Roy Heather: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
Roy Heather: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
[Volume:639;Page:9023] 
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the financial review of the Privacy Commissioner. I have absolutely no complaints at all I have to say about the Office of the Privacy Commissioner; I think it is a very well-respected office. The Privacy Commissioner is very well respected the length and breadth of this country and certainly I have never I do not think heard any claims from the Government that are adverse to this. That brings me to the issue I want to raise under this heading as to why the Privacy Commissioner’s office has not been consulted on the next bill on the Order Paper. 
The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of course works to develop and promote a culture in which personal information is protected and respected and that is absolutely correct. The website of the office also states that the Privacy Commissioner’s office has a wide range of functions. Some of these include investigating complaints about breaches of privacy running education programmes and examining proposed legislation—my point—and how it may affect individual privacy which is a very serious issue. 
The bill I am referring to is the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill. I wonder why a Minister such as the Minister of Justice who prides himself on his thoroughness has not drawn to the attention of the Government the fact this bill should have come before the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. At the Social Services Committee we investigated this bill in detail and the Law Society gave us a very good submission on clause 5(2) which allows a microchip to be embedded in the SuperGold card—the smart card put forward by the Minister of Foreign Affairs. 
It is interesting of course that the Minister of Foreign Affairs considers himself to be part of the Opposition yet he is able to put forward a Government bill. It is a very interesting concept indeed but that is what we have. I guess the Order Paper is so short these days that every bill is welcomed. But I think there is a real issue that needs to be addressed in this bill and that is that clause 5(2) should be omitted. I propose to put forward a Supplementary Order Paper to omit this clause. 
I would like briefly to go through the recommendations the Law Society made on this bill. The major recommendation was that the committee call for a general review of the principles governing the use of highly functional technology such as microchip technology on Government-issued cards generally and that the matter be referred to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. I heartily agree with this point that the Law Society has made. Technology that is not being widely used anywhere else—and in fact is not available for use on cards—will now be enshrined in law setting a precedent that has not been through the proper process. 
The proposed provision will allow information—the cardholder’s name identifying numbers assigned a coded number indicating the cardholder’s class of eligibility and a couple of other things—to be carried on embedded microchips which is a precedent we do not have at present. The Law Society stated that the prospect of microchips being embedded on 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 tags. This matter is a very serious one indeed. 
During the select committee process when the commentary on the bill was being put forward the ACT party put forward a minority view which was adopted by the New Zealand National Party and United Future. But the minority view went into the body of the report and stated that we were all very concerned about the introduction of clause 5(2) to allow information to be stored on an embedded microchip. The Government claims it has no plans to use this provision which begs the question of why this clause is in this legislation in the first place. 
ACT members believe therefore that the provision regarding microchips should be deleted and as I said I will put forward a Supplementary Order Paper on that during the Committee stage of this debate. Clause 5(2) should be deleted from the legislation. It is our view that a more general inquiry into the use of microchips—particularly around the issues of privacy which of course would rightly go through the Office of the Privacy Commissioner—is necessary before legislation allowing microchips is enacted. This would enshrine in law a precedent that does not exist at the moment. Who knows where this will go? We have had microchipping of dogs. Now we have microchipping of cards. Where does this matter end?