John Tamihere’s view that: “You can spend 2 hours with Maharey and walk away none the wiser but you’ve got three screeds of paper full of notes.”? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I will call the Minister but that question was substantially out of order in the imputations that were made. The substance of the question was out of order—that is what leads to disorder if you read the Standing Orders—but I call the Hon Dr Michael Cullen. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I would much rather take my colleague the Minister’s views on life than those of somebody who blows smoke in women’s faces and has a punch-up in public. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well the answer matched the question. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: When the Minister says that the Government is committed to the core objective of building national identity and will do so through television does he not realise that New Zealanders do not want to be told by the Government what their identity is and that using a State-owned broadcaster to try to shape national identity is actually a feature of totalitarian regimes not Western democracies; or does he secretly fancy himself as the “MP for Palmerston North Korea”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: If we were a totalitarian regime it would be hard to understand why an ex - National Party candidate co-hosts a breakfast TV programme. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: We are getting close again to having question time in silence and that can be painful. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I seek leave to table the 2006 local content survey showing that not only did the percentage of news and current affairs— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. I remind members that they just identify the document; they do not read from it. 
Ambulance Services—Deaths and Single-crewed Ambulances 
7.  
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Have any New Zealanders died over the last 5 years because an emergency call-out was responded to by a single-crewed ambulance with insufficient staff to treat a patient adequately and transport the patient to hospital; if so how many? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Acting Minister of Health) 
: 
 I am advised by the Ministry of Health that no report it holds has single crewing as the primary cause of death. However the more services and facilities that are available of course the better it will be and those services are being progressively provided and improved. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Is it not true that the Government has absolutely no idea how many people are dying or becoming disabled as a result of single crewing because it monitors only ambulance response times and has no record of whether an ambulance arrived singled crewed and could treat and transport a patient properly or was single crewed and the patient died as a result of that; if not why not? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I can only repeat that the Ministry of Health has no information that a single-crewed ambulance was the single or major cause of any death. If the member has that information she should provide it. What I can say is that the present level of double crewing at 82 percent of call-outs is the highest it has been to my knowledge in the history of St John Ambulance and the Government is committed to advancing that to 100 percent just as soon as it is possible to do so. 
Lesley Soper 
: What changes have been introduced in the ambulance services over the past 3 years? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: The Government has provided considerable extra funding over the last 3 years to achieve the present level of at least 82 percent of call-outs being double crewed. We have to remember I advise the House that there are 700 full-time professional St John Ambulance officers and there are 2500 volunteers. It is the organisation of those volunteers particularly in rural areas that provides major difficulties. But there has been extra funding for 67 full-time staff equivalents and as I say the growth of the service towards double crewing by professional and qualified officers is increasing regularly. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Can he explain to the House how an ambulance officer is expected to drive an ambulance while at the same time providing adequate treatment to a patient in an emergency as ambulance officers had to do in about 50000 emergency ambulance call-outs last year? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Common sense would tell me that that is impossible and it is not required or expected. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Further to the Minister’s answer is the Minister aware that last year approximately 50000 emergency calls were responded to by single-crewed ambulances and that in March this year 70 percent of all emergency call-outs in the central North Island were responded to with single crews—in breach of the national standard—and does he think it is fair that the chance of someone in a life-threatening situation getting proper treatment depends on where that person lives? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: My advice is that the national standard is that best endeavours will be made to have double-crewed ambulances. As I have advised the House at the moment that level is 82 percent. I can also advise the House that there has been increased funding each year for the last 3 years for this service—averaging between 8 and 10 percent a year—67 extra full-time equivalent paid ambulance officers as I said and significant investment in three new technologically advanced ambulance communication centres. This Government is doing more to assist the St John Ambulance service than any other Government has done in recent memory. 
Nathan Guy 
: Why did the Minister of Health tell the House last week that at least 82 percent of ambulance call-outs are double crewed and that as better data becomes available it may prove the number to be higher than that when the data supplied to me by Horowhenua ambulance staff on the ground shows that 50 percent of call-outs are single crewed; what is the Minister doing to ensure that lives are not put at risk in Horowhenua or does he not care about that? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: It may come as a surprise to the member but the St John Ambulance service operates outside Horowhenua as well as there. The Minister was replying on the basis that 82 percent of the national service provided by St John Ambulance is double crewed. I have already indicated to the House that in rural areas where it also has to rely on volunteers to assist with the crewing of St John Ambulances there has also been—and still is—some difficulty. The Government is moving with improved funding to increase that 82 percent figure in all areas. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I seek leave to table a document showing that on 2 March a 56-year-old man in cardiac arrest was attended to by a single-crewed ambulance and the patient died. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I seek leave to table a document showing that on 15 March a 76-year-old man had a cardiac arrest was attended to by a single-crewed vehicle and the patient died. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I seek leave to table a document showing that on 26 March a 64-year-old female was attended to by a single-crewed ambulance and the patient died. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I seek leave to table a document showing that a man dying from a crash in 2003 died after a single-crewed ambulance was unable to take the badly injured man to hospital— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I seek leave to table a document showing that an Auckland man died after a bee sting when the single-crewed ambulance that attended him— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I seek leave to table a chart showing that in the Horowhenua area in March 70 percent of the ambulances that responded to emergencies were single crewed. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Police—Confidence in Management 
8.  
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Is she satisfied with the performance of police management; if so why? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) 
: 
 In general yes. 
Chester Borrows 
: Can the Minister confirm the statement issued by police at 2.34 this afternoon that the Hamilton police officer lying in hospital after being stabbed four times in the torso yesterday had not been issued with a stab-proof vest but had been only measured for one; and in light of the mismanagement of the roll-out of these vests how can she hide behind the excuse that this is an operational matter when clearly it is a matter of life and death? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: First of all I would like to express my deep regret at the stabbing of an officer in Hamilton. I wish him a speedy recovery. I say also that I deeply regret that the stab-proof body armour is not available for all front-line officers at this stage. The project has been dogged by problems and delays. I wish the police could enact this programme as fast as possible but mistakes have been made along the way that the police must take responsibility for—and they do. I say to the member that I hide behind nobody as Minister. I front the issues. Hiding might have been the action of past Governments but it is certainly not the action of this Government to hide behind anybody even though the member is quite big enough to hide behind. 
Jill Pettis 
: What is the latest information the Minister has received on yesterday’s claim by Mr Brownlee that the two  
Dominion Post  
reporters did not report the alleged incident of the rifle in the back of the car to the police at the time because as Mr Brownlee said: “The police were not too far from where they were and they thought they”—meaning the police—“could see it.”? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I have received some very interesting information which raises questions about the truth of Mr Brownlee’s assertions yesterday. Wanganui police early today asked to interview the two reporters concerned to discover more detail about what they may or may not have seen. So far no official response has apparently been received from the  
Dominion Post 
 but it does seem that the reporter who wrote the story and reported seeing the rifle in the back seat now apparently claims not to have seen such an incident. It may have been reported to him second-hand by the photographer. It also seems that the photographer may not have seen any gun—if one actually existed—on the back seat of the car either but rather saw one in the boot. I said yesterday that Gerry Brownlee made it up but time will tell and I will keep the House informed. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I want to apologise to the House for getting it wrong—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Members will leave the Chamber! 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Quite clearly it was inappropriate for me to say that the rifle was on the back seat when it was in the boot all the time. 
Chester Borrows 
: Can the Minister confirm that front-line police were first promised stab-resistant vests in June last year then in February 2007 and then in May but that fewer than half of officers have them now—all because management ordered the wrong colour the wrong material the wrong design and then the wrong sizes which means that 1500 tiny little vests are now in storage wasting $1.5 million that could have been spent on other tools to keep front-line police safe? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I think the member has pretty much summed up some of the errors that have been made with the purchase of these vests. [ 
Interruption 
] However— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No would the Minister please be seated. We will hear the rest of this question in silence because I cannot hear what is happening. If I cannot I am sure that other members in the Chamber cannot. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: However I think it is important to tell the House that 3241 vests have already been issued to staff. Another 1500 are in the process of being issued in the incremental roll-out. There are 1700 in storage and I think that New Zealand First would be pleased to hear that because the vests are able to be used for new officers in the future. We are recruiting 1000 additional officers and there are—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: —officers who change sizes. Some of them get bigger and some get smaller so the vests are able to be used; they will not be wasted. I believe that the police will ensure that those officers who require them will get them. But that does not excuse the fact that this project has been very slow in its roll-out with quite a number of problems that I think could have been better managed. 
Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Twice during the Minister of Police’s answer Phil Heatley interjected— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes he did. 
Darren Hughes 
: —after you had specifically asked the House to hear the answer in silence. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I did and I was waiting to the end until I drew the House’s attention to that. 
Phil Heatley withdrew from the Chamber. 
Chester Borrows 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I just wonder whether the Minister would like to reconsider her answer. She said that 3200 or so vests had been issued with 1500 to come. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is a supplementary question; it is not a point of order. But the member will please proceed. 
Chester Borrows 
: Well her initial statement said that there were 6910 vests to be rolled out and the figures do not add up. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member can ask a supplementary question. 
Chester Borrows 
: I will move on; does the Minister stand by her response to the Bazley report— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: We are hearing this question in silence; otherwise there will be nobody left in the Chamber. 
Chester Borrows 
: Does the Minister stand by her response to the Bazley report that there can be no tolerance for disgraceful conduct by police officers involved in the exploitation of vulnerable people; if she does why has the previous head of the Horowhenua Criminal Investigation Bureau (CIB) Detective Sergeant Peter Govers been demoted rather than sacked for harassing a female informant for sex with the option of returning to the CIB after 2 years and having promotion after a year? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I hope that I can get a couple of answers in here because I want to tell the member who did not hear me properly that in fact 3241 vests have been issued and 1500 are in the process of being issued. The figure of 6527 vests have been received. Those are the latest figures I have so if that helps the member I am happy to provide that information. 
In response to the member’s question regarding the demotion of an officer who I think carried out conduct not becoming of the New Zealand Police I can say that a decision on what would happen to this police officer was made before the commission of inquiry’s report actually came out. I believe as Mr Howard Broad the commissioner said on television last night that if the issue came before us today the officer would lose his job. 
Chester Borrows 
: Why has the Minister claimed that Govers was not dismissed because this action took place before she received the recommendations of the Bazley report when for 3 years those in police management knew they were under the spotlight for the way they had handled these kinds of claims they had seen drafts of the Bazley report and they had even begun to implement its recommendations before it was released yet on 19 March 2 weeks before the Bazley report went public they still chose to demote rather than dismiss? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: There are two very important recommendations out of the 48 that Dame Margaret made in relation to the police—two very important ones which will be implemented this year. The first is in relation to the code of conduct. Unfortunately the member put out a statement a few days ago saying there is already a code of conduct. I do not know whether that member remembers what is in place in the police. The report of the commission of inquiry states that there is no code of conduct the head office of the New Zealand Police says there is no code of conduct and the Police Association says there is no code of conduct. I know that there is no code of conduct. The only code of conduct applies to non-sworn officers. So the implementation of a code of conduct does make a difference because it allows the police to consider behaviour as a whole and not be restricted by prescribed breaches of conduct as currently detailed in the police regulations. That leads me to the second important recommendation that the regulations governing the disciplinary matters of the police be changed. They will be changed I believe by September of this year. They probably should have been changed a long time ago but they will be changed this year. 
Chester Borrows 
: What does the Minister say to the women of this country who believed her assurances and those of the Prime Minister that their complaints about improper conduct by the police would be taken seriously when she now appears to be telling them that zero tolerance applies to disgraceful conduct that occurred only after 3 April which is when the Bazley report was released? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No that is not what I am saying to the women of New Zealand. I am so pleased that it took this Prime Minister in this Labour-led Government this Minister of Police and the previous Minister of Police to take those women seriously and to set up a commission of inquiry to ensure that those issues were looked into. That never happened under a National Government. National never took it seriously. This Government did. We have 48 recommendations and the assurance I give to the women of New Zealand is that every one of those recommendations will be implemented. 
Bus Services Wellington—Environmental Friendliness 
9.  
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What recent developments if any have there been in providing environmentally friendly bus services in the Wellington region? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 This afternoon I will attend the signing of a contract between the Greater Wellington Regional Council and New Zealand Bus Ltd which will result in the complete rebuilding of Wellington’s 60 electric-powered trolley buses. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: When are you going to use the bus yourself? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: That is a good question. Actually I have a bus ticket and I do use the bus on quite a regular basis. Funding for this project is shared between Greater Wellington Regional Council and the Government through Land Transport New Zealand. The contract will ensure that larger more comfortable trolley buses will continue to provide an essential transport service to Wellington residents while contributing to reduced greenhouse gas emissions and reduced local air pollution. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: I thank the Minister—I am really delighted—and ask: what are the environmental benefits of trolley buses? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: That is a very good question and I pay a compliment back to the member and to Sue Kedgley who have been strong advocates for the trolley buses in Wellington. Trolley buses produce no local air pollution which makes Wellington inner city a great place in which to work and live. I am advised that the new buses will also save over 1600 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions per year compared with their diesel bus equivalents. The amount of electricity used by the fleet of 60 buses—and this will be very interesting to Mr Brownlee the Opposition spokesperson on energy—is equivalent to that produced by about half of one new windmill installed at TrustPower’s new Tararua wind farm. 
Law Commission—Confidence in President 
10.  
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
 to the  
Minister responsible for the Law Commission 
: Does he have confidence in the judgment of the president of the Law Commission; if not why not? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister responsible for the Law Commission) 
: 
 Yes. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Does the Minister agree with the former Minister of Justice Geoffrey Palmer that the Law Commission will be more independent of the Government than any other Law Commission in the Commonwealth; if so in how many other Commonwealth countries does the president of the Law Commission donate almost $11000 to the governing political party that appointed him or her? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: To the first question yes because it is; that is a matter of legal fact. Secondly this Law Commission president was appointed on his undeniable competence qualification and high integrity. I suggest to that member that the president was appointed for the same reason that the former Prime Minister the Rt Hon Jim Bolger was retained as an ambassador in a highly sensitive position—because he was competent and his integrity was beyond reproach. It was equally appropriate. I say to the junior Opposition whip who is rubbing his little fingers together that the difference is that in the case of Geoffrey Palmer we know transparently what he has given in terms of donations. We have no idea about the secret donations that are smuggled into the National Party through its secret trust accounts. That is the difference; this is open and transparent. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I know there are certain rules about what members can say in this House. Most of them without pointing it out clearly require members to back their comments up. I think Mr Tau Henare’s comment about a former Prime Minister being a hack is really unbecoming of parliamentary behaviour and I ask him to apologise. If he has any reason why he should say that then perhaps he should ask a question to back it up. Calling former Prime Ministers hacks and stoolies and things like that is really not something to be encouraged in this Parliament. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is unfortunate such comments are in fact used from time to time and they probably reflect on the various members who actually use them. I ask for the next supplementary question. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: That’s not even a point of order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is what I have said. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Well why didn’t you say that at the beginning? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would you like to leave the Chamber Mr Henare thank you very much. You can come back for your question. 
Hon Tau Henare withdrew from the Chamber. 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: How can the public have confidence in the independence and impartiality of the Law Commission when it next considers electoral reform when that independence and impartiality appear to have been compromised by the president of the Law Commission donating almost $11000 to bail out the Labour Party’s breach of the Electoral Act when it illegally spent over $800000? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: People can have confidence because the president of the Law Commission is a man of high integrity and reputation unlike some of the members asking questions in this House. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: He’s just a party hack. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Mr Smith over there is chirping away. That same criticism could be levelled at Jim Bolger but it should not be for the same reason—he is a man of integrity. Jim Bolger had a highly sensitive position and was possessed of information highly damaging potentially to this country. This Government trusted him because it had reason to. His integrity is beyond reproach; so is Sir Geoffrey Palmer’s. I think using this matter to try to score political points reflects appallingly on those members who do that. It will do them no good. 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: Has he seen reports from Andrew Ladley the former coalition manager for the Government who said: “… it would be unwise for someone in Sir Geoffrey’s position to make political donations.” and: “Ordinarily a senior person in public service would exercise their judgement very carefully before making a substantial donation because of the perception that could be around that they would not carry out their public service duties in a politically neutral fashion.”; if so why does the Minister insist that the president of the Law Commission should be exempt from standards of independence and neutrality that apply to all other public servants? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: We seem to have a trend today of selective quoting. I will go on to say what Dr Ladley actually concluded: “… there’s unlikely to be any question of judgment given that Sir Geoffrey’s background was well known before he took up the role.” Look the question is this: is this man this former Prime Minister someone of high quality high confidence and integrity? The answer is “Yes.” He is undeniably a highly appropriate appointment to this position. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Does the Minister not agree that the real issue here is not Sir Geoffrey’s competence high reputation honesty or transparency which I for one do not question but his judgment or in this case the lack of it? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: No I do not. Had Sir Geoffrey chosen to donate a few hundred dollars less this matter of course would not have required a declaration. He knowingly made an open transparent donation to a party that he was the Prime Minister and leader of. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: In the light of the question from Georgina te Heuheu does the Minister intend that before appointing anybody to any office he will ask whether that person has made any donation to any political party—for example the former Governor of the Reserve Bank to the National Party—and will recommend his colleagues also do the same; if not why not? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: It is a tempting proposition but of course as I have indicated in earlier answers the question is whether people will be appropriate appointments. I have no idea for instance whether any judge or any head of any agency has made donations this year or any other year to the National Party nor do I care because it is their competence and their integrity that is the issue at point. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table a number of articles from newspapers at the time of the appointment of Sir Keith Holyoake to be Governor-General of this country that indicate that National was outraged when some members of the Labour Party accused him of being a hack—inappropriately so on that occasion as well. 
Documents not tabled. 
Broadband Network—Funding 
11.  
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Communications 
: Has he received any further reports on financing improvements to New Zealand’s broadband network? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Communications) 
: 
 Yes I have seen reported today in the  
New Zealand Herald  
Bill English opposing Government investment in this country’s broadband infrastructure—contradicting his co-leader John Key who last week proposed doing exactly that. 
Dave Hereora 
: Has the Minister seen any reports on investment by local authorities in New Zealand’s broadband infrastructure? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Yes in the same  
New Zealand Herald 
 report Bill English is quoted as being concerned at local bodies investing in broadband infrastructure for their citizens. So he is undermining not only his leader but also the efforts of hard-working self-sacrificing New Zealand communities that are doing their bit to bring faster broadband to the people. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Will the Government implement the policy of the Australian Labor Party and promote a Government-funded national fibre network in light of Bill English’s statement in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 that National will look at adopting this policy; if not why obviously is it to be not? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: In response to the member I find it immensely amusing that the National Party should look to adopt the policy of the Labor Party of another country. The Government is at a delicate stage in implementing the Telecommunications Amendment Act—legislation that miraculously both Mr Key and Mr English voted for at the same time. Now even if they could agree on their own policy it would be totally inappropriate for them to wade into this matter at such a delicate time. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Will the Minister stick to the question please. Superfluous comments lead only to disorder. 
Te PuniKokiri—Confidence 
12.  
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: Does he have confidence in Te PuniKokiri; if not why not? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 Yes I have confidence in Te PuniKokiri because the staff and employees are hard-working and conscientious people. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Why did Te PuniKokiri let one-fifth of all of its contracts to contractors in 2005-06—$1.5 million of taxpayers’ money—without any tendering process whatsoever? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Te PuniKokiri entered into 262 contracts for that period. The total value of all contracts awarded was $7.5 million. There is certainly a limited market of expertise in this market in developing Maori issues. Te PuniKokiri’s benchmark was $50000. Where it has gone above it and not tendered it has gone for the best person in a very limited market. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Can the Minister confirm that four of the 10 largest contracts Te PuniKokiri let to contractors in 2005-06 were let without tender including one to a Nicky Birch for $100000 because she “was known to the Ministry”? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I can confirm that added bit at the end of that question. There is more of an issue in the sense of the skills of Nicky Birch. Can I remind that member that expenditure on contractors and consultants has decreased over the last 2 financial years. In 2004-05 it was $7.9 million; in 2005-06 it was $6.9 million. It is projected downwards to $5.5 million this financial year. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Can the Minister confirm his answer to question for written answer No. 03296 that a contract worth $67000 was let without tender to Michael Dreaver because the contractor was available and that another contract worth $58000 was let without tender to Donna Matahaere because the contractor was available? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: As I said earlier on and I will remind that member although it was Te PuniKokiri’s general policy to tender for contracts over $50000 where this has not occurred it has been for a number of reasons including where specialist skills were required where there was a limited field of contractors in Maori public policy available for business continuity and they were available at the time. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: How can the New Zealand taxpaying public have confidence in Te PuniKokiri’s financial responsibility when one-fifth of all its contracts are let without tender and for such reasons as “the contractor used to work at TPK” and “the contractor knew people at TPK”? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: There are strong requirements in the sense of the outcomes in relation to these contracts. I have written to that member with detail around each one. It is quite fascinating that Mr Henare is the person who is talking about contracting and taking contracts because I remember when he got $260000 to set up a chat show in the garage. He referred to it and aligned it with  
The 
Kumars 
 at No 42 
. Nothing came out of that—nothing whatsoever. That is what a shoddy use of taxpayers’ money is! I remind that member about that. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I did not ask a question about  
The 
Kumars 
 at No 42 
 or whether people watched my show which was actually quite a good show. I actually asked the Minister about whether the taxpaying public should have confidence— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I understand the member’s point of order. The Minister did address the question and then strayed into superfluous matters. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Can the Minister confirm that in late 2006—last year—the Auditor-General advised the Maori Affairs Committee that Te PuniKokiri needs to be cognisant of prudent financial management—for example its own contracting guidelines—and that Te PuniKokiri’s 2006 financial review found that Te PuniKokiri’s contract management systems failed to comply with Te PuniKokiri’s own operational guidelines; and what will the Minister do about it? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: As that member knows on the select committee there has been a continued review. Certainly Te PuniKokiri’s processes and systems have been strengthened beyond any performance that that member was into. I invite him into my office to talk to the officials again. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Is it OK for the Minister to address the question in any which way he wants to without even reference to the question? That is what I get a bit put out by. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. As the member is aware Ministers are required to address the questions but frequently it is not to the satisfaction of those who ask the questions. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I seek leave of the House to table a list of the untendered contracts. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I seek leave to table the answer to question for written answer No. 03294: the total value of all contracts awarded by Te PuniKokiri. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I seek leave to table the answer to question for written answer No. 03296 about all of the untendered contracts. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I seek leave to table the answer to question for written answer No. 03295 which sets out the 10 largest contracts— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Personal Explanations 
Anzac Day Ceremony—Attendance 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 Last week Sue Moroney stated that she was the only member who attended the Anzac Day dawn ceremony in Cambridge. That statement was incorrect. I attended the ceremony together with my husband and my son who was wearing his great-grandfather’s medals from World War I. Therefore I have sought to make this statement to correct the record. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. 
Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 8 May. 
Part 1 Social Security Act 1964 
( 
continued 
)  
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 One of the concerns we have raised in relation to this bill is the issue of the microchipping of entitlement cards. We are particularly concerned that if we have that sort of technology put in place we should be very upfront and honest about its purpose. Certainly at the Social Services Committee we heard that this is effectively a card to allow commercial entities to give discounts to seniors and to veterans. We do not see any problem with that; we just do not understand why we need to have technology such as microchips to enable that to happen. Most of us know that these sorts of things happen anyway and no commercial entity would be lawfully required to provide those discounts—certainly not under this legislation. So this is a concern that we raised at the select committee and we will continue to raise it in relation to this bill. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party supports the SuperGold card which will be very useful for superannuitants. We will be voting for the legislation as a whole and we hope it will lead to benefits for pensioners more discounts etc. However the Greens see big privacy issues at stake in the legislative provision for microchips. The Law Society said that this is the first time the use of microchips has been authorised on such a large scale and that there is no need for this provision to be included in the legislation at this time. 
If we look at the amendments before the Committee today and at the comments made by the different parties across the political spectrum there seems to be a recognition of the privacy implications in putting microchips on cards and the need for these to be assessed before they are brought into operation. The obvious solution is to leave the question of whether we need legislation to put microchips on cards until after we have had a proper inquiry. That is why the Greens will be supporting Heather Roy’s amendment to take out of the bill any authorisation for microchips on the SuperGold card. 
When we have the inquiry into microchips on the card the first thing we need to bring into play is the Privacy Commissioner. It is shocking that she has been left out so far when this measure obviously has such privacy implications. She is certainly concerned about what could happen. In this morning’s  
New Zealand Herald  
the Privacy Commissioner Marie Shroff urges caution and says “There is the potential for ‘function creep’ where the card ends up being used for far more than it was originally intended.” 
We see this function creep all over the place such as with more and more Government databases being matched and linked up and there is an equivalent phenomenon in the private sector. It is clear that microchip technology enables easier and greater exchange of information between cards and databases than simply the magnetic strip or the barcode. It can work two ways. Not only can more information on the chip be put into more and more databases and manipulated there but also it can go the other way around with additional information or categories of information being put on to the microchip itself. 
In question time today the Minister in charge of this bill Winston Peters said more than once that we should not worry because we already have microchips on our passports. That is enlightening for us because our passports now have our facial characteristics in a digital form primarily so that US Department of Homeland Security can download that information if we pass through an American airport so that it can compare that digital information with what is in its database. I think that that extension of information on microchips is the sort of area the Privacy Commissioner is talking about when she talks about function creep. 
It is important to recognise that there are different types of cards containing microchips. Having a bus card that debits according to one’s trips is very useful and the Greens are not opposed to that. It is not an ID card as such. What is different about the SuperGold card is that it is an ID card that has various information about the person. In this case of course it is useful to have a card that can be used to access various services but we have to be careful as we go down the track of what we use on that card to ensure it is not a Trojan Horse—a move towards a more generalised ID card covering everyone and containing all sorts of additional information that may undermine our privacy. 
 There have been huge debates overseas about ID cards that other Governments are trying to bring in like those being introduced by the Government in Britain at the present time. In Britain the cards are being brought in bit by bit explicitly as an ID card for people to use in a whole range of Government activities. First it is being brought in for new migrants and then it will be extended out to the whole population. The Greens are worried that that sort of thing could happen here with this function creep. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Could we just get a few things sorted out before we go any further in this debate. I think the 540000 New Zealanders who are retired or soon to be retired deserve to hear the truth. We need to dispose of some of the misinformation so wantonly put out there. For a start where did that member Keith Locke get the idea that this was to be related to information-sharing with the United States or any other country? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: He didn’t say that. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: He did say it. That is one of the things he said in that speech. That is not—[ 
Interruption 
] I ask members to check  
Hansard 
 or do us and me a favour—listen to their colleagues debating in the Chamber. He most certainly referred to sharing information with the United States. [ 
Interruption 
] Excuse me—I ask the member to sit down and not to do that again. It is unbelievable Madam Chair that while I am on my feet that member who has been here for a while gets up and starts to behave like that. I say it is not pertinent it is not relevant and it has not been introduced or thought about at all. The fact that he related passports to this issue is an attempt to scaremonger amongst the elderly otherwise why would he have raised it? 
The second thing is that nobody is being microchipped. Nobody is being microchipped. [ 
Interruption 
] Madam Chair if he does that again would you get him out of this Chamber because he cannot do that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member cannot rise and speak like that. If the member wants to rise for a point of order that is different. However he cannot rise and just join in the debate. Please desist. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Nobody is being microchipped and those who say that are wantonly spreading misinformation “sadly with malice” to quote the head of the Law Commission. 
Could I just say that photos on the card are optional. That is how far we are prepared to go to ensure that there is no process that the elderly will not be happy with. The Law Society will be has been and will continue to be consulted as will the Privacy Commissioner. As we indicated to her from the very start we intended to go through this process always in consultation with her office to ensure that a very important facility for the elderly was not made use of because the process may have been defective. 
I want to make sure that the State Services Commission is consulted as well. And I am happy for the parties in this Parliament to be consulted as well. But if anyone thinks that we should stand around and wait whilst the service industries of this country are as we speak—and I am talking months now not years—availing themselves of this technology then surely that person does not intend to be part of the modern environment of politics or commercial services for that matter. 
I want to say that in the  
New Zealand Herald  
today there was a front-page report. I want to say this to the  
New Zealand Herald  
reporter. For a reporter to call the Minister and leave a message on his cellphone after 6 p.m. the day before that reporter intends to publish an article in a paper that is available on the streets of Auckland at 5 a.m. the next morning is not professional it is not being responsible it is not designed to elicit information but rather to try to make out that the journalist has professionally consulted all parties. That is nonsense. I know when that reporter called and it is simply not good enough. But most important to repeat a series of statements that are misinformation—disingenuously so and worse than that demonstrably false and known to be so by some of the participants—is not good enough. 
I want to make it very clear that we will not be deterred because some members rather than help the elderly have acted differently as has been their wont to do—not just lately but over many many years—and believe that they will get away with it. If they think they are going to win on that basis then they will be found out to be wrong. I have spent more time in my career being concerned about privacy issues than that member ever has. I have been more concerned to disclose and put sunlight on certain issues that have never had sunlight on them than that member and his whole party ever has been. So I regard this as a personal slight as does my party and I am not going to proceed on the basis that that member should trust me but rather that the process is one that can be trusted. 
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak in the Committee stage of the debate. At the outset I would like to say that the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill is actually a very good initiative for the senior citizens and veterans of this country. My only objection to this bill is the addition of a microchipping provision to the legislation when the background work on that has not been undertaken—against the advice of the Law Society and against the wording of the Privacy Commissioner. I want to continue to talk about that because when it comes to the protection of private information about New Zealand citizens that is a very important issue. 
I wrote a letter to the Privacy Commissioner because her comment has been noticeably absent both at the select committee hearing and in the public arena and I was not sure at all whether she knew about this issue. Thankfully she did and has been doing some work on it but she made some comments generally about the issue of microchipping. She has given me a range of comments and I want to share some of them with the Committee. The Privacy Commissioner believes the introduction of the card needs to be preceded by a proper assessment of the implications and by an opportunity for public debate on the issues. Mr Peters may well sit there bag the media and bag the Opposition for raising these issues which should be debated in the public arena—everybody else is to blame except himself. He could well have instigated a discussion on this issue himself but no getting his precious card through is much more important to Mr Peters than is having a proper and fair public debate. 
 The Ministry of Social Development too was very good in its assessment of the issues raised by the Social Services Committee. I want to talk about one of those issues which I raised at question time today. The ministry’s advisers were specifically asked about the consequences of recommending that the clause providing for microchips be deleted. This is what they said: “If clause 5(2) was deleted from the bill there would be no immediate consequences for the launch and implementation of the SuperGold card.” However it was reported in today’s  
New Zealand Herald 
 that an adviser from Mr Peters’ office had told senior citizens that the card had to have the microchip in order to be functional. That is clearly not true and is a complete misrepresentation of the whole microchipping issue. 
A public debate on microchipping should be held. There is no point in putting in this legislation an amendment that is not just about this card but the introduction of cards under the Social Security Act so that microchips can be used in any card that the department wishes to put forward. The issue of course is that there are many different types of microchips but Mr Peters’ legislation does not specify the microchip type or function that will be used. The microchips that we must avoid at any cost are radio frequency identification tags—“RFID”s. This legislation if passed into law will allow for such tags to be put in place and legitimately used to pass on information from senior citizens and veterans to any John Doe on the street and goodness knows what will then be done with that personal information. That shows a complete disregard for the privacy issues of New Zealanders. 
The Law Society gave a very strong recommendation that a general review should occur around the principles governing the use of high-functional technologies such as microchip technologies and that the matter should be referred to and commented on thoroughly by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. That is absolutely the right process to follow. The Privacy Commissioner should have been involved from the outset and asked to comment publicly about these issues. Mr Peters and the Labour Government have neglected the security of some of their most vulnerable citizens by bypassing basic privacy principles. They are playing privacy poker with other people’s chips and I tell Mr Peters that that is absolutely outrageous. His card does not need to have a microchip. It can proceed as it was planned and in the time frame that was planned without having a microchip. We should take stock of the issues that have been raised both here and overseas. In the last 6 months the United States and the European Union have highlighted the concerns about microchips and have moved away until proper research and consultation are done from using microchips of any kind for human identification processes. That is the right and proper thing to do. 
I will move an amendment that seeks to delete the wording “or a microchip embedded in them” from Mr Peters’ amendment. I am happy for the magnetic strip to stay on the card I am happy about the barcode and I am happy about the optional photograph—I think that is a very good idea—but I want microchips to be removed. 
TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Independent—Mangere) 
: 
 I just want to congratulate the Rt Hon Winston Peters. I think it is a very good initiative. It is clear up and down this country that the SuperGold card will be in the interests of senior citizens. It will allow their numbers to take advantage of benefits and we know that other businesses operate by using large numbers of people to gain good concessions discounts and benefits for their members. I see no reason why this gold card cannot be used to the benefit of senior citizens and I congratulate Labour and New Zealand First on this initiative which formed part of the coalition negotiations that this Government is now putting in place. 
In saying that I appreciate the concerns that other members have had in relation to personal information that could end up in the wrong hands and how that information could be used. Although I am supportive of this bill I do appreciate the concerns that have been raised. I had some discussions this morning particularly with other members and I acknowledge the contributions of Judith Collins Tim Barnett Heather Roy and Keith Locke. Those members have been in dialogue with me about the wording of an amendment that I believe should give some reassurance to senior citizens about the concerns that were in the media in this morning’s paper particularly in relation to the president of Grey Power calling for a halt to the process of this bill—certainly in relation to microchipping. 
I signal that an amendment in my name has been tabled. That amendment is in relation to ensuring that the critical importance of the protection of the privacy of personal information is conveyed to senior citizens and everybody else if in fact we are looking at technology that could very well be misused. So my amendment and I hope members of this Committee will support it will mean adding the following subclause after subclause (2) in clause 5: “Section 132A is amended by adding the following subsections: (3) An Order in Council providing for the embedding of microchips in entitlement cards may not be made under this section except on the recommendation of the Minister. (4) The Minister must not recommend the making of an Order in Council referred to in subsection (3) unless to ensure privacy and personal information are fully protected adequate consultation concerning the privacy and security of the information to be contained in the microchip has taken place with—(a) the States Services Commission; and (b) the Privacy Commissioner; and (c) any other State agency department or organisation the Minister considers relevant.” 
I hope that amendment will give some reassurance to senior citizens. That wording has been agreed to by the Rt Hon Winston Peters as a way of ensuring that we promote the benefits that this gold card offers to senior citizens but makes it clear that their privacy and personal information will be protected and that the relevant State agencies will endeavour to draft the appropriate protection in the advent of microchipping being implemented. With those comments I just want to congratulate New Zealand First on the initiative it put forward as part of the coalition talks and I know that most senior citizens will benefit from this initiative. Thank you Madam Chairperson. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Senior Citizens) 
: 
 There are two ways of going about things in the House of Representatives. One is to deliberately misunderstand and misrepresent proposals to scaremonger up and down the country then to vote against them. That has been the National-ACT position in relation to this legislation. There is another way of doing it and that is to recognise that there are some genuine concerns about proposals that the House is considering to look at them and to see whether they can be fixed. That is exactly what Taito Phillip Field is alluding to in his amendment. 
He said that he supports the SuperGold card initiative proposed by New Zealand First and supported by the Labour-Progressive Government as part of our confidence and supply agreement and that he wants it progressed but that some people have concerns about future-proofing access to information in a microchip. People are worried about new technology; in particular people who have not read the legislation are worried about the new technology. So to make it beyond doubt Taito Phillip Field’s amendment proposes what was basically outlined in the original Cabinet paper submitted by the Rt Hon Winston Peters. As recently referred to by Phillip Field I think that was a sensible way of putting in the law measures to address the concerns that have been raised about people’s privacy. 
But I say that those concerns have been misunderstand and misrepresented for political point-scoring only and the senior citizens of New Zealand will know that is the case because the legislation makes it very clear what information can be stored. It does not allow anything in addition to what can already be stored on a magnetic strip. Let me outline to the Committee exactly what can be stored. 
First is the cardholder’s name. Well I do not think there is a lot of risk of that being lost or identified by someone else. If a photograph is included—which is voluntary as the Rt Hon Winston Peters outlined—that provides additional security. The strip can include an identifying number assigned by the department to the cardholder—the superannuation number. It can have a number or code indicating the cardholder’s class of eligibility for the card. That does not seem a big threat. It can have an identifying number assigned to the card and—wait for it this could be the real threat to a person’s security and privacy—the commencement and expiry dates of the card and a code number for mailing purposes. 
If members read section 132A(2) of the Social Security Act they would see in the law that that is the limit of the information that can be stored without any further legislative amendment. There is no issue about breach of privacy. The legislation ensures that as future opportunities for discounts and concessions for senior citizens become available and become available only through use of a microchip we do not have to spend hours of time in this Parliament using up legislative opportunity to do something that the law already allows us to do. 
This concern is just political point-scoring by National and ACT to the detriment of over 550000 New Zealanders who are interested in seeing the outcome of this legislation rather than being scared by misunderstanding and misrepresentation. I think the progress of this bill through the House will be welcome news to all those senior citizens throughout the country. I know that having heard the entire debate they will understand that their private information is not under threat. The sole intention of this measure is to ensure that as smart technology advances they are able to access it at the earliest possible opportunity so that more concessions and more discounts can be added to the SuperGold card. 
I am delighted to be participating in this debate as the Minister for Senior Citizens and before I conclude this contribution I want to commend the determination of my colleague the Associate Minister for Senior Citizens the Rt Hon Winston Peters. This measure was one of his key pledges to the electorate prior to the last election. On day one after the confidence and supply agreement it was on our agenda for implementation. A lot of work has gone on and I acknowledge our officials in that regard as well as the select committee. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I want to make a contribution to this part of the debate on this bill regarding the SuperGold card. United Future along with some of the other parties on the Social Services Committee did register—and we certainly included a minority view in the commentary on the bill—some concerns around microchipping. But I want to be clear that our concerns about microchipping were not really to do with the microchipping provisions in this bill. In the bill it is very very clear what information can be stored. It is very mainstream information and we would have to return to this House to extend those provisions at any stage for any mechanism used to store information. 
So our concern was not sufficient to support the amendment by Heather Roy. However we did discuss this issue at caucus and our concern as I mentioned at question time today was whether we were progressing this idea of the Government use of microchip technology without having had the wider debate about the kinds of privacy issues that may need to be considered into the future around the use of this technology. The fact that we are including the provisions by stealth it would seem was of concern. 
So because we do not feel that there is any need to pull the provisions out at this stage as they are very limited in respect of what information can be stored we have written to a series of people. We have written to the Minister of State Services the Minister of Justice the Privacy Commissioner and the Law Commission asking them to take this matter into consideration and to provide some ongoing advice to the House about any of the ethical considerations around Government use of microchip technology into the future. We have asked them to provide this advice so that in future when bills like this come up in which there is a provision for the use of microchipping we have some clear guidelines and protocols and we can proceed with the use of this technology knowing that we are keeping New Zealanders safe from any use of invasive information that may be to their detriment. 
 We have weighed the issue up very sincerely. Unlike the previous speaker Ruth Dyson I believe that Heather Roy’s attempt is sincere. I do not believe she is trying to grandstand or do anything in a politicking sense. I think she is genuinely concerned and we have looked very closely at her concerns. We feel that this bill is safe in its use of microchipping but we think that it has raised a very important issue. We in the United Future caucus have certainly taken action to contact the bodies that give advice to the Government and to Government departments. Those bodies should have a say and give serious consideration to this and we have taken action to ask them to do some further work. 
I think the amendment in the name of Taito Phillip Field is a good amendment. It goes a long way to addressing our concerns and we are happy to support it. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 A fundamental question needs to be answered about the SuperGold card. I quote directly from the report of the Social Services Committee. That report has been agreed to by the Government and by all parties. It states: “… the Government has no plans to incorporate a chip into the SuperGold Card”. Then when I pick up the  
New Zealand Herald 
 today I see that it states this: “New Zealand First says the cards would not be functional without microchips”. That is contradictory and I ask the Minister in the chair right now to clear things up. 
I ask Mr Peters whether a microchip is intended to be in the card. The silence is deafening. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I’ll answer you. I am speaking shortly; I’ll answer you. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Just a yes or no answer will do. New Zealand First on the front page of the paper is reported as saying one thing and the select committee is saying another. Before we can have an intelligent debate in this Committee we need to have the answer to that fundamental question. What sort of disrespect is the Minister in the chair showing the Committee when he will not answer a simple question? 
I will ask the Minister for Senior Citizens Ruth Dyson. Will the SuperGold card as the select committee was advised not incorporate a microchip or is it the case as the New Zealand First spokesperson said on the front page of the  
New Zealand Herald 
 that the card would not be functional without a microchip? Can Ruth Dyson answer that question? Can any member of the Government answer that question? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Will you yield? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: For a simple yes or no answer yes. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: The member will not be yielding for a simple yes or no answer. The member has made a statement that we are not prepared to debate this issue and I am happy to take up the rest of the member’s time. Sadly it is the case that the member has forfeited his right to speak in this debate—not in this debate but for the next 5 minutes. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I sought the answer to a very important question; it is the most contentious question in this bill. We have contradictory reports from the select committee and from the New Zealand First spokesperson as reported in the  
New Zealand Herald 
. Now the Minister in the chair sought for me to yield. I was very specific. I said I was happy to yield for a yes or no answer. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: True. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: He then in a smart alec way said he was going to use all my time. I do not think that is appropriate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No; no comments sideways. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I stand by my decision to yield in order to allow the Minister to simply clarify that point but that is all I am prepared to yield for. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: In reply to that point of order let me say that the member is not afforded the liberty in a debate of saying to another member that he or she is confined to one sentence in reply. If the member yields then he yields the time that the other member reasonably takes to answer the question. That precedent has been set in other Parliaments and we still have it ourselves. If the member looks at the  
Hansard— 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Just give us an answer. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: The member does not like it when he is shown to be inexperienced in this House although he has been here a long time. He arrived in 1990. I know that because I campaigned for him—I do not know why in hindsight. But he arrived here 17 long years ago. So my point is that having been given the right after a yield request I now want to speak. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: This matter has been correctly raised as a point of order. It concerns a matter of procedure. [ 
Interruption 
] I will just take a few more words from Dr Smith on the point of order. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I was very clear. The condition on which I yielded to the Rt Hon Winston Peters was that it was for a simple yes or no answer on the question of which report the Committee could reply upon in terms of the debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I am very clear on that. We have gone past that point now and the member has about 2 minutes left. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Minister in the chair cannot give a straight answer to save his life. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I asked for him to yield. He said he would. Now he having yielded I want my chance to avail myself of the opportunity he has afforded me to give him a reply. But there is no way a member can ask four questions and get one answer to all four—unless of course the member is Nick Smith and thinks like him. So I need a bit more time. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Time is not in question here. It is just a matter of whom I give the call to. 
Anne Tolley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Speakers’ ruling 55/1 states: “When a member yields to another the member given the floor may refer only to the matter raised by the member yielding.” I believe that my colleague Dr Nick Smith is absolutely correct. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Both contributors have gone a fair way outside of that. I can give the call to anyone as I said before. Time is not an issue. The Minister in the chair may speak call after call after call in Committee and it is the same for Dr Smith. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The issue is very simple. I was on the select committee and received the advice of the officials. They told us two important things about this bill. They said the SuperGold card did not need to incorporate a microchip in order for it to be launched. They went even further than that; they said it was their view that not even within the next few years would it require a microchip. So why in a rush is Parliament expected to give approval for microchip technology for the SuperGold card when it is not needed to launch it and is not needed in future but it is just the case that at some time in the future the officials might want to incorporate it? I have a very simple answer. At the time in the future when they want to they should come to this Parliament and put their case and we will consider it. 
The most important thing is this: did Mr Peters tell superannuitants at the 2005 election that the card would have a microchip? No. Did the Government when it introduced the bill say the card would include a microchip? No. Will Mr Field’s amendments give the 540000 superannuitants the opportunity to have a say on whether they want a microchip to be put in the card? Again the answer is no—it will not. 
So I simply say to the Minister that we do not need to have this sort of bad process. If the ministry wants to introduce a microchip at some time in the future then it should come to this Parliament with a bill and set out the reasons for it. This Parliament can then make a proper considered decision as to whether it is a good or a bad thing. We will not then have legislation by stealth in which in a rush to get the SuperGold card up and running we include a sneaky little clause to allow for a microchip when it is not needed. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Associate Minister for Senior Citizens) 
: 
 It is very disappointing when someone comes to this Parliament as a very young member thereby inheriting the nickname “Young Nick” and 7 years later first demonstrates an inability to understand changes in the modern economy and second carries on an infuriating practice of doing no research getting most of his parliamentary responses wrong and behaving in a way that makes one wonder how he will get past the 2008 selection process. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Just answer the question. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: The answers have already been given. Will the microchip be required in respect of the golden age card? The answer has been advised to the member and everyone else: no the microchip will not be required on day one. [ 
Interruption 
] See there he is. The member is shouting out again and not waiting for the full answer. He did not raise the issue to get a full answer; he got up on his feet in just a vain attempt to maintain his position on the front bench. His being there is inexplicable to anyone who knows anything about how the National Party used to be. How he got there is beyond me. 
I tell members that on day one the microchip will not be required. As we have said the microchip will be needed only if seniors are to avail themselves of many of the benefits in the modern economy that are available only through microchip technology. The banks are already moving in that direction. Some will be there by the end of 2007. Banking is a major service industry. It is a major component in our economy. If the banks are going there then maybe we should be forward-thinking and visionary enough to provision elderly people to be there with them. 
For members to get up in this Chamber and start shouting about some sort of heinous Gestapo-like practice or Nazi-type behaviour— 
Judith Collins 
: He didn’t say that. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: That is what those members are saying on the stump—make no bones about it. Some members are even saying that the microchip will be embedded in the people themselves. Those members know full well that that is not true. There is a word for that; it starts with “h”. There is another explanation for it; that word starts with “l”. A bunch of mendacious sybarites is what I am talking about. The National members do not understand what that phrase means so they will not raise an objection to it. All these bright people in the National Party do not know what a mendacious sybarite is. That is why I can say it with no chance of anyone getting up and making a complaint. My colleague the ably qualified lawyer from the Hawke’s Bay understands what it means but most of those members like Judith Collins do not. 
Judith Collins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I ask the member to translate his comment into one of our official languages—either Maori or English. 
Anne Tolley 
: Or New Zealand Sign Language. 
Judith Collins 
: Or New Zealand Sign Language sorry! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: The word “mendacious” is actually English. It is derived from a Latin phrase—as is the other word. I am astonished that anyone who had any legal training at all would not know what either word meant. But together they mean that member and her colleagues. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 In contradiction to what Mr Peters has said I seek leave to table the statement: “… New Zealand First says the cards would not be functional without microchips …”. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No you’ll find out at question time. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: That is what New Zealand First said I say to Mr Peters. I seek leave to table that statement for the record. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 I am delighted to contribute to this debate on behalf of New Zealand First. I am absolutely astonished and very sad that such an atmosphere of misinformation and fear has been created around the use of a simple super-gold card for 540000 senior citizens here in New Zealand. The card is something that Australian senior citizens already use on a daily basis and it is not too difficult to implement over here. 
The doom and gloom that we are hearing in this Chamber is absolutely incredible. Logically one should step back and ask why the Government would invest millions of dollars in microchips in order to spy on what our elderly are doing. The answer is that it definitely would not. This is total misinformation. It is scaremongering. 
To say that personal information will be accessed is wrong. It is set out quite clearly in the legislation what will be on the magnetic strip. The information will be exactly the same as what would be on any microchip. We have a list here: the cardholder’s name an identifying number assigned by the department a number or code indicating the cardholder’s class of eligibility for the card an identifying number assigned to the card the commencement and expiry dates of the card and a code number. The strips that are already on other cards that people have contain much the same information as will ever be contained in a microchip when that technology becomes available. 
In relation to the argument that the card will track the user’s activities we have to accept that really whenever we use a card—whether a bankcard a card for an ATM machine that takes our photo a petrol card or a Fly Buys card which I would say many of us here have in our possession—we do not think anything of it. They are all cards we have at home. 
We will not ever return to the good old days when we never had cards. The fact that we have a photo on our driver’s licence is something that years ago people regarded with total astonishment. We thought people would steal our identities steal our signatures if they were on cards. But has that happened? No. 
So really we are hearing a lot of misinformation. We have a microchip on our ID cards here at Parliament that tracks exactly where we have been—which doors we have opened and which areas of the House we have walked through. As we have heard today next year banks are changing their technology. Guess what? Because banks are changing retailers have to change too. If we want to use our cards they will have to be updated to be part of the new technology. And as was pointed out today in question time the cards for seniors will not initially be issued with a microchip. 
The concerns that we have heard here today are interesting and I think they should be part of a wider debate perhaps on the use of microchip technology. But I believe that our senior citizens can be assured that the cards will not be used for purposes they are not supposed to be used for. The concerns we have heard show total misunderstanding; they are examples of political point-scoring. The information as we have said before is clearly set out in the bill. 
It is a shame that now that the SuperGold card is becoming a reality for our senior citizens and our veterans all of these hassles have been brought to the fore. We know that seniors are eagerly awaiting this particular card. We often heard criticism in the earlier part of the debate from those on the other side of the Chamber that they did not know the details of what is actually on the SuperGold cards. So be it! We have all heard that details will be released—and we know they will be—when the card is launched. That is the usual practice for any card to be launched. 
We in New Zealand First believe that it is very sad to play politics with this initiative. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I want to make it perfectly clear from the beginning that National will indeed support everything possible to ensure that our senior citizens get access to all the entitlements that they can from the discounts available to them. But I take the point that my colleague Nick Smith made earlier on—that the majority of the Social Services Committee members made a recommendation. They first of all said: “We received a submission that raised concerns about the use of microchips in the entitlement cards on such a large scale and recommended a review of the principles governing the use of such technology.” That is not a difficult thing to achieve but the committee went further: “While the amendment would allow entitlement cards to be issued with embedded microchips the Government has no plans to incorporate a chip into the SuperGold Card or entitlement cards generally at present.” Whether the intervening time has been too much of a rush for New Zealand First I do not know but it was indeed quite extraordinary to read in the  
New Zealand Herald  
this morning the point from New Zealand First that the cards will not be functional without microchips which could be in use as early as next year. 
I think there is an absolutely correct concern by a variety of responsible people as to taihoa-ing—taking caution—with the use of microchips. First of all there is the New Zealand Law Society the view of which I understand the Rt Hon Winston Peters has in some respects rejected. But then we can go to Marie Shroff the Privacy Commissioner who said she was not opposed to smart-card technology but more debate was needed—which I think is very reasonable. In fact she went on and made the statement that there is the potential for functional creep where the card ends up being used for far more than what was originally intended. 
To balance that view we heard from Keith Locke who was talking about the nightmare of the photograph when he went through the USA. Indeed his photograph could indeed be a nightmare to a lot of— 
Sandra Goudie 
: Oh not kind. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: “Not kind” the member says? But look I tell members that the soothsayers and scaremongers and the disaster predictors from the Green Party revel in this sort of thing and they conjure up all sorts of things that are quite unrealistic. I think that a balance is required—the balance required and suggested by the Law Society by Marie Shroff and indeed by Grey Power. 
I cannot understand why New Zealand First is wanting to stampede into this when Grey Power is saying that microchips are potentially an invasion of privacy and could track user activities. That may be a colourful description of what can happen but there is no doubt that the sensible thing is to have thorough debate on the issue of microchips. Technology—globally and in New Zealand—is rapidly changing and we have a functional card that can be made available to superannuitants right now. They can take advantage of the discounts that the Rt Hon Winston Peters says are available. We have yet to see exactly their reality; he says they are commercially sensitive. But we hope that the expectations will be lived up to and that the Rt Hon Winston Peters has done some very solid groundwork to make sure that the commercial arrangements and advantages that stem from these cards will bring real benefits to our seniors. 
I understand that Heather Roy is bringing in another amendment to ensure that part of a proposed amendment to clause 5(2) will be deleted thus meaning there will be an opportunity for a proper debate to take place on the way in which new technologies can be used in New Zealand. I think that is absolutely sensible; I believe that National will be supporting such an amendment. 
I go back to say that yes indeed we support the original intent of this bill. We are looking forward to seeing the arrangements that the Rt Hon Winston Peters has worked so hard and diligently on to ensure that the seniors of our country will have real benefits from discounts. He might be able to give us just a little bit of an idea of what those arrangements might be without giving away the commercial sensitivities that he talked about in question time this afternoon. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 It is important to remember when we debate this Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill in Committee what will be achieved. First of all convenience will be achieved. The proposed SuperGold card is nothing but an item of convenience for our older citizens. The Opposition members of course would oppose that. 
Hon Members 
: No we’re not opposing it. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: They do not oppose a card of convenience? Well if they accept a card of convenience then they must accept all that follows from this bill because this bill changes absolutely nothing once we accept the convenience aspect. 
The bill brings in the power to include on a microchip that which is already included on a barcode under section 132A of the Social Security Act 1964. As outlined in a speech earlier on by the Minister for Senior Citizens Ruth Dyson the information on the microchip will include the cardholder’s name. That is not a breach of privacy because the cardholder’s name is on the card anyway. So members cannot toss the word “privacy” around in the hope of creating fear suspicion and concern in those considering attaining a card of convenience. 
The microchip must contain an identifying number which will be assigned to the cardholder by the Ministry of Social Development. Again that is not a breach of privacy because each identifying number is between the ministry and the particular cardholder. 
The microchip will have a number or code indicating the cardholder’s class of eligibility for the card. The number or code is there so that the class of benefit the cardholder can access is identifiable immediately. That is not a breach of privacy; again it is a matter of convenience. 
The microchip can include an identifying number that is assigned to the card. What privacy breach arises from this? One has a card and it has a number. One has a number and it has a card. There is no privacy breach there whatsoever. It is a matter of convenience. 
The commencement and expiry dates of the card are also on the microchip. A card starts and it may end; it may because it has started. It is a convenience not a breach of privacy. 
There is also a code number on the microchip for mailing purposes. Well we all have mailing addresses and no one suggests that they are a breach of privacy. 
I take up what the Associate Minister for Senior Citizens said about the “mendacious sibilations” coming from the other side of the Chamber in respect of this matter. I am pleased to note that the term has obviously been accepted by the opponents to this bill. The Associate Minister quite fairly put it on the table for them to debate and they have accepted without dispute their mendacity in this matter. They have accepted without dispute that their actions in opposing this bill are “sibilantic”. They have accepted without dispute that the voodoo politics which the Opposition— 
Judith Collins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We did not actually accept it. We just— 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: The member did not understand the statement. 
Judith Collins 
: No no some of us actually did our law degrees when they were taught in English rather than in Latin because we are a bit younger. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No that is not a point of order. 
Hon Member 
: She still doesn’t know! 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: Perhaps if the member had studied some Latin she would have learnt some of the important terms used in this House and she would have appreciated the absolute precision with which the Associate Minister used the term “mendacious sibilance” because it is a very accurate description of the voodoo politics we are hearing from the Opposition members this afternoon. 
The Opposition members see that we have a group of senior citizens aged 65-plus who are not familiar with some of the modern technology so they throw in phrases such as “breach of privacy” and “undermining your security” and make the people for whom this card is designed as a matter of convenience nervous about it and concerned about whether they should have it. That is one of the definitions of “mendacious sibilant” behaviour as advanced by the Associate Minister. What the Opposition members are saying is not true. It is spoken out of the side of their mouths and it is said with a degree of contempt for those to whom it is addressed. In accepting the currency of that term in this debate the Opposition members have themselves defined their approach to the debate. The Associate Minister was able to sum up in two succinct words—quite accurately on this occasion—exactly what the opposition to this bill is all about. 
Heather Roy’s amendment will be put to the Committee and if she is true to her neo-liberal policies she will seek to amend this bill to make the card a platinum card. She will not want to have all senior citizens accessing with convenience the discounts that are to be offered by her neo-liberal friends in the Business Roundtable. The elitism of the neo-liberals as typified by the ACT Party is that not everybody should have equal access to all matters. No the true— 
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I would like to talk about the amendments that I have before the Committee. 
I have indicated to the Clerk that I will withdraw Supplementary Order Paper 110. When we came to vote on it it would have been ruled out of order. The Minister Winston Peters’ amendment would have come first and as a result mine would have been ruled out of order. 
I have submitted a separate amendment which is an amendment to the Minister’s amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 111 to clause 5. It omits from the proposed substituted section 132A(2) the wording “or a microchip embedded in them”. The effect will be exactly the same but the process will be somewhat different and my amendment to the Minister’s amendment will be voted on first. 
I also have a second amendment that I want to put forward in case at the end of this debate we are left with microchips—a terrible thought I know. Should that be the case I want to put some safeguards around the use of microchips particularly in light of the Privacy Commissioner’s comments to me yesterday about the use of microchips. The amendment adds subclause (3) to clause 5 and reads: “Any highly functional technology (including microchipping technology) used for the purpose of human identity verification under subsection (2) must comply with approved international privacy guidelines.” I think it is very very important that this happens and is followed so that proper process is gone through and we end up with the right sort of microchip not only in this card but in any card that might be established under the Social Security Act. 
I would like to address a couple of points made by previous speakers. Judy Turner said that this issue was very safe in light of this particular card. That may well be the case. The advice we received from the officials was that there were not very many concerns about perhaps this bill. But my point is that this amendment is not just about the SuperGold card; it is an amendment to the Social Security Act and it will mean that microchips can be added to other cards. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No no where’s the amendment for that? 
HEATHER ROY 
: Mr Peters might like to shout from his chair but if he likes to take a call of his own then he can give the Committee his point of view. In fact he is wrong. 
It is very sad I think that both United Future and Taito Phillip Field have decided not to support my amendment. Those members have spoken very strongly against the use of microchips and have the same concerns that I have about them. What we are seeing in this Committee sadly is that support for Mr Peters is more important to them than the importance of privacy issues to our senior citizens. It is a sad day in this Chamber when their concerns are ignored. Those senior citizens include veterans who have fought for the freedoms we enjoy today; it is sad that their privacy can so easily be taken from them. If microchips with no type no specification of type and no specification of function can be inserted into law and passed through this House it is a very sad day indeed. 
The reason I have put my amendment forward is not as others on the other side of the Committee have suggested voodoo politics and the like; it is because I care about the privacy of our senior citizens. I worry that what Marie Shroff the Privacy Commissioner has said might happen and let me quote from an email she sent me yesterday: “There is the potential with microchips for function creep where the card ends up being used for far more than was originally intended.” It is all very well specifying what is going to be on this microchip but what— 
R Doug Woolerton 
: What about the banks? 
HEATHER ROY 
: Mr Woolerton is quite right; the banks need to be involved in this sort of discussion too because function creep can happen with their microchips. We have never properly had a discussion in public about the parameters around what microchips can contain. 
Function creep is where the card ends up being used for far more than was originally intended. Marie Shroff also said that security is a real issue both for the data stored on the cards and for the risk of identity theft. She spelt it out in black and white—identity theft. She also commented that a possible microchipped SuperGold card has some far-reaching implications that need to be explored thoroughly before a final decision is made. How much clearer could a Privacy Commissioner be about an issue? She wants this issue debated publicly and explored thoroughly and that has not happened in this debate. She wants those issues addressed before anything happens. SuperGold cards should be something that senior citizens and veterans could look forward to. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Associate Minister for Senior Citizens) 
: 
 I do not think the member Heather Roy should refer to her leader like that—talk about function creep! There are certain rules in this Parliament and there are certain standards. 
The member talked about function creep as though we are not aware that there are two great dangers. Function creep is a danger with any new technology; our job is to set parameters and to always be conscious of it. The other danger is that the technology soon becomes obsolete. Well that is life. 
But I suppose that member who thinks it is right to take 6 months in the army at the taxpayers’ expense—at her age—might have missed what every other member has been working on in her absence. She would not have been brought up to date. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Personal attack. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: It is not a personal attack. I find it an affront to the taxpayer for someone to desert her role as a member of Parliament for 6 months and think that somehow she is fulfilling her democratic and constitutional responsibilities—in particular given that her leader was off dancing with the stars at the time and the party was without representation in this House. 
Heather Roy 
: What’s that got to do with the bill? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: How is that relevant to the bill? Well if that member had been here when these discussions were going on she would know. 
Sandra Goudie 
: She was. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: No she was not. She was off with the army. 
I want to say this: how would the Law Society have known about the issue of the microchip if not for the fact that we brought it to its attention? [ 
Interruption 
] I know that the member wants to persist with looking in the mirror and talking about function creep but she should desist and get back to listening. 
The second thing is how the Privacy Commissioner would be aware of this issue. Well amongst other things we spoke to the commissioner and said we wanted to be alongside her office’s consideration of this issue because these are serious issues and we wanted to be certain that in attempting to ensure that people were brought up to date with the modern requirements of being a consumer and using their consumer power of numbers we did not somehow introduce any evil that was foreseeable or predictable. That is why the commissioner knew about the issue. 
The third thing is that these matters raised today were already part of the Cabinet paper and the Cabinet paper approvals. Although it is OK to raise the issue once to go on month in and month out knowing that these matters have been and are the subject of the Cabinet paper that brought this measure about is purely a waste of Parliament’s time. 
The last thing I want to say is this: to now talk about other cards being affected by this card’s technology is again drivel nonsense and scaremongering. It is scaremongering. It is not the case that other cards will be affected. This card is a stand-alone card. 
Sandra Goudie 
: He’s lost the plot. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Lost the plot? Well I tell that member that if all she has done in the time she has been in Parliament is talk about mangroves then she never had a plot in the first place. In fact when one talks about it that way one sees that her whole presence has been a conspiracy against her electorate. 
I thought Judy Turner handled this matter in a responsible way. I thought Taito Phillip Field handled his concerns in a responsible way. From National we are seeing the same kind of obstructionist behaviour that it indulged in when we sought to give the retired far better amounts in their retirement. National members shouted from the rooftops that we could not afford it. Then their leader Don Brash turned up at the last campaign and said they now agreed. On the question of savings they obstructed— 
Sandra Goudie 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Please clarify how the comments being made are relevant to the bill in question. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Speaking to the point of order can I say the comments are relevant to the bill because I am describing the kind of behaviour I see from certain National members as not being new. I am just talking about it in passing. If National members cannot take it then they should not come to this House. This is a tough arena here. They should not be so soft and pathetic. 
Hon Members 
: Mr Chair— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: First I have to dispose of the point of order. 
Heather Roy 
: The Minister raised the issue of Cabinet papers. He referred to comments made in Cabinet papers that none of us—certainly none of us on this side of the Committee—were privy to. I ask him to table those papers in the House so that we can see that they contain the things he says they do. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: We have gone on to a second point of order here. The one raised before by Sandra Goudie is disposed of. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Speaking to the second point of order which was raised by Heather Roy can I say there is a thing called the Official Information Act. The rest of us use it from time to time—some more than others. If the member wants to see the papers then she should leave off the military training and put in an Official Information Act request. 
Judith Collins 
: Mr Chairman I refer you to Standing Order 368: “Whenever a Minister quotes from a document relating to public affairs a member may on a point of order require the Minister to lay the document on the Table.” I believe that the matter should be dealt with in that way. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Speaking to the point of order I say that that Standing Order refers to a Minister quoting from a Cabinet paper. It does not state that a reference to the existence of a Cabinet paper requires one to table it. 
Judith Collins 
: You quoted from it! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Just humbug! That member is a person with some legal training I am told. And there is the Whip sitting in her chair. Neither of them knows the Standing Orders. Their sitting here clearly is a total waste of the taxpayers’ money. After all this time holding down a seat— 
Judith Collins 
: I raise a point of order— 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I am speaking to the point of order. Sit down. 
Judith Collins 
: Well then get on to it. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Sit down there’s a good girl. Sit down. Do not be long about it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: We know the rulings with regard to points of order so we will not go down that track. I take it that the Minister was not quoting from an official document. Therefore that disposes of that point of order. Outside of that it is entirely up to the Minister whether he wants to table it. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 National is quite clear about the fact that it actually supports the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill—let me make that very clear. However I am sure that at the first announcement that there would be a super card entitlement bill the Rt Hon Winston Peters went out celebrated fell asleep at the wheel and has not woken up since. Otherwise he would quite clearly understand the— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairman. That is an outrageous allegation. I tell that member that unless she withdraws and apologises right now then I will take it much further than that. I will not have somebody get up and talk about me going out for a celebration and falling asleep at the wheel which is demonstrably false. The member knows that so she should now withdraw and apologise or take the consequences. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The member has taken offence at that. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: I withdraw and apologise. It can be quite clearly— 
Heather Roy 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairman I would like to know why it is acceptable for the Minister to make outrageous comments about other members in this Committee which he has done continually throughout the debate but it is not acceptable for members to make comments about him. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: It is sort of borderline. Of all the personal reflections or comments that are made certain ones are outlawed. In the case of others if the member concerned takes exception to them then we require a withdrawal and apology—that has been done—and we move on. The comments are not acceptable but I think most members know that if a member who is the target of those comments takes exception to them then that is the way we deal with it. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: It is quite clear that the Minister has lost the plot. Here is a Minister the Rt Hon Winston Peters who thinks that the New Zealand Law Society submission on the bill was rubbish. That was said during the second reading of the bill I think it was. The Minister could not understand the fact that as the Law Society pointed out the bill actually provides regulation-making powers for cardholder photographs— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Is this the microchipping bill? 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: We are talking about the SuperGold discount card that is being touted here. 
But I make it very clear that the bill provides for regulation-making powers for cardholder photographs to be on entitlement cards. That is not just the SuperGold card discount card. It includes the SuperGold discount card but it means any entitlement card. That is why I say to the Committee again that the Rt Hon Winston Peters has lost the plot because he fails to understand that very very clear distinction. He also fails to understand that it is also about making regulatory powers for microchips to be embedded in entitlement cards. That means any entitlement card not just the SuperGold discount card. 
When will the Minister get that right? And when will the Labour members of the Social Services Committee and the other Labour members who are speaking on this bill get it right? I have not heard one of them get it right and that is in spite of the New Zealand Law Society making that abundantly simple and clear in its submission to the select committee. National members got it; we understood it. We raised some concerns about microchipping and the issues around photographs during the first reading. That is why that came under discussion at the select committee. It is about time that the Minister the Rt Hon Winston Peters got a grasp of what is really happening here but I do not see that being about to happen in a hurry. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Look who’s talking! 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: This is the Rt Hon Winston Peters. We actually need an interpreter to understand what he says in the Chamber these days. If we look at the New Zealand Law Society submission we get a very very clear understanding of what is being said here and what is intended in this bill. 
Yes we support the SuperGold discount entitlement card. It is a good initiative and everybody applauds what we can do for our senior citizens in regard to that. That is great. But while we are at it our concern is about the regulation-making provision. Again for the benefit of the Rt Hon Winston Peters who fails to grasp the fundamentals of what the New Zealand Law Society is saying I say the bill—clause 4—does change the purpose of the Social Security Act 1964 and it changes it for all entitlement cards. It has nothing to do with the SuperGold card per se. This issue is about all entitlement cards. I have gone to great pains to make that abundantly clear. How could it be made plainer than that? 
I challenge the Minister in the chair the Rt Hon Winston Peters to take a call and perhaps say he does understand the New Zealand Law Society submission after all. But I would not hold my breath on that one. I think we would just hear another line of verbal wordage—whatever one wants to call it—which nobody really understands these days. It is a crying shame that there has been a loss of the plot. 
LESLEY SOPER (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
PETER BROWN (Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I draw your attention to the fact that apart from the Minister in the chair who is the leader of New Zealand First there has been only one call from New Zealand First on this part. As you can see Mr Chairperson it is quite a controversial issue and I seek the call. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: It says here that it is a Government bill. It has nothing to do with New Zealand First per se. But I take the member’s point— 
Peter Brown 
: I am just saying that we’ve had only one call. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I take the member’s point. The motion was that the question be now put. I am of a mind to put the question because this is a very small part. There is another part and clauses 1 and 2 are yet to come. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I just want to bring your attention to the fact that the Minister in the chair and the member from New Zealand First are doing hand signals to each other. I am just wondering what that is all about. Is some sort of secret deal going on here? You said that it was a Government bill not a New Zealand First bill. What is the deal with the hand signals? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for raising that. As the member has gone down that track and there was the issue raised by Mr Brown from New Zealand First—and what the member is saying runs counter to that—I see my way clear to accepting the motion which I will do. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Taito Phillip Field to clause 5 be agreed to: 
To add the following subclause after subclause (2): 
Section 132A is amended by adding the following subsections: 
(3) An Order in Council providing for the embedding of microchips in entitlement cards may not be made under this section except on the recommendation of the Minister. 
(4)The Minister must not recommend the making of an Order in Council referred to in subsection (3) unless to ensure privacy and personal information are fully protected adequate consultation concerning the privacy and security of the information to be contained in the microchip has taken place with— 
(a)the State Services Commission; and 
(b)the Privacy Commissioner; and 
(c)any other State agency department or organisation the Minister considers relevant. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 59 
New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
New subclause not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Heather Roy to the proposed amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 111 in the name of the Rt Hon Winston Peters to clause 5 be agreed to: 
to omit from the substituted subclause (2) “or a microchip embedded in them”.  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 59 
New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 111 in the name of the Rt Hon Winston Peters to Part 1 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Independent: Field; Progressive 1. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 118 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 2 
ACT New Zealand 2. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Births Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1995 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 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 $10000 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. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 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! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: 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. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I withdraw and apologise. I am sure other terms could be used. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How about silly twit? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: 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. 
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 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. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Associate Minister for Senior Citizens) 
: 
 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. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: 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. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: She cannot just get up— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Are you speaking to the point of order? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: 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. 
Rt Hon WINSTON 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. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: 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. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: 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. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: 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. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: This is the point of order now. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No you are compounding it. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: 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. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 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. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: 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? 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: 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. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: 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. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 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. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 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. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: 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. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 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? 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: 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. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 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. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
Tena 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. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 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 540000 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. 
SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Kia ora notatou. 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 Maori on national television. Sitting at your side is a great mix of the Scottish and the Maori 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 Ohakea 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 Ngati Wai—our very good friend the leader of Aotearoa Tuatahi—who is looking after the interests of the kaumatua 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.